Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 28

genuine criticism needed

the criticism in the article is currently based around prejudice-based criticism. what about genuine criticism such as nepotism, elitist, sexist etc? also I know of at least one child molester who was let off with a lenient sentance because the judge was a mason and so was the paedophile. this kind of thing has to be mentioned without fear of people shouting about mason-bashing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.170.242 (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Source 5: Erreur 404

This link appears to be dead. I suggest either removing the source or find a new one. --71.141.141.181 (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC) (This is me. I wasn't logged in.) --Vapor One (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Islam and Anti-semitism

In regards to the quoted text below:

"Many Islamic anti-Masonic arguments are closely tied with Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism, though other criticisms are made such as linking Freemasonry to Dajjal.[57]"

To say that Islamic anti-Masonic arguments are closely tied with Anti-Semitism is extending the truth, since all the prophets of Islam, including Muhammad are Semitic people... So Islam and Anti-Semitism are actually incompatible. So, there is nothing wrong with dropping this part of the sentence, and simply saying "closely tied with Anti-Zionism".

I prefer to read comments before I go ahead and do it. Bardylis 02:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Semantics. While all the prophets of Islam are Semitic, the term Anti-semitism refers to a particularly anti-Jewish mindset, as that is how the term is used. The article states "Antisemitism (alternatively spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is discrimination, hostility or prejudice directed at Jews. While the term's etymology may imply that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, it is in practice used exclusively to refer to hostility towards Jews as a religious, racial, or ethnic group." Moreover, not all Jews are Zionists and vice-versa. Your proposed removal is therefore incorrect. MSJapan 03:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Yes, the term anti-Semitism is a misnomer. Even as such, hostility toward Jews as a religious, racial or ethnic group, is incompatible with Islam (the religion, and not the account of individual people) for the same reasons I mentioned above. In terms of religion both faiths are monotheistic and Abrahamic. In terms of racial, Jews and Arabs have the same ancestor. Perhaps, in terms of hostility toward Jews as an ethnic group, but this does not result from Islam, but from modern politics, which has more to do with anti-Zionism, than with anything else. I am just not sure that it is correct to say "Many Islamic anti-Masonic arguments are closely tied with Anti-Semitism..." but I guess there is an unclear line between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, so many people do not make that distincion. It seems that dramatization is more attractive than constructive thinking.

Any nation (and Israel now forms a nation, with a secular government, because if the Holy Land pretext were true, the Law of Moses would apply instead) has to put up with the results of its actions and the reactions it causes. I do not think that these reactions should be called anti-Semitism. If for example, the political framework of Greece were such that its Balkan neighbours were to react, the results of this could not be blamed on some form of anti-Hellenism. While everyone realizes how such feelings eventually become inevitable, they are not explained as the cause of the reaction. Bardylis 12:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but it is not up to us to invent new terms when there are already common ones in use in the English language. The term Anti-semitism has a common meaning (anti-"Jewish"), and that is the meaning that we use here. It may technically be inaccurate, but technicalities do not matter... common usage does. I see no need to change the language, especially when it is backed by sources that use the same language. Blueboar 13:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I am just going to summarize what I have been trying to say based on your response. Without disregarding the common usage, Islamic arguments that are mentioned in this context are anti-Zionist and not anti-Jewish, because they are mostly based on political issues and are not concentrated on Jewish people, in reference to their religion, race or ethnicity. Especially since we are talking about Freemasonry, in this context those arguments more often than not relate to global political affairs with Zionism in mind, as a modern political movement. Again, they have nothing to do with religion, race or ethnic background of Jewish people.

To understand it better, take the Nazi ideology as a comparison. Anti-Semitism in that sense was true, because it was based on theories about people of Arian origin being a superior race, and Semitic as well as other groups being inferior. There is no such thing in Islam, so I really fail to understand this. Based on this I would omit this part of the sentence, or paraphrase it so that it is clearer. Bardylis 14:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No, because you obviously didn't read the sources. From IslamOnline: "Everything that furthers the interest of the Jews and promotes their position in the world is undertaken by the society. The cover of absolute secrecy and its strict hierarchy enables it to make use of the positions and influence of its non-Jewish members to serve the Jewish cause." Also, "Islam respects other religions. Freemasonry deceives its members into thinking that they further the cause of a better humanity when they are actually furthering the interests of those who seek to give the Jews supremacy over all peoples of the world. Islam is the final message from Allah to man. It is the religion that supercedes all past divine messages, including Judaism." I think that pretty much sums it up, because those are comments based on Jewish religion and ethnicity. That's antisemitism. End of story, and end of discussion. MSJapan 14:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, they are comments based on Jewish religion and ethnicity but that does not make them anti-Semitic. It is like a huge misinterpretation that was created out of this word trying to paint everything as anti-Semitism, which is destructive to start with. This word is more like a reaction than a statement of the reality.

"Everything that furthers the interest of the Jews and promotes their position in the world is undertaken by the society. The cover of absolute secrecy and its strict hierarchy enables it to make use of the positions and influence of its non-Jewish members to serve the Jewish cause."

Depending on how informed a person is this can be perceived as an allegation toward the global politics as being influenced by the Jewish cause, which is a Zionist cause. And it could have been any nation, but in this case since it refers to Jewish people, the term anti-Semitism is used to dramatize the situation, making Muslims look like Nazis.

Think of the strong Zionist lobby in US today. The fact that the votes of a candidate running for an election in US are affected depending on their statements about Israel. Last one to say that he will withhold the funding of Israel if the settlements are not stopped was George Bush (senior), who put himself into a compromising position for having said so. Now, the name of the game seems to be not to say such things. Given all this and the fact that US is a superpower having a huge influence on global politics, I can sort of see where these statements are coming from.

Since Islam is a universal religion and not a race of people, anti-Semitism based on Islam is virtually impossible. In other words you can be of any race or ethnic background and be Muslim at the same time. As a matter of fact there are people of Jewish background who have become Muslims.

"Islam respects other religions. Freemasonry deceives its members into thinking that they further the cause of a better humanity when they are actually furthering the interests of those who seek to give the Jews supremacy over all peoples of the world. Islam is the final message from Allah to man. It is the religion that supercedes all past divine messages, including Judaism."

This too, depending on how informed the person is, can be perceived as an allegation toward Freemasonry as being influenced by the interests of Jewish people. This does not make it anti-Semitic.

Islam does respect other religions including Judaism. Moreover, it is not based on one's lineage (i.e. you don't have to be an Arab to be a Muslim... and you are not considered a Gentile if you are non-Arab). So the quote fits within the Islamic perspective, in a sense that Islam is against supremacy of one group toward another based on race, lineage or ethnic background. If any supremacy in Islam can be achieved it is based on piety making it available to anybody who aspires to achieve it. Again, it could have been any nation, likewise it would have been opposed in Islam. I could understand what you are saying if we were talking about Arab supremacy over Jewish people for example. But this is not the case.

That is what I had to say. But, I guess we should not bother to make such distinctions, because then it would defeat the purpose.

Discussions end when two or more parties conclude something, or decide not to continue. So, I too decide not to continue. Thank you for your comments. Bardylis 16:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Bardylis... Perhaps you are confusing Islam with "Islamic Anti-masonry" They are not the same thing. The article is not trying to say that Islam is anti-semetic. It isn't. But "Islamic Anti-masonry" is. Blueboar 14:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess so. Yes, you could say that. Thanks! Bardylis 16:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that Hamas' Anti-masonry goes back to the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. --Liberal Freemason (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Which are, of course, a forgery. docboat 05:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course. It can be found in Article 32 of Hamas' Charta:

Quote: "Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."

Source: http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm --Liberal Freemason (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I should have been more clear/specific. "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" are a forgery. docboat 12:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Square and Compasses

Just to explain a brief (good faith) edit war... While the Square and Compasses are often seen joined together, and as such are instantly recognizable to non-masons as being "Masonic"... they are in fact two seperate tools, each of which has its own symbolism and meaning. As for the Compass vs. Compasses debate, Freemasonry came out of England, and because of this Masons use an older (slightly archaic) plural form of the word once common in England ... where the tool was called a pair (or set) of compasses, and not a compass. Essentially a compass has one pointy end (like a magnetic compass needle) while a pair of compasses has two. Hope this clarifies things. Blueboar 16:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I do understand the issue (including why a compass might be called compasses), and I did work at accommodating Masonic usage after an initial quick edit of what I thought was a grammatical error. Any chance of changing the text to read "a pair of" or "a set of" compasses? Wikipedia isn't written for those in the know, but for those who want to learn, and others may have the same response I did. -Jmh123 20:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not called a "Square and set of Compasses", so I don't think it's a good idea to change it, seeing as how there's an entry on it we can use to explain it if needed. Some things you just need to take as terminology specific to a topic and leave it at that. MSJapan 23:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If we talked about "a" square and "a" (set of) compasses, I might agree... but the article uses the Masonic terminology and talks about "the" Square and "the" Compasses. This really is no different than the minor edit wars between US and UK editors over the spelling of organisation/organization. Some people are not used to seeing a word spelled a certain way and think it needs to be "corrected"... when in fact it is already correct. 'Nuff said on this issue I think. Blueboar 13:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The Craft qualifier

I'm uncomfortable about using a qualifier in the Appendant Bodies section of the article. I'm conscious that using the qualifier implies a hierarchy, when in fact Freemasonry stands on it's own and is independent of those bodies who require the applicant to be a MM.

There may be a need to work on the paragraph content, although I'm unconvinced of the requirement at this time.

ALR 11:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. No need for the word "Craft" as a qualifier. There is no degree "higher" than the Third. What the appendant bodies provide are "additional" degrees that do not confer any higher rank or authority. Blueboar 14:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

recreation of Category:Freemasons

I am posting this here, as I think more of us watch this page than watch the Freemasonry Project page... there is a debate at the Project page that some of you may want to give an opinion about. The question is whether Category:Freemasons should be recreated or not. We used to have that category, but it was deleted last March (see here for the CfD discussion). I think the reasons for deletion are still valid (problems of verification for historical figures and concerns about privacy for BLPs), but another editor disagrees and has recreated the category. Please opine on the Project talk page. Thanks Blueboar 13:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As I feared, we are now getting all sorts of unverified people being added to this category... including the entire membership of P2. I have nominated it for deletion. Blueboar 22:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The category has now been deleted (for the second time)... and I hope salted to prevent recreation. However, I notice that we still have the sub-category Category:Prince Hall Freemasons. I asked the determining admin to speedy this under the same rational as Category:Freemasons but he has indicated that it should undergo its own nomination and discussion. I have therefor nominated it for deletion. The discussion is here. Please opine. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Listing as part of Wikiproject:Secret Societies

I removed this recent addition (a good faith edit, and hardly vandalism as was indicated), and was reverted... so let's discuss it. I do not feel that this page belongs under the banner of "Secret Society" in any way shape or form. Freemasonry, dispite the hype, is simply not a secret society. It's membership is public record; its rituals have been public since at least the 1720s; meetings are held in prominent buildings that are clearly marked as being used as meeting halls for the fraternity; meeting nights are frequently listed in local newspapers; ... let's face it, there is nothing secret about freemasonry. If Freemasonry is a secret society then so is the US Congress, The Vatican, and board of directors of IBM... not to mention the KofC, Elks, Rotary, and other fraternal organizations.

This issue was raised on the Secret society article over a year ago, and at that time Freemasonry was removed from the list of secret societies in that article (along with several other non-secret societies such as the KofC... in fact the entire list was deleted several months ago). The Freemasonry article is not included in Category:Secret societies. So why is this page listed on that project page? Comments? Blueboar (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This question has already been answered on your user talk page. I on that basis have to question why you could not accept the answer given there. However, as you seem to have ignored it, I guess I have to answer it again. Because, if you had bothered to check the history of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Secret Societies before you did vandalize that page, you would have seen that it was specifically included there almost from the start. Also, it falls within the definition of a secret society as per the most recent definitions given on that page. I once again find myself forced to question why the above user so regularly exhibits unfortunate ownership behavior regarding this content. And, of course, content does change. Evidently, certain parties' behavior unfortunately doesn't. And the absolutist statement made above seems to once again ignore extant evidence in favor of that party's personal POV. I strongly suggest that the party read the definitions of secret society provided on that page. I also suggest that the party above note that only this particular article has been tagged. Frankly, as per the existing definitions of secret society, Freemasonry does in fact qualify as a secret society. However, as is standard in such cases, the Secret Societies Project has no particular intention in working in articles related to the minutiae of a given subject which is covered within the scope of a more focused project. Frankly, most of these questions were already answered on his talk page and in the content the above user didn't seem to be bothered to consult before making his statement above. I very seriously have to question why. And I still would like to have an answer as to why that content, which had been included on the Secret Societies project page, was also removed by the editor above. That very definitely did qualify as vandalism, and can be seen as showing ownership tendencies on the part of the above editor even more clearly. Also, if that party bothered to actually consult anyone before making these high-handed actions, he would note that at least one of the other groups he said is not a secret society, the Knights of Columbus, was in fact added to the project by someone, not me, who may even be a member of that organization. I wonder why they haven't yet objected, but the above party not only objected, but saw fit to change the content of the page of a project he has no connection whatsoever with. John Carter (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

First, what I did is NOT vandalism... I edited that project page in good faith because I honestly do not think that Freemasonry belongs under that project. It simply isn't a secret society. My edit was made in good faith in an attept to correct what I saw as an error. Second, I did see your comment on my talk page... and rather than get into arguments or engage in revert warring... I felt it best to raise the issue here and ask others for their opinion. Let us see what consensus says. Blueboar (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I find the above attempt to twist the meaning of WP:AGF distinctly unpleasant. It is not your place to unilaterally attempt to determine what is and is not within the scope of another group, particularly without consultation of that group, and it is completely unacceptable to remove content from the project page without consultation with that project. And your statement that it clearly and explicitly is not a secret society flies in the face of the definitions of that term on the Secret society page itself. You cearly and explicitly did not assume good faith on the part of anyone else. Evidently, you apparently think that the rule only applies to your own actions. John Carter (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

From reading Jasper Ridley's book (a history of Freemasonry written by a non-Mason, incidentally), it seems that a lot of the "secret society" stuff comes from 18th century confusion with the Illuminati - other than that, there's so much information available on Freemasonry through official sources and otherwise that I find it hard to justify calling Freemasonry a secret society, because what is secret is so minimal it doesn't compare to "real" secret societies. MSJapan (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. However, please read the definitions of a Secret society on that page, and tell me how it does not qualify. I beleive that those definitions are probably the best gauge of the term. John Carter (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it doesn't strike me as at all appropriate to be included in that project.

Given the argument that this article fits within the purview of the project because members of the project say it does then there is little to argue with. That's based on the apparent use of a definition which says its a secret society because I say it is.

I find it interesting that John Carter feels the need to go on the offensive immediately, rather than conform to the guidance on wikiprojects which suggests collaboration rather than attempts to dictate to other projects.

As highlighted on the talk page of that project I would have concerns about the lack of direction and would question the value of a mass tagging effort until that direction is set.

In a practical sense I also disagree that Freemasonry is a secret society and from this side of the fence strongly disagree with inclusion in that category; ritual is published and available to anyone to purchase, regalia is also available and the vendors won't ask for proof of membership, centres are clearly marked and frequently listed in public directories, there is no prohibition on declaring membership and members are free to wear explicit indicators of their membership in their daily life.

ALR (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I request that those who wish to tag this article with the secret society tag demonstrate alignment with the arguments presented by the Wikiproject council on inter-project co-ordination?

From that discussion it appears that where a project has little to contribute to article development then tagging is inappropriate.

ALR (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe any sensible individual would recognize that a new project cannot point to any contributions it has made to an existing article. I also note that the party above has not addressed the matter that the definitions of a secret society, and that the official policy of WP:AGF probably "trumps" those guidelines when dealing with existing content. It is also a flat misstatement that, and I quote, "I find it interesting that John Carter feels the need to go on the offensive immediately, rather than conform to the guidance on wikiprojects which suggests collaboration rather than attempts to dictate to other projects." It would be more appropriate to state that Blueboar went on the offensive immediately, by not only removing a banner which by the definition of the term is fairly clearly relevant to this article, and also removing that content from the project page itself, despite the fact that it had been listed as an article relevant to that project since before I attempted to revive it. Wikipedia policy of WP:AGF would indicate that neither of these actions is remotely acceptable. The fact that Blueboar has a demonstrable history of such conduct means that when I responded to what were clear misstatements on his part, and I believe possible violations of WP:AGF, WP:POV, WP:OWN, and possibly several other policies on the part of that user, I decided that the clearly non-neutral way in which he decided to start this thread was such that the realities of the situation should be demonstrated. However, I am more than willing to request an RfC on this article, and the conduct of the users, if that is what is wanted. In fact, I would have no reservations whatsoever if the discussion were to go to ArbCom. I believe that in attempting to restart a dormant project with a clearly defined scope, my actions were above suspicion. Tagging an article which was already listed as being in the scope of that project is also clearly reasonable. I wonder if anyone can say Blueboar's removal of the banner, removal of the word from the page of a project with which he is not and never was involved, and POV comments starting this thread are equally defensible. John Carter (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between has contributed and has little to contribute.

I'm curious as to why you feel the need to draw anyones attention to the recommendations regarding assumption of good faith, rather than address the points that I've made.

Would you care to address the concerns that I've raised? I acknowledge that you've placed yourself in control of what that project considers within its scope.

I'd appreciate an indication of why that Freemasonry might fall within that scope, and indeed why you chose to unilaterally nominate it without discussion, as is recommended.

ALR (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the primary matter to be addressed is Blueboar's conduct, and addressing his own failure to abide by policies. In direct response to you, you did read the definitions of secret society on that page, right? And that the article was already included on the Secret Societies project page before I made any changes to it? Therefore, I was not "nominating" it for inclusion within the scope of the project, it already was stated to be within the scope of the project before I attempted to revive it. And I frankly find completely offensive, and possibly a violation of AGF, the implication that it was my effort to place the article within the scope of the project, as can be seen by the content of the page when it was nominated for deletion here. I have already stated that repeatedly. I would very much welcome people addressing those preexisting realities, rather than continuing to make unwarranted insinuations on my character for basically placing the banner which had not yet existed on an article which had already been stated to be within the scope of that project. And, frankly, given the rather poor shape the article is currently in, I would think that any competent copyeditor and source adder, and I am both of them, could fairly easily improve the article. My actions have actually been in compliance with standard procedures. It is Blueboar's which have not. If anyone wishes to raise an RfC, please indicate as much. I have no reservations whatsoever to having my actions, and those of others, examined. John Carter (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally speaking, having read your opinion and evaluated the content, I think you are a POV pusher and are attacking a perfectly good and effective NPOV editor, and I wonder what your real motives are. They are certainly poorly related to truth, balance or NPOV. docboat (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

you did read the definitions of secret society on that page I did read them, and I don't believe that they apply. I've now twice asked you to demonstrate why Freemasonry should fall into the purview of that project, you have yet to do so.

Merely stating that you added the tag because this article was listed on a dormant and poorly supported project does not actually address the issue of whether the article should be considered by the project.

I am concerned that rather than addressing the concerns that I've highlighted you persist in suggesting that we go straight to RFC.

I would agree that the article does need improvement, and I'd welcome anyone who genuinely wishes to help with that. Coming at the problem from the perspective that Freemasonry is a secret society is unlikely to achieve that, in my opinion.

ALR (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you insist on making this a personal thing... What "Policies" do you think I have failed to comply with? Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you bothered to read the discussion on the secret society talk page, you'd see that I basically agreed with much of what you said above. And I still note that I have received no justifiable explanation of your own reversion of existing content. Please address that matter, as I believe that it was your actions, in seeking to unilaterally tell another group what they could and could not do, rather than my own, when all I was doing was tagging the articles the project had indicated were within its scope before I attempted to revive it without any discussion, as required by WP:AGF. I'm still waiting for a response to that, having indicated that I believed it was called for almost from the beginning of the thread. Please show the civility to indicate why you saw fit to remove a banner from a page which had been explicitly stated to be within the scope of the project before it was even nominated for deletion, as can be seen in the last edit before the nomination here. I note that the ongoing failure to address that matter is probably the biggest attempt at distraction here. John Carter (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

First, I am fairly sure that I have been civil all through this discussion. If you feel otherwise, please point out where you think I have been uncivil. As to my actions... Wikipedia runs on editors editing existing content. I saw what I thought (and still think) was an error on page ... what was that error? Given that the Freemasonry article is not listed in Category:Freemasons, which is one of the criteria listed in the Scope statement of the project, I felt that it should not be listed as being part of the project here ... so, acting in good faith I made an edit to correct that error. If you need a Wikipedia policy to justify that edit, try WP:BOLD. Not every edit needs to be discussed before it is made. However, once you reverted my edit, I did not re-revert... instead I raised the issue on the article talk page. All of which is according to wikipedia policy and the way things are supposed to happen.

To be honest, I really don't get what you are so upset about. You placed a project tag on an article... I disagreed with that tag and removed it. No biggie. Edit... revert... discuss. That is how things are supposed to work. But instead of engaging me in calm conversation as to why you think the project tag is correct, you immediately accuse me of "vandalism", place vandalism warnings on my talk page and accuse me of not acting in good faith. Seriously, what kind of reaction was that? What we have here is a dispute over whether an article should be listed under a given project ... that is not vandalism or lack of good faith. It is simply a disagreement.

So let's drop the personal attacks and accusations and focus on the issue of whether the tag is appropriate or not. I have gone into great length as to why I don't think it is appropriate... so far, the only explanation you have given for why it is appropriate was "because its been there for a while". I don't really think that is a valid reasoning... Freemasonry may have been listed on the Secret society project page for a while... but the secret society project banner has not been listed here. If it had been, I (and others) would have raised an objection, and we would have had this discussion a long time ago. So please, can you articulate why you think this article should be tagged as being under the banner of the Secret Society project? Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see response to the relevance of the existing definitions of secret society below. And the banner was only created for the first time some days ago, by me. Saying that a banner should have been placed before it even existed is frankly laughable, and of suspect rationality. And I believe the error could be counted as being a clear violation of WP:AGF, by removing content from a page without even bothering to note when it was first added? And then perhaps acting seemingly outraged that your own actions were even questioned? As for your "civility", you reverted existing content of a page you know nothing about without discussion, you never even bothered to indicate your objections until after you were called on this misconduct, and in fact you have yet to even acknowledge any misconduct, and still don't above. The fact that you have a bit of a history of doing so is also relevant. You have also criticized someone else for placing a banner he just created on an article that had already been found to be within the scope of the relevant project, and acted outraged that they questioned you. I honestly wonder how any of that qualifies as "civil". John Carter (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No JC - You have caused disruption, you have made accusations, your POV is being pushed against concensus, and you are trying to avoid justifying your actions by increasing the "noise" on this talk page instead of addressing the issues. Please address the issues Blueboar raised above. If you wish to wikilawyer, as seen above, then please troll elsewhere. docboat (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The above comment I believe is an explicit [ersonall attack, and is clearly not actually even true. Blueboar unilaterally removed a banner from the page without any discussion, Blueboar disrupted an existing, if dormant project as an outsider without any discussion by removing content from a project page that had existed there for months without discussion, Blueboar acted outraged and declared himself WP:BOLD when this vandalism was noted, Blueboar started a thread in which he tried to criticize others for acting in accord with guidelines to justify his own behavior. I on the other hand called him on his "disruptive" behavior, Blueboar tried to defend himself here by raising questions only here, and having never even contacted the project or myself directly regarding it. Blueboar has been, in short, nothing but disruptive in this matter. The fact that people defend him on his clearly unacceptable conduct frankly astonishes me. I have to seriously question whether at least an RfC on his conduct, possibly mine, and possibly others as well, is really the only way to get outsiders involved. And I note all the criticism of my actions comes from members of the Freemasonry project. I personally would welcome input from true outsiders. Would the rest of you also agree to at least an RfC here? John Carter (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

JC, your first action regarding Blueboar's removal of the project banner (without discussion) was to slap a level 3 vandalism warning on his talk page. You didn't discuss, you didn't try for a dialogue, you picked up a 5 pound sledgehammer and hit him with it. How is that civil?--Vidkun (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That warning was for removing the banner and removing the pre-existing content from the project page. In removing from both pages without discussion, he engaged in no discussion at either time. How was that even remotely excusable? I have repeatedly asked for answers regarding that question. Why have I yet to receive one? How did his behavior even remotely qualify as civil or acceptable? I'm still waiting for answers. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Have I attempted to say it was excusable? Have I said what he did was perfectly fine? No to both. Did you go, in the opinion of a couple of commentors here, way over the top with your level 3 warning? Yes. People remove banners and/or information from article they disagree with all the time with discussion before hand. Hell, as we have seen, people ADD things without any discussion, either? Should banner adders who do it without discussion on the page they're adding it to, get slapped with a level 3 vandal tag? It looks like you really intended to be as hostile as possible from your first interaction with Blueboar.--Vidkun (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You jumped to a conclusion completely unsupported by fact above. And, as noted, all I was doing by adding the banner was adding a newly created banner to an article that had been within the stated scope of the project for some months, before the initial creation of the banner. Also, this is not my first interaction with Blueboar. He displayed the same unfortunate tactic of deciding on his own that content had to agree with his judgement, even against the presence of probably reliable sources, in earlier interactions. He would know that, even if you don't. Please do not make assumptions such as you have made above without knowing more about the subject. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

John, get over yourself. It is obvious to all, now, that you have a vendetta against Blueboar, and cannot deal with him in a civil manner, nor can you deal civilly with anyone who asks you to tone it down.--Vidkun (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What I think is obvious to everyone is that the points I made below regarding how the subject does qualify are being ignored, on the basis of trying to instead insult me. Why is it that there has been no substantive discussion of the subject, and rather several people have decided to personally attack and insult me rather than actually respond to the substantive points raised below? And why do they continue to persist in these insults, rather than directly addressing the substantive issues? I think it is becoming clear that what might be happening is that the "bedazzle 'em with bullshit" position is being taken by some parties, because they cannot substantively address the real discussion of whether the subject qualifies as a secret society according to the external definitions given below. Why is that? John Carter (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's my reason - I don't have an opinion on the subject, merely your handling of it. Additionally, I lost sight of your "main" point about inclusion in the secret societies category due to the low signal to noise ratio of your repeated "why isn't anyone saying anything about Blueboars VANDALISM!!!!1111!111!"--Vidkun (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Then, if as you have indicated your sole reason for posting here is to try to insult others, why do you persist in doing so. I'm sorry you can't be bothered to try to read reasonable points, but instead seek to insult people without any clear grasp of the substantive matters being discussed. And, by your statement above, you seem to indicate that that failure on your part is somehow my fault. I think you just established above that your own signal to noise ratio is almost literally 0. If that is accurate, please try to at least follow the reasonable discussion, instead of engaging in hyperbolic insults. And I notice that you also have never even addressed the issue you say I am so constantly repeating. You know, if people actually bothered to respond to reasonable points, there wouldn't be any need to repeat them. The fact that I have had to repeat it as often as I have I think indicates just how reasonable and substantive most of the parties joining this discussion have been. And I note, once again, that you still haven't addressed any of those points. Please do so. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Secret society? - a look at the definitions

OK... let's talk definitions... but before I go through each definition.... let us look at the matter of Scope... the Secret societies project page states that the scope of the project as follows:

• The scope of this project is all articles related to secret societies. These articles should all be included in the Category:Secret societies or one of its subcategories.

I note that the Freemasonry article is not currently listed in Category:Secret Societies (and has not been listed there for over a year). So by the project's own mission statement, this article and it's various sub-articles should not be included in the the project. (I fully expect that, now that I have pointed this out, someone will now rush off and add it to the category... so I might as well object pre-emptively).

Now to definitions... According to the article on Secret societies we start off with:

• Although the exact meaning of the term is disputed, several of the definitions advanced indicate that a degree of secrecy and secret knowledge, which might include denying membership or knowledge of the group and possibly negative consequences for acknowledging membership, strong ties between members of the organization, and frequently rites or rituals which outsiders are generally not permitted to observe.

Freemasons do not claim to have secret knowledge... Freemasons do not deny their membership (in fact the usually celebrate it by wearing rings, lapel pins, and "Kiss me I'm a Mason" bumperstickers on their cars)... they do not deny knowledge of the group... and there are no negative consequences for acknowledging membership... OK, there are strong ties between members. However, I don't think that is a sound qualification for labeling something a secret society... Almost all social organizations develop strong ties between their members. It is a human trait to bond with those you have a connection to. People develop bonds based on Country, Church, Club memberships, Common hobbies... heck even Wikipedia fosters bonds, as people who edit the same articles get to know eachother. Is Wikipedia a "Secret society"? Finally we have the rites or rituals bit... this is the only criteria in the lead that could even remotely qualify Freemasonry as a "Secret society". outsiders are not generally permitted to observe the ceremonies of Freemasonry... However, the same is true many organizations that are not called "secret societies"... the College of Cardinals do not allow outsiders to watch when they meet in conclave to elect a new Pope... The board of directors of most corporations have closed door meetings that outsiders may not watch (and before you say "but they don't use rituals"... what is Robert's Rules of Order if not a ritualized way to conduct a meeting?). So Freemasonry does not meet most of the criteria in the first definition... and those it does meet are so overly broad that almost any organization could meet them.

• Then we have the definition given by Alan Axelrod: the organization is exclusive, it claims to own special secrets, and it shows a strong inclination to favor its own.

I don't think Freemasonry really fits this definition... while it is exclusive (in that a local lodge can choose to not elect an applicant), it is far less exclusive than your typical country club. It does not claim to own special secrets (unless you count the "secret" passwords and "secret" handshakes ... and these are not really "secret" as they have been divulged multiple times during the last 200 years). And finally it does not show a "strong inclination to favor its own"... at least no more than any other group or social network. In fact, I would argue that your typical Mason would lean more in the direction of NOT favoring fellow Masons, as they want to keep accusation of cronyism to a minimum. Again, while Masonry may fit part of the definition... it does not fit the entire definition.

• David V. Barrett's definition: ...any group that possesses the following characterists: it has "carefully graded and progressed teachings" that are "available only to selected individuals". These teachings lead to "hidden (and 'unique') truths" that bring "personal benefits beyond the reach and even the understanding of the uninitiated." Barrett goes on to say that "a further characteristic common to most of them is the practice of rituals which non-members are not permitted to observe, or even to know the existence of."

Freemasonry does have "grades" (or degrees) but they are not "available only to selected individuals"... all Freemasons may go through all the degrees (and in fact it is expected that they will). In fact, these degrees are available to non-Masons, in that they are published and can be purchased by the general public. The teachings of freemasonry do not lead to "hidden (and 'unique') truths"... in fact, one of the key factors of Masonic philosophy is that its teachings are universal truths, known to (and understadable by) all mankind. Again, while non-members are not permitted to watch the ceremonies... they certainly can find out what happens by purchasing the published rituals.

• Another characteristic these societies may have is that, in extreme cases, they may be required to take an oath or make some similar statement to the effect that they will conceal or deny their membership in the organization, sometimes acknowledging the indicated penalties for not doing so.

This does not apply to Freemasonry... Masons are free to shout their membership from the roof tops.

• The term "secret society" is often used to describe fraternal organizations that may have secret ceremonies, but is also commonly applied to organizations ranging from the common and innocuous (collegiate fraternities) to mythical organizations described in conspiracy theories as immensely powerful, with self-serving financial or political agendas, global reach, and often satanic beliefs

This is the only definition that even comes close... and that is because it essentially says: a secret society is any organization that someone, somewhere has called a secrect society. Something is a secret society because "I say it is". In which case, we should also tag all the articles relating to Catholicism, any multinational corporation, the US Congress, the Royal Family, MI5, CIA, FBI, etc etc etc ... in fact, just about every article in Wikipedia could be tagged... because I am sure that someone, somewhere has a theory that would qualify its topic as a "secret society". SHEESH! Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Responses:

• 1. The article was listed as being within the scope of the project before I attempted to revive it. I believe that I was acting completely in the spirit of WP:AGF to tag all those articles which were already stated to be within the scope of the project, and it will be noted that I did tag all of those articles. I placed the category statement in the scope of the project myself after I chose to try to revive it. The article however was already specifically included as a relevant article before I added that. And I did not add the category myself immediately because of my prior knowledge of how a certain party often unilaterally changes anything with which he disagrees without consultation. I had no doubt if I had done so he would've reverted that as well. I also note how Blueboar very definitely misquoted that definitions cited. I will quote them directly.
• 2.Regarding Barrett's defintion
  • "carefully graded and progressed teachings" - Blueboar did not directly comment on this provision, apparently agreeing to its accuracy, and I believe there are numerous sources which refer to such within Freemasonry
  • "available only to selected individuals" - I believe I can find sources which have indicated that historically it was not permitted to allow non-Masons to even read certain Masonic texts, although I acknowledge that did not necessarily apply in all cases. However, the fact that it was true in at least some instances, and that those instances were not necessarily uncommon, and may have even in circumstances more common than not, makes it reasonable to say that I believe that most would agree that, with the low bar for rejection, anyone who qualifies to join Freemasonry is already a "selected individual". Compare this to, for instance, Christian baptism, which several Christian faiths state is granted on request by any person.
  • "hidden (and "unique") truths" - Blueboar himself adds the phrase "leads to" which isn't actually within the quote from Barrett, but does say that those truths are available to all. Thus, they would qualify as hidden or unique if they are not immediately obvious. Granted, some religions, perhaps most notably Mormonism, have held similar beliefs, but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS might be seen to apply here, and, as I've indicated on the Talk:Secret society page, I'd welcome seeing a reference to religious secrets, because that tends to be a given in most religious groups.
  • "personal benefits beyond the reach and even the understanding of the uninitiated" - granted the same thing can be applied to country clubs, etc., but they don't, to the best of my knowledge, qualify as having teachings, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS might be invoked here as well.
  • "a further characteristic common to most of them is the practice of rituals which non-members are not permitted to observe, or even to know the existence of" - Note the word "most", not "all". Also note that until recently several orders of Masons, as already stated, have even comparatively recently considered it a violation to allow a non-Mason to read the books.
• 3.regarding Axelrod's deinition:
  • "exclusive" - rejection of applicants requires, I believe, only three "nay" votes, right?
  • "claims to own special secrets" - I believe the stories about Abif were until recently not supposed to be bandied about at all. Also, certainly, the handshake probably qualifies here. The fact that they may also apply elsewhere is irrelevant. Also, it should be noted that most of the so-called "irregular" Masonic orders do have such teachings, and are still counted as Masons, despite a certain party's insisting on regularly calling them "irregular".
  • "strong indication to favor its own" - admitted by Blueboar, although he raised WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS-type objections here as well.
• Regarding the raising of often false spectre of religions, governments, etc. I believe in several of these cases the "secret" nature of their secrets has historically been even more broadly known than the secret handshake. Clearly, governments keep secrets. That is inherent within the rules of government, and is at least somewhat unremarkable on that basis. However, it could be questioned whether they qualify as "societies", or "social institutions", its virtual synonym. "Societies" is a word generally used to describe only social organizations, not religious, governmental, etc.
• In short, of the two definitions provided from elsewhere, and the popular definition of the word "society", not the admittedly rough introduction, I believe that it could be said that Freemasonry does clearly and fairly definitely meet the criteria as a secret society. So do several of the other articles contained within the Category:Secret societies, and I believe all those other articles have been tagged as well, seemingly without the "bold" failure to AGF and question inclusion before unilaterally removing the banner which was done here and on the project page itself. I would welcome specific, verifiable, evidence to the contrary, however. And I note once again that the matter of removing preexisting content from a page because a certain party unilaterally chose to think he had the right to remove it has yet to be addressed at all. I wonder why? John Carter (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Multiple examples of "I believe ...." "It could be ....." followed up by innuendo ... JC, what is your hidden agenda here? What is your personal religious attitude, do you have any previous history with secret organisations or religions? I am certain there is more to this than meets the scientific eye. Your aggressive attacks and disruption on these pages are not conducive to good encyclopaedic knowledge. Please give us full disclosure. docboat (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And absolutely zero real addressing of the comments made. The only prior history I have with religious organizations has been explicitly stated above. Docboat, what is your hidden agenda here? I note that you don't make your possible existing biases as obvious on your user page as I do on mine. There is certainly more to your refusal to substantively address any of the comments made than meets the scientific eye. Your unwillingness to address issues of substance and resort to personal attacks is itself disruptive. I have given full disclosure on my user page. Please give full disclosure yourself. John Carter (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

He has already declared elsewhere that he is active RC. He started off appearing quite reasonable on the RCCs position on FM article. It's worth a look to see his positions.

ALR (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah - I see ... OK, that explains somewhat his rhetoric. Thank you. docboat (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, please see my user page, where I added that information to indicate that I may have preexisting biases, and would welcome being told where I'm wrong. And what explains Blueboar's actions, I wonder? And why, I wonder, haven't the points I made above been addressed by either of the above comments? Rhetoric, indeed. John Carter (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Folks... PLEASE let's not make personal comments or assume things... Having dealt with John before, I agree that he does not let his religious beliefs affect his editing. No... if I were to make assumptions, I would assume this has more to do with the fact that I deleted the tag for John's latest pet project, and John took offence. If anything this has more to do with WP:Own than religious belief. What explains my actions?... a deap understanding of Freemasonry, gained from both being one, and from long study. All of which tells me that Freemasonry isn't a secret societey... no more no less. Blueboar (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Your answer is insufficient. Your actions constituted vandalism. And I note that you still haven't responded to the points made above. The fact that this is far from the first time you as an individual have unilaterally decided that you had the right to do this sort of thing is the primary reason for this discussion. And your own personal POV, however well informed you believe it to be, is frankly irrelevant. Please address specific comments to the more itemsized definition above. And, for what it's worth, the recreation of this project was honestly more to do with the Rosicrucian, Mafia, and other secret societies, the articles on most of which hadn't even been assessed. And I agree that it has more to do with WP:OWN on one party's part than anything else, but I'm not that party. And why have I still yet to receive any responses to the points I raised above, I wonder? A simple declaration that "I personally know" whatever is completely and utterly unacceptable by wikipedia standards. John Carter (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

John

Can I suggest that you go back to your project and work out how you're going to apply those definitions that you've chosen to the project, not to this specific article. I'd suggest that the application of the definitions that you've just suggested has the potential to hugely increase the number of articles which might fall within its purview, including all three of HMs armed forces. Trying to suggest that the interpretation includes Freemasonry, but doesn't include everything else that you've just managed to encompass will involve some quite interesting intellectual gymnastics.

At the moment I would disagree with much of what you've put above, but I really think you need to take a project wide view, rather than just addressing this particular article.

ALR (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually cannot see how you can say that above, and have to assume that you are jumping to unexamined conclusions. I have clearly indicated that neither governmental nor religious groups would be included, as they are not "societies" in the generally understood definition of the term, specifically "social organizations/clubs", as opposed to religious, governmental, etc. I wonder why you didn't seem to read that already existing statement above. And, actually, the only changes I have thus far made to the project's scope were to specifically mention the Category:Secret societies as being the scope of the project, and add the Category:Mafia to that scope. The latter was justified by the extant first sentence of the Mafia article, by the way. I have to assume that for whatever reason you and possibly a few others somehow cannot see something which has seemingly been obvious to many others. And the only reason that this particular article was "addressed" was because of the vandalism to the project page by Blueboar. I still have yet to receive any indication for why that is seemingly being considered acceptable, by the way. I wonder why. Certainly, as stated elsewhere, a parent project only deals with the "core" articles of any apparent "descendant" project. This also is widely recognized. That is why the banner was added here, so that if in time the Freemasonry project is declared inactive or deleted, there would be another project to step in and take its place. And, yet, despite having myself acted completely in accord with the preexisting content of the project page, I am the one being criticized, not the person who decided that he in his own 'opinion' knew "what was best". Why is that, I wonder? John Carter (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

John

Can you find a definition which explicitly discounts government or religious organisations?

The Secret Society article itself talks about the NSA which is undeniably a government organisation.

The projects scope is bounded by the definitions which you apply, since you clearly haven't actually worked through the implications of your definition I'd suggest that is an essential part of the process. I'm afraid its obvious just doesn't cut it.

I am not criticising you. I happen to disagree with your assessment of the definitions, and on a more practical note I'm curious about how you intend to direct your project once you've collected them all together.

ALR (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "it's obvious" doesn't cut it. Unfortunately, that basically seems to be what the argument against including this article within that scope amounts to. And, no, the project definition is not bounded by the scope which I apply. As explicitly stated more than once by me, I have only to date made to changes regarding the scope. I specifically defined the scope as being the Category:Secret societies, and I added one subcategory to that category. That is all. I added the one subcat on the basis of the first sentence of the core article about that subject, which specifically refers to the "Mafia" as a "secret society". In all honesty, I would welcome reasonable discussion as to why a given article should or should not be included within the scope. Instead, all I have really seen is criticism of me for having the arrogance to abide by the pre-existing text of the project page. And I quote that article "The United States National Security Agency has been described as a secret society, since, for many years, its very existence was a secret, as was its budget." In context, what that paragraph is doing is pointing to a specific use of that phrase. The article however goes on to say that it no longer qualifies as such. While I could acknowledge that, in a sense, it could be described as a secret society, the only parameter it seems to meet is the parameter of denying its existence. As per Axelrod's definition, it can't claim to claim special secrets if it refuses to acknowledge it even exists, and it can't be, so far as I've ever heard, been indicated to show preference if it doesn't exist. That paragraph is clearly an indication of how the term is occasionally used arbitrarily, and it should be noted that so far as I can tell that article is not indicated as being a true secret society. The same problems can be found with Barrett's definition. In short, by the definitions presented, it clearly does not qualify as a secret society, but is rather an instance in which that term has been used in a loose way. While that is one potential application of the term, it is clearly not one which meets the standard definitions of the term. On that basis, I have to think that it would be pointless to describe or categorize it as a secret society. And, actually, if you were to notice, it isn't at least categorized that way. I am probably the first to acknowledge that categorization is one of the biggest problems wikipedia had. All of Category: Jerusalem was at one point included is a distant subcategory of Category:Religious texts, for instance. Part of the purpose of creating such a project is to try to clean up the categorization which is often all but incomprehenisble. On that basis, I would welcome reasonable discussion about whether a given subject does meet the criteria currently available, but note that particular subject seemingly does not meet anywhere near enough for it to be reasonably described as such. However, that is irrelevant to the matter of whether this particular article does, or what other subcats might or might not be relevant for inclusion. Instead, just about all I see is criticism of me for seeming to abide by policy, and justification of the actions of another which at best are dubious according to policy. If it were to possible to engage in real discussion of the core issues, I personally would very much welcome it. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be something that interests many other people, given the comments I have seen here. I regret that. I would like to see reasonable discussion of conduct which is at best dubious, and substantive discussion of points made, and, yes, I regret to say that there has been so little of either here. John Carter (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, well you still haven't actually answered the question with respect to Gov or Religious organisations, but managing your project is largely your problem. One point I'd make is that in attempting to define secret societies it's more than a little disingenuous to then go back to the word you're trying to define, then reuse part of that to then filter your result. you either apply the definition or you don't.

To deal with the points. There are two definitions, we haven't really resolved whether a body needs to tick all the boxes, most of them or any of them. I'll be fairly liberal and say most, although ticking those boxes should be explicit:

• Restrictive. Freemasonry requires that a candidate be male, have a belief in a supreme being, be 18 or 21 years old and come of his own free will. Given that the definition doesn't actually make clear what it means by restrictive then yes one could argue that those are restrictions.
• Posesses secrets. Well the three recognitions (sign, grip or token and word) are generally held to be secret and the protection of those three is a test of a candidates character, despite the fact that these are available in the public domain and have been for just short of three hundred years. Are these the type of secrets that the definition means though? Personally I'm unconvinced, but Freemasonry doesn't claim any secret teachings, the experience of ritual belongs to the individual.
• Shows a strong inclination to favour it's own. That's wide open, and largely without value in this context. Freemasonry is sometimes accused of nepotism, but there is nothing in the ritual or governance which advocates that. Indeed a parliamentary committee investigating it in the UK could find no evidence to support the accusations.

I don't think that those three provide any conclusive direction either way. The definition is sufficiently vague and wooly that it could mean anything.

• Graded and progressed teachings. Graded and progressed, yes there are three degrees in Freemasonry therefore three rituals to undergo. They're not teachings since the candidate comes with his own Supreme Being and associated philosophy.
• selected individuals. Well candidates self select, since one must come of his own free will. He must be acceptable as a candidate to the members of the Lodge that he approaches, but other than the criteria set out above there are no corporate rules. One must identify the correct Lodge to approach, but that's more a question of fitting in with ones peers than anything else. As far as progression through the degrees is concerned, that's again up to the individual. The criteria for advancement to the second and raising to the third are laid down and once the candidate meets them he can undergo the next ritual.
• Hidden and unique truths. Nope, again since the candidate comes with his own Supreme Being and associated philosophies, and there is no claim to anything else then I don't think we fit this criterion.
• Personal benefits beyond the reach of the uninitiated. Well this one is explicitly banned, one comes free any mercenary or unworthy motive.
• The practice of rituals which non-members are not permitted to observe. Well ok you've got one.

• or even know about. Well in Freemasonry there are three degrees, each with its own ritual. I'm sure it's now possible to come back with aha, what about the ones we don't know about, but in all honesty that's grasping at straws.

So I don't think with either definition there is anything comprehensive, although I recognise that an extremely literal and rigid view could be taken, coming to the conclusion that maybe it fits although I'd anticipate seeing that standard applied with some uniformity across the database. That might take someone a while.

I choose not to be drawn into your issues with Blueboar.

I hope that demonstrates why we disagree over the applicability of the definition.

ALR (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reasonable response. I think the definition is, as stated in that article, at best ambiguous, because there is no single group which has the authority to define the term. On that basis, yeah, there will be some ambiguity involved. I do note that there are a few projects out there, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism among them, which have templates regarding whether a given subject qualifies or does not qualify under a specific term.

I do think that you might be unintentionally ignoring or discounting a few possibilities in your statements above, and would like to ask for some further replies, if I might. Regarding the "personal benefits beyond the reach of the uninitiated," the possibility of "rubbing shoulders with royalty" has more or less been cited as one of the reason several citizens of the UK have joined Freemasonry. Would you think that might be sufficient qualification, particularly as the group seems to have originated in the UK? Regarding "selected individuals", I acknowledge people must ask to join, but there is still a very recognized procedure in place to reject applicants deemed unworthy. I cannot see how the possibility and reality of rejecting such individuals does not make that particular phrase an appropriate one, as the applicants must explicitly be "selected" or approved. I don't think that any group can actually "select" members from any population in general, with or without the consent of those individuals. Even the government, to an extent. On that basis, I believe the more realistic "select from applicants" has to be viewed as being the meaning, although I acknowledge that could be argued as WP:OR.

The repeatedly documented (accurate or not, it's always so hard to tell with groups that have privacy oaths, the Knights of Columbus included) statement that the there has been in at least some branches of Freemasonry an explicit belief in Jabalon or however it's spelled can be seen as reasonably calling into question whether there are any "Hidden and unique truths." Choosing the example more for its obviousness than any other implications, the Nazis denied the events of the concentration camps too. Official statements from any body regarding the body itself are inherently suspect. Whether the documentation is sufficient to "prove" such beliefs is also dubious, but on that point I believe the secondary sources clearly indicate at least the possibility of such secrets existing, so I would think it would have to be a "provisional yes, barring concrete, third-party evidence" for that one.

I also acknowledge the dubiousness of the word "teaching" in such a definition. I would assume that telling the history of Hiram might qualify, as it does seem, at least initially, to have not been widely discussed outside of Freemasonry, if at all. Again, I would think the "provisional yes" above might apply.

Regarding showing favoritism for fellow members, that is a universal among all country clubs, social organizations, service groups, what have you. The fact that it is not one of the primary, self-admitted, reasons for joining is not necessarily entirely relevant. Hey, I've known multi-million dollar business deals to be enacted at Humane Society holiday parties, and that's a lot less of a "social club" than Freemasonry is. I don't think it's necessarily one of the primary motivators for many or most members today, but that's not quite the same thing as saying that it isn't a factor at all. Also, the social benefits that have historically been available to members when the other members tended to be in the upper classes of society should be acknowledged, even if it isn't the case in later eras. Here again, we have the question of "group x now" or "group x historically." As it might violate OR to make such differentiations, I would have to say that we would probably have to include any historical secret society as a secret society, whether it has any real secrets today or not. I do acknowledge that there could be disagreements regarding that matter, however.

And, honestly, regarding the first point, I can't say exactly how many boxes one has to fill to qualify. There's also the question as to whether those particular "boxes" are standard or optional. I acknowledge that the new project hasn't yet really defined those issues, as it would honestly be presumptuous for me to attempt to define a term without knowing what the people who first used that term, the founders of the project, meant by it. The fact that there is no universal definition of the term really don't help, either. For practical purposes, I would say that the project's scope would be limited to only those organizations which are not explicitly religious denominations or similar "mutual believers", not governmental entities, because bloody near every major office of every government has some sort of secrets, but those bodies are more clearly defined by their status as governmental, not societies", so using the term in those cases is of little practical use. Also, clearly, many "pay $20.00 for a year's membership" groups wouldn't qualify, as there is no active selection from among applicants there. So, I would think that the group's primary definition would be as follows: (1) an organization without explicit denominational or separate religious beliefs, (2) not governmental, and (3) meets more than one of the other criteria mentioned in the definitions on the secret society page. Regarding whether we would have to describe any other group as a secret society if anyone describes it a secret society, as Blueboar contended, no, that wouldn't be the case. However, if there were a sufficient percentage of the apparently reputable sources which do describe an organization by those terms, yeah, I think we would probably be violating some policy or other if we didn't at least hold open the possibility of describing them as such. Does that sound reasonable to you?

Basically, I acknowledge that most "freedom fighter" or "terrorist" groups, take your pick of the names, probably qualify as "secret societies", particularly if they are documented as having such oaths of secrecy to any degree. This would be particularly true if they had any prior history before becoming whichever of the terms above you prefer. However, I would acknowledge that it should be guided by the extant content of the article itself, or other verifiable sources not yet added. Does that sound reasonable to you?

Basically, the purpose of this group is not to be an attempt to "take over" any content, but to provide a "parent" group in the event a given project ever becomes inactive or deleted which could step in either as a parent to a newly renamed "task force" of itself, or to perhaps down the line create such a task force if the content grows significant enough, and if there are enough interested parties, to create such a group. Also, as noted, despite Blueboar's protestations to the contrary, I haven't myself done anything but following what was already laid out by predecessors. I would like to think that I would be open to reasonable discussion. I regret to say that the unilateral removal of material from two pages without discussion or even notification of any sort was not remotely reasonable discussion. It is very hard to AGF regarding a party who seeks to make wikipedia conform to an opinion, particularly when they do not themselves act in a particularly civil manner by even making any real notifications, except in edit summaries, of their actions. John Carter (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother with a point by point response, feel free to twist the material to fit your available definitions. I've made clear the position of regular freemasonry with respect to each of the points. What individuals might say about their own reasons for joining really doesn't impact on the mandated policies. Most organisations have people who join in contravention of some of the rules, but we don't use those reasons as defining characteristics for the organisation. The obligation that one takes does render one a wilfully perjured individual, void of all moral worth and unfit for the company of worthy men should the obligation be broken.

You're certainly struggling to demonstrate causal relationships with respect to benefit or preferment, but I'm sure you can find a source somewhere which fits wikipedias standards of reliability which says it happens. Whether it's a credible source or not doesn't really matter apparently. Credibility isn't a criteria for Wikipedia anyway.

I'll just point out that Freemasonry consists of three degrees; Entered Apprentice, Fellowcraft and Master Mason, which this article deals with. Dragging in other bodies to support your argument perhaps demonstrates that the definitions don't really work. I do recognise that there is a segment of the user community who are quite happy to consider pretty much anything which may or may not have a relationship with Freemasonry to be representative of the whole. I'm not sure whether that's wilful misinterpretation or not, but the distinctions have certainly been drawn out often enough.

It appears that you're falling back on an argument which says it must be, because people say it is alongside the aha, but what about the secret stuff we don't know about. Fine. It doesn't really meet what I'd consider to be acceptable standards of integrity, it's not far short of asking someone when they stopped beating their wife.

So I still don't believe that you've credibly demonstrated that the tag is appropriate, but I appreciate that it'll probably remain, through sheer weight of numbers if nothing else. At least we're clear on why the tag is there though.

I look forward to seeing you apply your interpretation of the guidelines consistently and systematically across the database.

ALR (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Because you don't want to do anything constructive, you keep doing the wikipedia equivalent of a little kid putting his fingers in his ears and shouting "lalalalalalaI'mnotlisteningtoyoulalalala" except your word is "vandalismvandalismvandalismvandalismvandalismvandalismvandalism." Your knickers are in a twist, cool off, come back when you can quit taking it personally.--Vidkun (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not take it personally. What I object to is the continuing refusal of any of you to do anything other than indulge in personal insults. I have repeatedly requested that any of you address the points made above, and have yet to receive any response. Why? Your above comment clearly indicates that it is you who are ignoring comments above, and instead indulging in these insults. I have raised issues of substance, including evidence as to specifically how I see how Freemasonry clearly and explicitly qualifies by almost every defined term in the definition page of Secret society. Has there yet been a single response to that? I haven't seen any. Instead, I see ongoing insults of others. I suggest that you, Vidkun, take a break, cool off, and only come back when you can be bothered to address issues of substance instead of simply indulging in pointless, unthinking, denigration of others. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly care for the impertinent tone taken by some of the parties involved here. Quoting Wikipedia policies and generally being accusative is in my mind not the best way to either help Wikipedia or resolve issues. I would emplore contributors to heated discussions such as this to act civil so a better atmosphere can be achieved whereby arguments can be resolved calmly and with minimal fuss. 84.9.52.61 (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree. Getting responses to how the subject meets the definitions supplied above would help immeasurably. I wonder why none have been forthcoming? John Carter (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Today, Freemasonry is organized as registered associations, its organization structures are known and there is public relation. As records testify (E.g. (Master Stone Mason) Matthäus Roriczer: Büchlein von der Fialen Gerechtigkeit from 1486, Regensburg; sketchbook by Villard de Honnecourt from 1230), the old secrets of stone mason brotherhoods consisted of their professional secrets about geometry. Additionally, because of political and religious persecution today and in history, Freemasonry is aware of the importance of data privacy. --Liberal Freemason (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Granted and acknowledged. However, it is also true today that at least one person I heard about on NPR a few years ago bought a marijuana growing certificate from the state of South Dakota to allow him to grow marijuana. This despite the fact that growing marijuana in that state is still illegal even if you do buy the stamp. Oh, and at the time, he was the first person in the state to have done so, so they forgot to take his name or arrest him. Government is involved in pretty much everything today, as I think we all know. That does not mean that the same would necessarily hold for earlier times. I acknowledge up front that several religions met the standards of secret societies at various times, but that at least in part was due to extant laws either forbidding or laying down severe penalties for membership in those groups. I would acknowledge that any similarily occasionally outlawed groups would probably not qualify any more as a "secret society" than those religions would, provided their conduct in that that instance of outlawing was the primary claim to that group being a secret society. John Carter (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A look at the definitions - part II

You want a point by point rebuttal... ok...

• 1. The article was listed as being within the scope of the project before I attempted to revive it. I believe that I was acting completely in the spirit of WP:AGF to tag all those articles which were already stated to be within the scope of the project, and it will be noted that I did tag all of those articles. I placed the category statement in the scope of the project myself after I chose to try to revive it. The article however was already specifically included as a relevant article before I added that. And I did not add the category myself immediately because of my prior knowledge of how a certain party often unilaterally changes anything with which he disagrees without consultation. I had no doubt if I had done so he would've reverted that as well. I also note how Blueboar very definitely misquoted that definitions cited. I will quote them directly.

I agree that you were acting in good faith in adding the project banner... can you accept that I was doing the same in removing it? Again... I saw the addition of this article under the Secret society Project as an error... I attempted to fix that error... once you registered an objection, I made no further edits, but took the issue to the talk page. That is the proper proceedure. No bad faith involved. I am not sure how I "misquoted" the definitions, since I simply cut and pasted them from the Secret societies article. If there is a misquote, it occured on that article.

No, I cannot, because it is not your place to seek to determine the scope or activities of another project. And you have still refused to address your abject refusal to discuss it. And you have still refused to address your removal of preexisting content from the Secret Societies project page. Your refusal to deal with this last matter at all is particularly troubling, particularly as you have still refused to even once, so far as I can see, address it. Please do so. Simply saying that "I thought it was an error" is not acceptable, particularly considering that you evidently didn't bother to even contact the group in question. I cannot see how it does not qualify as being a clear indication of your violation of WP:OWN, particularly given the total lack of any apparent attempt on your part to verify whether your opinion was remotely accurate. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

John, who are you to tell me my "place"? Look, I honestly do not think I was "determining the scope or activities of another project" by editing ... and stop saying I refuse to discuss it... I have done so repeatedly. You simply don't accept my reasoning. That's fine, but I have discussed it. As to the edits... I simply did not think what I was doing was wrong. I still don't. This is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit... What part of "anyone can edit" don't you get? Now, you don't have to agree with my edit... you can revert it (as you did), but I do have the right to make any edit I think needs to be made. That isn't vandalism... and it isn't bad faith. You can go report me an admin if you think it was. but unless told by an admin that my actions were incorrect, I am still going to believe that there was nothing wrong with my making the edit in the first place. The only WP:OWNership going on here is your ownership of the Secret Society project page. I am sorry that my actions upset you, but I still think they were both allowable under wikipedia rules and justified based on the projects own criteria for scope (Freemasonry is not currentlylisted in Category:Secret societies, and has not been listed there for over a year). Blueboar (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine. You can argue your own position. I believe based on clear reading of policy that it indicates that it does not explicitly agree with you. If you wish to have these actions formally reviewed by outside parties to determine who is right, I am more than willing to accept such input myself. And I very much resent your implication that my pointing out your own clearly stated conflict of interests and lack of objectivity regarding this subject is inappropriate. If you wish, I will also request outside comment as to whether other editors in good standing agree with that assessment. Personally, I do not think it was me "telling you your place", but the extant policies of wikipedia. However, please note the extant statements from the Encyclopedia Britannica linked to and quoted below. On the basis of that evidence, do you persist in your belief that the term does not apply to this body? I look forward to your response. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

responding to your Britanica citation below... Blueboar (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• 2.Regarding Barrett's defintion
  • "carefully graded and progressed teachings" - Blueboar did not directly comment on this provision, apparently agreeing to its accuracy, and I believe there are numerous sources which refer to such within Freemasonry

While Freemasonry does have its structured system of "degrees", I am not sure that calling them "carefully graded and progressed teachings" is accurate. For one thing, the word "teachings" is not really appropriate. While it does use the word "lessons"... Freemasonry does not "teach" any answers, but instead encourages its members to reflect upon things and find answers for themselves. Nor are things as "carefully graded and progressed" as you seem to think. While the first three degrees are somewhat "progressive" in that one will expand upon things presented in the previous, Many of the other degrees are "stand alone" things that do not build upon others, or have others build upon them. But my real concern here is that you leave out the second part of the sentence....

The above is a clear and explicit statment of opinion by someone with a self-admitted conflict of interests regarding this subject, and is not admissable by wikipedia policy. The fact that it is further simply a statement of that party's opinion, without sourcing, makes it doubly dubious. John Carter (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a talk page discussion... unsupported statements are absolutely "admissable"... I am not seaking to add this statement to an article. By the way... Personal opinions and OR are also "admissable" on talk pages. Do I have a strong opinion on this issue... you bet I do. That should be obvious. Oh... and we have had several admin rulings that say being a Freemason is not a conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles on Freemasonry. I assume that since you choose to shift to making personal attacks here, and away from rebutting what I say, you must agree with my points. Blueboar (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Please address the source discussed below. It is you who in this post are seeking to avoid the apparent COI and OR you arrived at in your conclusions. I note that you have still refused to address or even acknowledge one of the most reliable sources on the planet which has explicitly described the Freemasons as a secret society. Are you trying to avoid that potential discussion? A source for the term has been provided. You refused to address it. Address it now, please. John Carter (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• • "available only to selected individuals" - I believe I can find sources which have indicated that historically it was not permitted to allow non-Masons to even read certain Masonic texts, although I acknowledge that did not necessarily apply in all cases. However, the fact that it was true in at least some instances, and that those instances were not necessarily uncommon, and may have even in circumstances more common than not, makes it reasonable to say that I believe that most would agree that, with the low bar for rejection, anyone who qualifies to join Freemasonry is already a "selected individual". Compare this to, for instance, Christian baptism, which several Christian faiths state is granted on request by any person.:::... If you put the two halves of this criteria together, you get... "carefully graded and progressed teachings, available only to selected individuals" this linking is important as it explains what is meant... Barrett is thinking in terms of a hirearchy of grades, where only some are admitted into the "higher" grades. This is not true of Freemasonry. Every Mason is expected to go through the three degrees of Craft Freemasonry... and every Mason who desires to do so may go through the "further degrees" of the various appendant bodies. There is no selection process between degrees. All are admitted to any "grade" should they desire to do so. So freemasonry is not "carefully graded and progressed teachings, available only to selected individuals." In fact, the very concept of selected individuals is wrong... Freemasonry does not "select" individuals to become Masons... it is very clear on this point... you can not ask an individual to join, instead the individual asks to join. No one is "selected".

I note once again the above party is seeking to put his clearly conflicted personal opinion in as determining content. This is explicitly not permitted by wikipedia policy. John Carter (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And again I note that this is not true for talk pages. I speak here as someone with many years of experience in Freemasonry. You don't have to believe me, but I am not just speaking my own opinion.

And that opinion is colored by existing COI and OR, neither of which is an acceptable guideline for content. A quote, actually two quotes, from Encyclopedia Britannica is a much better source than one editor's personal opinions are. Why have you not addressed those sources, I wonder? John Carter (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• • "hidden (and "unique") truths" - Blueboar himself adds the phrase "leads to" which isn't actually within the quote from Barrett, but does say that those truths are available to all. Thus, they would qualify as hidden or unique if they are not immediately obvious. Granted, some religions, perhaps most notably Mormonism, have held similar beliefs, but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS might be seen to apply here, and, as I've indicated on the Talk:Secret society page, I'd welcome seeing a reference to religious secrets, because that tends to be a given in most religious groups.

there are no hidden or unique truths in Freemasonry. Freemasonry does not pretend to have answers or have the "truth" about anything.

• • "personal benefits beyond the reach and even the understanding of the uninitiated" - granted the same thing can be applied to country clubs, etc., but they don't, to the best of my knowledge, qualify as having teachings, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS might be invoked here as well.

Freemasonry does not provide, nor pretend to provide personal benefits that are beyond the reach or understanding of the uninitiated.

Please provide sourced information to that effect. Unsourced statements are irrelevant to this content. John Carter (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

See ALR's comments above... especially the quote about mercenary motives. That comes from a passage that is read to every candidate prior to their initiation. It is "official" language. Blueboar (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I note once again your seeming to consider "official", primary-source language, as being the last word on the subject. Wikipedia policies state that they are in fact among the least reliable sources. At some point, I would hope that you might be able to perceive the difference. John Carter (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• • "a further characteristic common to most of them is the practice of rituals which non-members are not permitted to observe, or even to know the existence of" - Note the word "most", not "all". Also note that until recently several orders of Masons, as already stated, have even comparatively recently considered it a violation to allow a non-Mason to read the books.

I am glad that you agree that Freemasonry does not fall under this part of the definition. And no... it was never a violation to allow a non-Mason to read the books. Masons always had to use their judgement on these things. Discussing the supposed "secrets" was discouraged, but never "forbidden". The fact that there have been exposes since the 1700s should tell you that.

So... to sum up... While Freemasonry does at first glance meet some of the criteria of Barrett's definition, it does not meet all of them. And at second glance even the ones it does meet have to be caveated. Put together... Freemasonry is not a secret society under Barrett's definition.

Please do not seek to put together, or synthesize, material, as that is explicitly prohibitted by wikipedia policy. Deal with the points as they are made, not your own opinion of them, please. John Carter (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not synthesizing anything. It is all part of Barrett's definition. Blueboar (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are, possibly. You are taken two discrete points and attempting to turn them into a single point. Technically, that probably does qualify as synthesis, particularly when the two points taken together have a slightly different meaning than the separate points themselves. John Carter (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And as has been explicitly stated by everyone that isn't the only possible source. Why do you still persist in ignoring the Britannica quotes, I wonder? John Carter (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• 3.regarding Axelrod's deinition:
  • "exclusive" - rejection of applicants requires, I believe, only three "nay" votes, right?:::Actually in some jurisdictions it only takes one to reject. And yes... I would say that Freemasonry is exclusive (although, sad to say, in this day and age, most lodges will take just about anyone who walks in the door). But exclusivity does not equate to secret.

Irrelevant and immaterial. It is one of the three criteria used to define a secret society. Please do not attempt to place your own definitions of words as of greater importance than those of the cited definitions. That consitutes WP:OR and is explicitly not permitted. Please confine your responses to the terms of the definition being referenced, until and unless you can find one of your own from independent sources. John Carter (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Axelrod does not define the word "exclusive" in his definition... so neither of us knows how what he means by "exlusive"... since this is not an article but is instead a talk page, I am free to discuss my own interpretation of his undefined usage. Blueboar (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• • "claims to own special secrets" - I believe the stories about Abif were until recently not supposed to be bandied about at all. Also, certainly, the handshake probably qualifies here. The fact that they may also apply elsewhere is irrelevant. Also, it should be noted that most of the so-called "irregular" Masonic orders do have such teachings, and are still counted as Masons, despite a certain party's insisting on regularly calling them "irregular".

Nope... no special secrets other than the hand shakes and pass words. Even in irregular Masonry. And I seriously doubt handshakes are what Axelrod is talking about. Besides these have been exposed a long time ago ... so there are no real "secrets" and have not been in over a hundred years. Oh... Masons still pretend that these are big hush hush "secrets"... but that is simply pretense and make believe. Again... there is nothing secret in Freemasonry.

Very well. I can and will provide evidence to the contrary from independent sources. I hope you will regard them as sufficient? I note in the past you have challenged any source other than the official policies of Freemasonry, which is frankly ridiculous, as they are clearly conflicted. Will you accept such sourcing this time? I also note how Blueboar is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. They never existed, and they were exposed long ago. Huh? How long ago? Does that mean that the secrets did not qualify as secrets before the exposure? Your own argument is self-contradictory. John Carter (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No... I am saying that there were (and technically still are) secrets... these are the hand shakes and pass words and recognition. And then I am saying that even these "secrets" were divulged long ago (over one hundred years ago), so they are no longer really secret. Blueboar (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Now address the matter of the Britannica quotes below, please. John Carter (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• • "strong indication to favor its own" - admitted by Blueboar, although he raised WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS-type objections here as well.

Not admitted at all. While I conceed that some Masons may occasionally favor a fellow Mason... my point is that there is no "stong indication" for this to happen. It happens no more than in any other social grouping. In fact, institutionally, this often activly discouraged... as it opens the fraternity to charges of Cronyism; so I would say no to this part of the definition.

• • • Unfortunately, I can find several reliable media which state that making such connections is in fact one of the primary reasons for joining freemasonry. On that basis, I would have to say that your personal statements differ from those of generally acceptable, reliable, independent sources. Once again, your own existing COI is potentially very problematic, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. John Carter (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can find several reliable media which state that making such connections is in fact one of the primary reasons for joining freemasonry. So? That's an accusation made, and you can certainly say that the ACCUSATION has been made. But you cannot, reliably, state, that the accusation is truthful. And, while the wikipedia criteria is verifiability, not truth, the only verifiable thing is that some people say that is the reason for joining Freemasonry. You cannot use "making such connections is in fact one of the primary reasons for joining freemasonry" a criteria for inclusion in secret societies, because it's not verifiable that it IS one of the primary reasons.--Vidkun (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see the quote from Encyclopedia Britannica below. Unless that you consider that a non-reliable source. And, I grant you that it is hard to find evidence on the individual motivations of given individuals, although I can produce several highly regarded, if not entirely necessarily objective, souced indicating such content. And please do not use all capitals as you did above. It is yet not really welcomed here. However, I will acknowledge that, at least temporarily, you may have a point, until such sources can be found. No, please yourself address the reliable source for describing that organization as a secret society, the Encyclopedia Britannica, referenced below. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

John, I looked in the Britannica article, and, unless I'm absolutely blind, I did not find anything implying "making such connections is in fact one of the primary reasons for joining freemasonry". So, as you use that as one of your criteria (derived from other sources) for what defines a secret society, can you provide a reliable, unbiased source saying something that means "making such connections is in fact one of the primary reasons for joining freemasonry"? And, before you point out that official documents aren't reliable sources, in references to the organisation which publish them, are accusations reliable sources? At best, one can say that "so and so claims that one of the reasons for joining the freemasons is to make cronyistic connection."--Vidkun (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidently, you failed to see how that source explicitly describes Freemasonry as a secret society, using that specific phrasing. In all honesty, meeting that specific criterion, being described as secret society, is the most important one. Blueboar and I among others are no trying to work to try to find specific criteria for inclusion and exclusion. The first and most important one is being called a "secret society". We are still in discussion regarding the others. Like with all projects, if the scope of the project changes, the articles indicated as being within the project deals with do as well. John Carter (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidently, you failed to see how that source explicitly describes Freemasonry as a secret society, using that specific phrasing. No, John, don't conflate one justification you claim with another one. You explicitly cited the Britannica article in response to me asking what your reliable sources are which state men join masonry to get those connections. That issue is not in the Britannica. What are your reliable sources saying that men join masonry for the benefits of cronyism? As you keep complaining that no one responds to your questions, and you accuse them of engaging in attacks, I'm asking: what are your reliable sources saying men join masonry for the benfits of connections they make, and where is that in the Britannica article which you used as a back up for my question regarding that issue? I don't in this question and answer section, care about Britannica saying FM is a secret society. I care about you having said: Unfortunately, I can find several reliable media which state that making such connections is in fact one of the primary reasons for joining freemasonry and then pointing me back at the Britannica article. Where is it (the connections issues) in the Britannica article?--Vidkun (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The point was made on the basis that it was one of the justifications for inclusion in that category. However, now that a source, and probably one of the most reputable sources on the planet, has now been found, I had thought it was obvious that the question was now a moot one. Certainly, with the source using the phrase, the argument about whether the subject qualifes by that description is now moot. However, as you seem to be hung up on that one point, the point is withdrawn. And, pardon me for saying this, I honestly don't care about your personal, particular interests, and very seriously question whether they honestly belong on a page discussing the article. If you wish such answers, there are individual talk pages. And, frankly, having found a source which has basically proven how the phrase is applicable by using that phrase itself, I honestly have no motivation to find such sources as you are requesting. Believe it or not, I have several other things to do than respond to questions which are now no longer even really relevant. John Carter (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So, basically, you're saying that in response to me asking you to actually back up one of your claims, you threw the Britannica article in as a red herring? You made the claim about motivations, JC, and now you are saying "nope, I'm not going to back them up, and you can't make me, because I'm really interested in disucssing something else". John, a little consistency in what you find to be relevant would be useful. A little bit of the evidence you claim to have would be even more helpful. The Britannica article is one source which says FM is a secret society. There are numerous sources that claim Mormonism isn't Christian, does that make it so?--Vidkun (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am saying nothing of the kind, although, given your own history of possibly consciously miscontruing the statements of others, your leaping to such a false conclusion is hardly surprising. The initial point was raised to establish whether the group qualified as a secret society. It had not occurred to me that such an obvious reference as Britannica used such a definition, as I thought if it had there were such an obvious source there would be no such contentiousness regarding the subject. That point was raised in an attempt to go about a more convoluted discussion, something like the discussion Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism has to do regarding some of the material they relate to. In all honesty, you seem to be saying that, OK, I know that you were only raising the question to try to prove that water is wet. I know that we've also now found a source which says that. I don't care. I'm not interested in whether the main point has been established, I wanna argue the minutiae." Frankly, the discussion here was never about arguing the minutiae. I was honestly surprised that such an obvious source as Britannica specifically described this subject by the. However, as the discussion was really from the beginning about whether the term is applicable, and that has now been pretty much verified by a reliable source, I have to question whether there is any real point in continuing to argue minutiae when the central point is now resolved. I hope that you can actually read the above without misconstruing it as easily as you did my last statement above. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So... to sum up on Axelrod's definition... Freemasonry meets with one of the three criteria... only barely meets with another (if you call a hand shake and pass word a "special secret"... and does not meet with the third. Thus... Freemasonry can not be considered a secret society under Axelrod's definition.

No, I believe a more accurate statement would be that in the eyes of a party who has a clear conflict of interests regarding this subject, it does not. Actually, it can be seen as meeting two of the three criteria, and, as it is clearly indicated that there are multiple definitions, I think that the evidence referred to below, that it is specifically referred to as a "secret society" in the very first sentence of the existing and older articles in Encyclopedia Britannica, is probably more than sufficient to state that it qualifies as a secret society. John Carter (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

But the key to me is that it does not meet a common sense definition either... Freemasonry just does not have secrets. It's rituals are published and can be purchased by the public, it membership is known, its finances can be examined... it simply isn't a secret society.

Your own opinion is frankly irrelevant, as it violates WP:OR, as you have been told before. The fact that you also have a very clear conflict of interests further calls your statements into question. John Carter (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that many people think it is... and if that is your definition... if "A secret society is something that people think is a secret society and call a secret society"... then, and only then, does Freemasonry belong under that heading. Blueboar (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you're more or less right in the above. There is no accepted, extant, definition, so basically the term has to be defined by its usage. So, yeah, those groups called secret societies qualify as secret societies. However, for the purposes of the project, I believe we can reasonably add additional criteria, to prevent excessive overlap. I have defined those criteria above. Please review them, Also, I find that the Encyclopedia Britannica in both the online and most recent definition explicitly refers to Freemasonry as a secret society. Please see ]http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9035303/Freemasonry here] and the first sentence of their most recent edition, quoted in full here: "Freemasonry, the teachings and practices of the secret fraternal order of Free and Accepted Masons, the largest worldwide secret society." So, yes, I believe that the term can be seen as very reasonably applying to this group. Also, while I acknowledge that your intentions are probably at least almost always above board, I also note that you have stated that your own opinion is at least somewhat decisive in your conclusions above. I believe that that statement clearly indicates that you could be in violation of both WP:OR, putting forward your own conclusions as evidence, and possibly WP:COI, given your explicitly stated membership in the organization. I would be very appreciative if you could provide for me any evidence whatsoever which indicates that you are not in fact in violation of both of these policies in your "vigilant attention" to these articles. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Before we accept Britanica's word on the matter, we should note that Britanica uses a very broad definition of Sectret Society: "Any of various oath-bound societies devoted to brotherhood (or sisterhood), moral discipline, and mutual assistance." I would say that, using Britanica's definition, Freemasonry certainly qualifies as a secret society. But given the various definitions used on Wikipedia, it is not.

I guess it all depends on definitions. To quote Bill Clinton: "it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is." If you wish to use Britanica's definition, then I will accept placing Freemasonry under that heading... but I would expect you to edit the secret society page accordingly... and to place a ton of other societies and institutions under that heading... these articles should also come under the project's scope... we can expect great resistance. Blueboar (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I note that the quote you used is one which is often used by people to indicate that their own argument is at best dubious. Nice choice of phrasing. Actually, if you can find any other organizations which are specifically referred to Britannica as "secret societies", I would actually welcome the input, and I think the articles probably would as well. And I have discussed what I think are the relevant terms for inclusion above, in response to ALM. I would also like to see exactly where you got that quote from Britannica. I found no such definition myself, but think that it would be a reasonable inclusion in the article, given the prominence of that source. On that basis, I would welcome the sourcing. And I did make a rather detailed description of what I think the relevant scope of the project was above in a statement finally fixed for formatting purposes here. Personally, I believe that it is probably the fairest possible definition for the project to use, and the one that is least likely to raise any hackles elsewhere. And, yes, if a sufficiently reliable source calls someone a "secret society", can you see any way that that information should not be included in any article? John Carter (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Britanica definition comes from its article on "Secret Society"... look it up. I happen to think Britanica is overly broad in using such a broad definition... but conceed that if you do define it that way, Freemasonry falls within that definition. My point is that there are multiple, often conflicting definitions of the term "secret society". Does it have to be "secret"? Yes, according to Barrett and Axelrod... No, according to Britanica. Which definition we use defines what falls under the scope of the project. If you change the definition, then you might change my attitude on including Freemasonry under the scope of the project. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did. I didn't see such an article, as I indicated above. Please specificy which edition. And, as you saw fit to indicate to others what they should do for their behavior to be acceptable to you, allow me the privelege of responding in kind.

• (1) I expect User:Blueboar to cease attempting to justify his own conduct on the basis of his to date completely unsubtantiated appeals to authority as a "historian". No evidence to substantiate such claims has yet been put forward, as it is an unsubtantiated appeal to authority of himself.
• (2) I expect Blueboar to become more fully acquainted with wikipedia policies. These specifically include finally perhaps understanding that official statements of any outside group are not considered authoritative. I note that he has once again above taken recourse to saying, in effect, "It can't be true because the official Masonic policy says otherwise." Frankly, such repetition is at best tiring, particularly as it is also yet another probably false appeal to authority. For what it's worth, his statements to the effect of "we decided awhile ago" are also false appeals to authority. Things change, sources are found, and the content of wikipedia is never expected to be static. Such claims are not only worthless, but they also betray a lack of awareness or regard for policy.
• (3) As previously stated here and elsewhere, Blueboar has displayed a pronounced tendency to excuse any unilateral changes he sees fit to make to any content, including at times sourced content, on the somewhat flimsy basis of his following WP:BOLD. I expect such conduct will become less frequent in the future.

And, lastly, I think it might do him some good to actually pay attention to some other content a bit more frequently. Given how often he takes recourse to being "bold", I very much suggest that he be a bit more bold about conduct not related to Freemasonry, such as perhaps adding the content he "suggested" I add to the Secret society page himself. That actually is more or less what the WP:BOLD policy is intended to refer to. Also, if he wanted to suggest changes to the Secret Societies Project, which would be more in keeping with policy than reversion, I think he would probably receive more reasonable treatment than he has given others here. John Carter (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Britanica article in question is this one. Please stop making this personal. Whether I did nor did not do something wrong in editing the way I did is irrelevant. I did what I did... I don't think I did anything wrong... you do. We can leave it at that. We need to focus on solving the issue, not criticizing each other. Your continued harping on my conduct and accusing me of not following Wikipedia policy (which I know very well) is now boardering on a personal attack. I have tried to be civil ... you seem intent on sparking a fight. I am not going to play that game... I am going to back off for a while, and let others carry on this debate. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. And, for what it is worth, I am not attacking you, and I very much resent that implication, and honestly think that it may be an attempt to derail the discussion on your part. I am trying to indicate that your repeated reference to yourself as a "historian" is not really ever relevant. I am trying to say that your repeat reference to "official" statements as effectively meaning "authoritative' is clearly contrary to policy, which does not indicate that primary sources are authoritative, which someone who knows wikipedia policy as well as you claim to would know. I very much resist your repeated implication that any attempt to call your attention to these repeated errors on your part is somehow an attack. Frankly, if the conduct stopped, the criticism would as well. Unfortunately, your last comment above indicates to me at least that the likelihood of any changes on that front are less than likely. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It certainly comes across as an attack... I have repeatedly asked that you stop complaining about what I did or did not do... and focus on the larger issue. You repeatedly come back to: Blueboar did this, Blueboar did that, Blueboar states that he is a "historian" (when in this debate did I base an argument on that?), Blueboar must acknowledge blah blah blah... Blueboar, Blueboar, Blueboar... forget me. I don't matter. My edits are in the past... they happened, and I am not repentant. I never will be, since I don't believe I violated any policy or guideline in making my edits. As I have said, I am stepping out of this debate for a while so that it can move beyond me and my actions... Others have raised concerns about this tag and the scope of the Secret Societies Project. Address what they say. Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I intend to, and have in fact addressed those comments. However, I find it frankly ridiculous that someone who so frequently introduces his own opinions as part of his comments, in what seems to be a clear appeal to authority, then gets annoyed when, after having made himself an issue by his own actions, others address the issue of his own almost explicitly admitted conflict of interests regarding the subject under discussion. If certain individuals do not introduce their own unsubstantiated opinions and beliefs into the discussion, they wouldn't leave themselves open for others to discuss their less than laudable comments and obvious biases. John Carter (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

an offer of compromise

Wikipedia runs on consensus... that usually means that both sides of a debate have to compromise... so, is there a compromise position here? I think there is... I propose that we should temprorarily revert back to not having the contentious tag, and go iron out the issue of the scope of the Secret Societies Project. Then, assuming that Freemasonry still falls within the agreed upon scope of the project, we can return the tag at that time. I suppose what I am getting at is that it was premature to tag this article as being under that project... not wrong... just premature. Is this acceptable to everyone? Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So, in effect, what you seem to be saying is that you have your way. I am willing to discuss reasonable issues regarding categorization in a reasonable way. You stated that both "sides" have to give up something. We already have a reliable source which describes the entity as a secret society. No clear indication that it is not such has been produced by any sources. Therefore, based on the extant information, there is not only no good reason given for the banner to be removed, but also no reason for the Category:Secret societies to be added to the article page. And I wonder what it is exactly that Blueboar claims his "side" is giving up. Verifiable sources have indicated the term is appropriate, so his compromise is to request that someone else have to justify to him, whose objectivity in this matter is at best dubious, why it should be added? What is he giving up in the process? Nothing. However, the proposal outlined above to me seems to once again be indicative of a possible tendency on that party to say that "I have my way first, and then try to once again possibly make false appeals to authority as have been made above or possibly just dragging out the discussion until the other side gets tired of it". What I suggest is that the banner remain until and unless it is clearly and explicitly indicated or agreed that it is inappropriate, and that discussion take place elsewhere. For what it is worth, I have yet to see any real basis for objecting to the presence of the banner. The fact that such objections are still, at least in the eyes of one party, still very real indicates to me that there may well be a very unfortunate ownership issue on the part of that party. If after discussion it is decided that the banner is inappropriate, then I don't think anyone would not contest the removal. Also, there are larger concerns here, regarding categorization and subcategorization, which I get the impression would be dismissed by at least one side if they had their way initially. And I cannot see how someone who so frequently resorts to WP:BOLD could say that someone only validating what was already on an existing wikipedia page was "premature" but not "bold". John Carter (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You're trying to force the group into the category and the project, and I think that's the real problem here. Our consensus has been that Freemasonry is not a secret society; it has no more secrets than any fraternal organization, and most groups have things they keep to themselves whether they are corporate or social in nature. This alone does not make them secret societies. By the definition you choose to invoke, the project and category would be inclusive of almost anything, which means there's a problem with the underlying assumption. You're also trying to force Freemasonry into an old mold of rhetoric that hasn't really ever been valid outside of popular superstition, and I don't agree with that. I think you need to sort out your project's scope based on reasonable definitions, and we can then discuss this further at a future date. MSJapan (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That is one interpretation. My view would be that there may well be a consensus regarding this subject among individuals who could be seen to have a clear conflict of interets. I would be more than willing to discuss in any relevant arena whether content regarding any subject should be primary judged on the basis of accuracy who have such a potential conflict of interests. John Carter (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

My response would be that, however well-intentioned the arguments you and others might make, there is a very real at least risk of a conflict of interests on the part of some members of Freemasonry, such as yourself. Is self-identification the primary rule to use for an organization, or is the identification of reliable, outside sources? I think I know that our policies indicate the latter takes priority. Also, how, may I ask, is referring to something by the terms the Encyclopedia Britannica uses in its first sentence on the subject "forcing an issue"? Is not such a clear and explicit use of the identical phrase in the first sentence of the article relevant enough to qualify it as falling within the scope of a group dealing with groups referred to by that specific phrase? John Carter (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really, because there are plenty of books written by non-Masons (or written by authors who later became Masons) that support a very public view of Freemasonry, even back in the 1800's. As long as the claims are reliably sourced, there's no real COI. As for usage of claims from EB, secret societies are one of those things where you can find different definitions in many places to suit whatever purpose you want, and you need to consider that if your definition is too wide, you can't apply it in one instance and not in another. Similar groups are either secret or not - for example, if KofC is, then maybe Freemasonry is, too; but if KofC isn't, Freemasonry isn't, either. Every college fraternity or sorority could be considered a secret society, but they aren't. So what exactly are you looking at in the definition? MSJapan (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I would welcome being seeing the particulars of that. Regardless, I personally think that the fact that one of the most generally reputable and most highly esteemed sources on the planet, the Encyclopedia Britannica, whose own editorial standards are if anything higher than wikipedia's in general, qualifies as notable as per WP:NOTE. I believe that it also, probably, qualifies as a reliable source as per WP:RELY. I would welcome discussion of both points, but I would assume that the appropriate place for such discussion would be on the talk pages of the two guidelines linked to above regarding the notablity and reliability of Encyclopedia Britannica. Also, if you have sources which do state that Freemasonry is not a secret society, I would welcome specific references to such. Personally, I believe that the repeated allegations that Freemasonry is a secret society probably at least deserve some significant mention in some article, given both the number of sources who make that allegation and, as you say, the number of sources who seem to deny it. I'm not sure if there is a Freemasonry in popular culture page, but maybe some summary section in this article and a greater exploration of that subject in either that article or some other article would be the best place to discuss it. There would clearly, based on Britannica, seem to be at the very least sufficient basis for at least some reference included to the allegation and denial of same as per Wikipedia:Fringe theories. And you will note that someone else already added the Knights of Columbus to the project page, and that the various "college secret societies" are also so tagged. I myself never pledged to any frats, so I have no firsthand knowledge of whether they qualify or not. Your own statement that "they aren't" is to the best of my knowledge unreferenced. If you have such a source, I would welcome seeing it, however, because then they would possibly reasonably qualify, if they also qualify according to the definitions on the project page. John Carter (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

As to the self-identification issue... when it comes to categorization, Wikipedia consideres self-identification to be a key factor. There have been numerous Arbcom rulings on this concept. Granted, most have involved disputed categorization of individuals and not organizations (for example: there have been numerous debates as to whether a particular person should be categorized within an ethnic/racial/sexual orientation), but the precident is there... When there is a dispute as to whether the subject of an article should be placed into a category or not, self-identification with the category is the tie breaker. I'll try to find some specific examples for you if you need them. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I am one of the more involved editors in the Biography project. To the best of my knowledge, the policy/guideline to which you are referring is WP:BLP, which specifically applies to living "persons". I am not at all sure that the same thing can be said to apply to organizations. In fact, that page specifically seems to refer only to articles and/or about individual persons. If you are aware of any specific policy or guideline which also clearly applies to currently existing organizations, I would welcome seeing a link to same, or a link to a discussion which clearly indicated that that policy can be extended to organizations. John Carter (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Freemasonry as Religion?

Would it be relevant to mention or refer to this recent court ruling which states there is "no principled way to distinguish the earnest pursuit of these [Masonic] principles... from more widely acknowledged modes of religious exercise"? John Carter (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As indicative of what? In short, what are you trying to prove? MSJapan (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you so quickly jump to conclusions regarding motivations of others? And why the blatantly accusatory tone? When did I say it was supposed to be "indicative" of anything? Please at least try to appear to be willing to WP:AGF, particularly when dealing with something as basically incontrovertible as a court ruling. I found the site when looking for an archive of an old BBC radio religion story which specifically referred to how Freemasonry in England has been losing members and how at least the reporter linked that fact to Prince Charles announcing he would never himself join the Masons, and when seeing that the story is roughtly two months old at best, and that there seemingly has been no alteration of content to reflect what strikes me as a subject which is clearly relevant to at least some article we have here, I simply asked whether it would be relevant to make mention of such a ruling in some form or not. John Carter (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You're showing me exactly why it's hard to AGF: what does a California appellate court ruling on a building in Los Angeles have to do with England, or with a membership decline in general? MSJapan (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I frankly cannot follow the logic of the above statement. Please reread what I said. To clarify, while searching google for I think it was BBC Reporting Religion Freemasonry, the terms I was using to try to find the old program in which membership decline was explicitly mentioned as taking place since Prince Charles announced he would never join the Masons, that page appeared on the first page of related sites. I looked over all the links, not just that one. If your asking me to explain how google works, sorry, that's beyond my capacity. In all honesty, I think it may not be the case that it is hard to AGF, but that you personally have already decided not to do so. The two are rather different. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So what?

ALR (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have answered your questions. You seem to be demanding still further clarification. Perhaps this is based on some lack of understanding of how google works on your part. For maximum clarity, as that seems to be what your presumptuous question seems to be demanding, I searched for the relevant terms BBC (broadcaster) Reporting Religion (name of program) Freemasonry (name of group) and looked over the pages which appeared on the search. I was searching for those terms particularly because I believe it was on that program that, as I recall, a lead story some years ago specifically referred to a drop in the numbers of Freemasons in the UK after Prince Charles reported that he had no intention of ever joining the Freemasons. Unfortunately, the BBC doesn't seem to archive their old shows, or at least they don't seem to appear very high on google searches, which would indicate a weakness on the part of google. In the process of looking over the articles which appeared first, which is the what google indicates is generally the best way to find things, I noted a reference to that court ruling on the page linked to above. It did seem to be a recent development, and it is generally considered appropriate that recent developments, if they are of sufficient significance, should be referenced in wikipedia content. On that basis, I started this thread. Personally, it is hard for me to not come to the conclusion that the person who made the somewhat impertinent question above, and who clearly identifies himself on his user page as being a Freemason, may well have a conflict of interests regarding this subject which he places as being of greater importance than the facts themselves. The response I received is, at least to me, one which seems to indicate that the court case I linked to, which I think is clearly a reality and almost certainly to some degree notable, is irrelevant or of at best secondary importance, and that my even asking the question was motivated by some hidden nefarious motives. Such conduct, in my eyes at least, seems to at least border on paranoia. I cannot see how it is possible to have a reasonable discussion with someone who does not seem to be able to differentiate between a legitimate question regarding seemingly well-referenced, seemingly relevant (to some article, at least) material, and some sort of unproven, unverifiable, and very questionable assumptions that particular party seems to not be willing or able to overcome. John Carter (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, and I'm not entirely clear on why you feel the need for the diatribe. It appears to be a kneejerk reaction to being questioned.

What is your hypothesis? How might you suggest that it's included? Does it have any real applicability to the article beyond the specific circumstances of the case? Does it have any applicability to this article at all?

A couple of points:

• The case was related to the Scottish Rite, which is a body requiring candidates to be Master Masons, however Freemasonry consists of three degrees only. It is recognised that other bodies exist which require that qualification, but they are not recognised as having masonic authority. The case in question does not apply to this article, you may wish to comment on it in the Scottish Rite article, although demonstrating applicability might be a challenge.
• If the report were relevant to this article, in what was does a peripheral element of a legal judgement in one US state apply to regular freemasonry around the globe?
• Why do you feel that it is relevant to bring my membership of a completely different organisation into this discussion at all?

ALR (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is a "diatribe" taking place here, I think it might be on your part. Remember, I started this thread with the phrase "Would it be relevant..." Actually, if you had said "No" initially, and cited the comments above as reasons why, that would probably have been enough. That, however, was not done. Remember, I'm not a member of the group and I'm not as familiar with the intricacies as others. That's why I asked the question. However, instead of getting a direct response, I got impugning of my motives, asking me "What I was trying to prove" and "So what?" I sincerely question whether the responses I received even come near the standards of WP:CIVILITY. When one is faced with such responses, it is reasonable to question why. As others have indicated, and the WP:AGF page indicates, there is no reason to assume AGF when the evidence seems to run against that assumption. Your own behavior has made it extremely difficult to assume AGF on your part, and seeking to find out why was reasonable. John Carter (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You're quite fond of throwing AGF accusations around, which I find interesting.

You clearly had some view of relevance when you provided the link, why did you not amplify on that in the first instance?

ALR (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You're just as fond, if not more so, of making assumptions about others, aren't you? Yes, I had some indication of relevance. I wondered whether it made sense to indicate whether there was apparently some dispute about a given organization's status as a religion. The old Scientology in Germany dispute, where they said it wasn't a religion, came to mind. That matter is mentioned before note 150 in the main Scientology article. If such government matters are relevant there, then I thought they might be relevant here. And, in all honesty, if one wants to assume "well, why didn't you do...", why didn't you yourself more clearly announce your own self-acknowledged potential conflict of interests? Also, had you bothered to read my user page, you'd see that I do acknowledge my possible conflict of interests, although I try very hard to be neutral regarding all subjects, even if I'm not always the best informed person on them. I note by the way that you still seem to be in "accusatory" mode. Do you really think that's a good way to try to approach any discussion here? And, yes, I have responded in kind, and I acknowledge that. I have done so so that you know just how unpleasant it is to be judged in advance as a person, with less attention given to the evidence. I wonder if you like it any better than I do? John Carter (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Structure and scope issue

I have a feeling that this article is unlikely to improve unless we can actually pin down what we're talking about. That would allow us to describe things without the need to hedge around the fact that in many cases we're talking about several different mutually exclusive things.

With that in mind I'd like to suggest that we split the article up, and use the Freemasonry article as a disambiguation, leading off to articles on Regular (as in UGLE, GLoS, GLI style), Irregular based on the admission of women, Irregular based on the admission of atheists, Related bodies around those bodies which require their initiate to be a MM noting that this group includes bodies which self define as Freemasonry but do not meet the requirements for recognition, unrelated bodies which could sweep up the remaining essentially unrecognised but which us the name.

I'd suggest that this might make things easier to understand for those who don't appreciate that many organisations use the name, but not all of those are Masonic. It would allow us to rationalise the level of caveating that we've got to get into and it would allow linking from other articles to the most appropriate Freemasonry article from the set.

We'd need to think up something other than Regular and Irregular which wouldn't be appropriate once the irregular traditions have their own article.

ALR (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, here and elsewhere, most recently on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Secret Societies page. I note that the York Rite page uses the base term "Mason" to describe members of that rite, as does the Scottish Rite page. I think that it might be possible, with agreement, to create such a disambiguation page. Alternately, we could follow the existing use of terminology and use the term Freemasonry exclusively to apply to so-called "regular" Freemasonry and "Masonry" to describe the other entities, maybe creating a separate Masonry page to describe the whole gamut of "Masonry", with a link either internal or at the top of the page to the separate Freemasonry page, which would specifically describe the Grard Lodges and suchlike. Also, having reviewed the existing article, I note how the term "regular amity" is almost always italicized. That is an unusual stylistic usage. I wonder whether it might be more appropriate to use either regular quotations, provide a link at the first usage, or maybe just render the phrase in regular text throughout. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no consistency around the use of Mason or Freemason. The criteria for regularity are laid down in the principles document issue by UGLE, GLoS and GLI, Aims and Relations of the Craft which is referenced on the article at the moment. Whilst no GL has authority over any other GL, at least in regular Freemasonry, these define how the network of recognition works;linked

I think the first thing to resolve would be how to describe the various strands of thought, whilst I would describe feminine and androgynous GLs as irregular, they wouldn't. Equally the feminine and androgynous GLs recognise the regularity of some GLs they're not in amity with but also consider others to be irregular, particularly those who admit atheists.

ALR (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a list indicating which bodies recognize which other bodies? John Carter (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that a recognition table is fairly peripheral, and maintenance would be a challenge. Avoiding OR would also be an issue, although I think Bessel maintains something on his domain. It's perhaps something to build at a later date. The main thing to do first is find a form of words to describe the various permutations and then grow the articles on them.

ALR (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The nearest approach article I can see is Regular Masonic jurisdictions. Maybe Masonic jurisdictions could be created as a list/disambiguation page, with one or more additional pages, in addition to those two, for the York Rite, Scottish Rite, and whatnot? Alternately, maybe a page amity could be created. Then that word, and maybe links to that page, could be used when referring to the various "regular" and "irregular" masonic bodies. Lastly, it would always be possible to add "Blue Lodge" as an alternative to "regular" in some cases. John Carter (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

ALR: the way I see it, the recognition issue is a problem, largely because of A recog B, B recog C, but A does not recog C. Thus a body can be irregular to some and not to others, which means that some of these things are not always mutually exclusive. Furthermore, there is overlap in that the French descent Co-Masonic groups allow both atheists and women. As far as other bodies go, whether A(&)ASR or YR/HRA/KT is recognized is also done a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, so that's not going to narrow it down too much either. I think we're still thinking too high-level, so what's the simplest thing we can strip this article down to and then rebuild from?

In response to John, you cannot substitute "Blue Lodge" for "regular" under any circumstances, as they are not equal terms, and linking to a disambig page still doesn't explain the regularity issue - to put it simply (and as I noted to ALR above), regularity is subjective. I'll AGF here, but you're attempting to contribute to a discussion on a topic you don't really understand, and you're derailing the discussion as a result. MSJapan (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Folks... having worked with John at other articles... I find that while he does not know a lot about Freemasonry, he is very willing to have Freemasonry explained to him. He appreciates the explaination and is a quick learner. So please DO assume good faith with him. John... "Blue Lodge" is an American term for any basic Masonic Lodge (ie a body that confers the three core degrees of Freemasonry). In England they call it "Craft Lodge". These terms can be and are applied even to lodges opperating under an irregular jurisdiction. Blueboar (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

MSJ

There is a very clear divide between the three degrees of craft masonry and the various orders whicch require one to be a MM. I think that's a fairly reasonable distinction to make, the level of recognition does vary, but you still can't visit a regular craft lodge wearing anything other than craft regalia.

With respect to the french overlap, my approach would be to consider the Atheism issue as trumping all others. The belief in ones own Supreme Being is crucial to the personal experience of the ritual. I think one of the issues that I see with a lot of the discussion, particularly around the RCC position, is that we've not been clear about the spectrum of irregular GLs. The picture is not one of two opposing positions, some irregular GLs are more socially acceptable than others, with the atheists pretty much out in the cold.

If we try to encompass everyone who describes themselves as Freemasonry in one article we end up with some detailed discussions, which end up hijacked by nit-picking over what specific words mean, when in fact they may mean different things depending on which body one is discussing.

ALR (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to ALR's suggestion... I am not sure that a pure disambiguation page is the right way to do. I do, however, like the idea of splitting off a lot of the minutia that is cluttering up this article (issues like recognition and regularity) and slimming this article down. As I see it... this article should focus on explaining what Freemasonry is in the big picture. The stuff that is true for all the various forms of Freemasonry... 1) it is a fraternity. 2) It uses the tools of operative stone masonry to impart lessons on morality and good conduct. 3) It's basic structure is (from smallest to largest unit) Brother, Lodge, Grand Lodge (or Orient)... and each Grand Lodge/Orient is independant of the others. 5) There are several branches of Freemasonry (discuss what they are very briefly, but leave the details to sub articles) 5) Give a brief history (again pointing to History of Freemasonry and 6) Some people dislike Freemasonry for religious or political reasons (again, leave the details to sub-articles). In other words... this article should limit itself to the broad overview... and point to lots of sub-articles that explain things in more detail. How does that sound? Blueboar (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't intending a pure disambiguation page, the different forms do need some explanation, but I wouldn't intend going into any depth on anything. Even at the high level of six sentences there is quite a lot of nuance, and potential disagreement, to manage.

• Is it a fraternity? Well the bodies that you, MSJ and I belong to certainly consider it to be so, however that is disputed by some and there are bodies around which describe themselves as Freemasonry which advocate a politically active position which would make them at best a pressure group.
• The use of allegory? What is it communicating and what is the impact on the candidate for each degree? It's up for debate, but there are some who do not accept this, pointing to the Pike ramblings as suggesting otherwise. You and I know that Pike was writing about another body and for a limited subset of that body, but there is persistent dispute about his influence from those who don't appreciate the relationships.
• The basic structure. Very quickly you wade into the irregular bodies which subordinate themselves to other bodies.

So I think that this needs to be very light, we can't even with any authority discuss such basic points as belief in a Supreme Being or the restriction to men, free and of mature age.

ALR (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I only ever used the phrase "Blue Lodge" as I've seen it occasionally used as a way to indicate that so-called "regular" freemasonry was being discussed. If it's faulty, my apologies.

Regarding the idea of a dab page, that might be the best way to go. If such a page were created, what do you all think should be the specific kinds of links included in it? I would think that a specific link to "regular", traditional, British-type Freemasonry should be probably listed first, maybe a second link (or links) to the various forms of Freemasonry which aren't currently in amity with British-type (like the French type, for instance), maybe a third link to the 3+-level forms of Freemasonry, like the York Rite, and maybe a link to a page for organizations which retain some of the oaths, ceremonies, or structures of Freemasonry while not (maybe? I don't know the details) having ever been recognized as "standard" (as opposed to the problematic "regular") Freemasonry. The Carbonari might potentially be included here. But if we did have a cleaer indication of what specific articles or types of articles were to be linked to on the dab page, it'd probably make it easier to come up with acceptable names for the articles. John Carter (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need a dab page at all... we just need a better focussed main article with links to sub-articles. Blueboar (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Whilst in principle I agree, we'd end up having to restrict the scope of what we're talking about, potentially being quite explicit that we're not considering atheist or political organisations as in scope at all. Whilst I'd be quite happy with that I can hear the screams of objections forming in throats as I type this.

ALR (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe an "Alternate-Rite" section could be created for the York and Scottish rite content, with a summary section on the nature of the two and links to the appropriate pages. That might deal with those groups, and any others like them. If it can be demonstrated that the Carbonari and others were not initially founded by Freemasons as a Masonic group, but just copied the structures, "Pseudo-Freemasonry" might apply there as well. If the evidence supports it, the English practice could probably be called "Original" Freemasonry. Then, the article could be structured, potentially, something like the following:

• Discussion of original form, adding a lot of details, particularly those which aren't also relevant to "derivative" forms
• Chronological introduction of the "Alternative-Rite", "Pseudo-Freemasonry", and maybe (just a suggestion, here) "Liberalized Freemasonry" (in terms of adding women, atheists, etc.). Please note that all these proposed names are only suggestions, however. Each of these latter forms would probably be presented in simple summary form, with links to their subpages. After introduction of the various alternative kinds in chronological order, then the various contacts between them and other matters which effect more than one of them could be referenced as they occurred. By doing something like this, the main article would probably still be primarily about the oldest form of Freemasonry, with short summary sections about the creation of the "alternative" forms and historical development, and references to later historical developments that effect "mainline" freemasonry directly. Content related to the historical development of "Alternative-rite" Freemasonry exclusively could be placed on that page, ditto with "Pseudo-Freemasonry" and "Liberalized Freemasonry". It might however be primarily a "history of Freemasonry" article, though, but it would probably allow for substantive discussion of practices, etc., in the early section about "undifferentiated" Freemasonry. John Carter (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll just point out that Freemasonry consists of three degrees; Entered Apprentice, Fellowcraft and Master Mason. A number of other bodies exist which require one to be a Master Mason to be considered as a candidate, some of which use the term Freemasonry within their titles. These additional bodies are not really within the scope of this article and any mention of them should be in that context. It's also worth pointing out that the various irregular bodies also have additional orders, so there are irregular equivalents of several of those. Additionally, York Rite in the US is an administrative conglomeration of bodies which elsewhere are organised as individual bodies. Whilst it is rigidly hierarchical in the US that was not the case when the various bodies formed and does not reflect how they might be approached outside the US. The current structure of that article reflects the broader US-centricity of Wikipedia.

One of the specific points in the Aims and Relationships document which I've linked to above is that a Regular GL does not recognise the authority of any other bodies over the craft.

I acknowledge that the political picture is very complicated, particularly when some external bodies do not recognise the distinctions.

Whilst I think that trying to find a mutually agreeable form of words is a worthy effort, previous experience suggests that it's impractical. The lack of differentiation in many secondary sources means that we're unlikely to achieve something which adequately represents regular freemasonry because irregular freemasonry, or even other bodies, is believed by some parties to be representative.

I should probably add that even oldest is liable to be disputed, as the Atheist GLs see the requirement for a belief in a Supreme Being as an innovation which wasn't intended in the original documentation.

ALR (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just would point out that something being "disputed" is not necessarily cause for not including the information. If there is an obvious consensus among the reliable sources regarding any matter, then that can be "taken as a given" and presented as being the consensus, provided the alternative idea is mentioned, as per WP:Fringe theories. That however is dependent on whether there is such a consensus among the reliable sources, which I can't know at this point. However, I would think that if there is a case put forward by most of the standard sources, that could be effectively described as the "consensus" view. John Carter (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Which brings us back to square one again, with a single article we're not going to reach agreement on something as fundamental as belief in a Supreme Being.

ALR (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't actually hoping for a "single article", but rather for a "central" article, but I see the point. For what it's worth, there is now a draft page for the potential disambiguation page at User:Warlordjohncarter/Freemasonry (disambiguation). I acknowledge up front that there may well be misuses of the terminology there, but anyone is free to edit it as they see fit for greater clarification, and if and when the draft reaches a point when it is acceptable to the consensus, then it can be moved into regular space under whatever name it might be given. John Carter (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

John... I took a look at your proposed dab page. It is a nice effort... but falls flat in a few areas. Especially in trying to group "irregular" masonry into "Latin Freemasonry"... for one thing the term "Latin" is not a widely used one (only three sources)... This form of Freemasonry is externally dubbed "Continental" more often than "Latin", and they self-identify as "Liberal". Beyond terminology, we have problems in that they are not one solid form of Masonry... While "mainstream"/"regular" Masonry is fairly uniform, the "irregular" lodges are not. There are huge differences between the various bodies. Also... I assume you are reffering to the York and Scottish Rites, and Shrine, etc. when you talk about Other bodies ... while these do not form part of Freemasonry in its strictest sence... they do fall under the banner of Freemasonry in that they are recognized as being "Masonic".

I think part of the problem here is that you like having things in nice neat categories and classifications (at least I assume such, since much of your editing is in helping to set up various categories and projects)... and Freemasonry simply defies such organization. Once you get beyond "regular" Maonry, there isn't really any solid structure (and even within "regular" masonry there are differences in structure). Even the few reliable sources that have examined the fraternity conflict when it comes to describing Freemasonry. I just don't think we can make a usable dab page. Blueboar (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, there's actually a proposal by I'm fairly sure someone else which I can't find right now that every project list itself on the Project Directory has having a specific category for its scope. That's one of the reasons I am working to indicate which articles are correctly and incorrectly categorized. Regarding the rest of it, that is a first draft proposal, and it was expected that it would need probably a good deal of work. If that includes expanding it well beyond a Dab page, and into a regular, full-length article, that's what it includes. The Dab tag, and even the title, can be changed if it ever moves into article space. What I think that page is hoped to be is a page which can serve as a sandbox for everyone to add whatever they think are the minimal requirements for a "main" page on Freemasonry, as per the proposal above which was for a Dab page. Then, once we know somewhat the parameters of an article that meets everyone's requirements, then we can have a better idea what kind of material needs to be added or removed from the extant one. Maybe it could be thought of as an "outline" instead, where everyone can indicate what they think should be included in the main article, if that is what it winds up being. John Carter (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe it. Personally, I think that proposal is overkill on the organizational end. But that is just me. If the community thinks it is a good idea, we can use Category:Freemasonry. As for your dab/draft sandbox article... I did not mean to be harsh. I know your intentions are well meaning... and I thank you for that. I suppose the crux of the matter is that I see this page as being the "main" page on Freemasonry, so I am not sure why we are trying to create another "main" page. I can agree that some of the things we discuss in some detail here might work better on sub-articles...so this page might need to be re-worked and re-written a bit... but I don't really see the need to completely reinvent the wheel here.

On a side note... I am beginning to think that this is a conversation that would be better to move over to the Freemasonry Project talk page... it seems to be sliding away from just discussing this article. Blueboar (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The categories will be added in the next draft of the directory that I'm working on, whenever that gets finished, although I don't think all the projects will be necessarily complicit from the get-go. And the draft isn't so much trying to "recreate" this page, but indicating what changes in structure, content, or whatever maybe should and shouldn't be included in it. It does seem to me that there is a bit of question regarding that matter already. Once agreement on the ultimate content can be done, then I think fixing the existing content of the article would probably be a lot easier. Certainly, if one wanted to add sections of the extant article to the draft, restructure it, or whatever else, that would be more than acceptable. Also, I have found a number of Masonic offshoots which are individually listed, and a few terms relative to secret societies in general, in the Axelrod book. I'm starting a list of the articles in that dictionary at Wikipedia:WikiProject Secret Societies/Missing articles, so we can have an idea what content at least theoretically qualifies for inclusion, if anyone wants to create it. How, if at all, to fit in appropriate references to any of them in this article might be a question as well. John Carter (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Question... what do you mean by "Masonic offshoot"? There are any number of societies and groups that used Freemasonry as a model... that does not mean that they are legitimate "offshoots". Could you give us some examples? Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If I remember the entry correctly, Order of the Amazons and a few others were intended as being Masonic organizations which allowed both males and females to join, and a few others were of similar intention. Also, I wonder where Adoptive Freemasonry is mentioned so far in wikipedia. Personally, given that that has a separate entry, I have very little doubt that Freemasonry per se has a very large place in the book. Like I said below, though, I've only gotten into the early "C" in that book. The entries appear as they do because, for instance, "Order of Bears" appears as "Bears, Order of". John Carter (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Axelrod's book, BTW, is The Encyclopedia of Secret Societies and Fraternal Orders, and John has just gone and lumped them all in as "missing secret societies articles." The only things in there that are Masonic are already covered, and this fitting the evidence to your own ideas stuff has really got to go. MSJapan (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I only got up to "C". Most of them still aren't even included yet. And, certainly, several of the articles like Edward Bulwer-Lytton and Ankh might not be directly relevant to that project, and may easily be removed from that list when the list is completed and I can review the articles. Like I said, though, I've only gotten up to the letter "C" in the alphabetical encyclopedia so far. The place where the book is available locally isn't computer-friendly, so all I can do is write down the article names there. Once I get the list completed, I'll be able to review the blue links and see how many actually are relevant, and which should be removed. John Carter (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I see what you are saying... thanks. Please note that not all bodies that are claimed to be decended from Freemasonry actually are decended from Freemasonry. A good example of this is the Carbonari... the RC often states that the Carbonari are an offshoot of Freemasonry, but they actually were formed independantly, but used Freemasonry as an organizational model. I would say that to be an "offshoot", a body would have to be at least informally considered "masonic" by some legitimate Masonic Jurisdiction (note... by legitimate, I don't mean "regular"). For example, UGLE has acknowleged that, while they are "irregular", there are a few all female bodies that are "masonic". I would count these female lodges as being "offshoots". As to the term "Adoptive Freemasonry", while we don't have an article by that name, we do discuss the topic in this article... and more extensively in sub-articles: see Women and Freemasonry and Co-Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Basically, the intention of the list is to both list those articles which the book contains, so that we can make sure any content relevant to the subject is actually contained in the relevant article, and then to ensure that the articles in question clearly belong on the list. The latter will be much more problematic, but the set up of the book seems to be to include most of the nine "subcategories" of secret societies contained in the book, and then break down further into the various individual groups. And I very seriously doubt as ill-defined a word as "offshoot" should ever be included in an article. Regarding the Carbonari and others, it would always be the best idea to specificy as clearly as possible whatever relationship if any they have with the Freemasonry in general of a griven group in particular, not just describe them by a quick, easy, and inaccurate term, so I doubt we'll see "offshoots" or any similar word in the articles themselves. John Carter (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a freemason, Dave Hume?? history International freemasons_(disambiguation)

• illuminati_(disambiguation)
• Federal_Triangle
• Albert_Pike

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 14:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hopiakuta, I have no idea what you are trying to ask... Perhaps if you rephrase your question?. If you are asking if David Hume, the famous 18th century philosopher was a Mason... it does not look as if he was. At least, he is not listed on any of the "famous freemasons" lists that various Grand Lodges have on their websites (and you would think they would list him if he were a Mason... since they do list other notable philosophers and thinkers of his era). I have found a few references to other men named David Hume (A scottish military officer who helped found a lodge in Antwerp for example)... it is actually a fairly common Scottish name apparently. If you are asking about someone else, let us know. Blueboar (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank You.

Each version of your answer amounts to:

If only we would have a copy of History International's script.

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 03:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

By your comment, I assume that there is a documentary that appeared on History International about this topic. All I can say is... you should not really rely on what you have seen on History International... they are not the strongest of sources where reliable information is concerned (and certainly not for detailed information). Oh, they probably don't include outright lies (at least not knowingly) ... but they do pick and choose what information to present and script it in order to make the subject "sensational" to the viewer. I prefer to use more scholarly sources for my information. Blueboar (talk) 03:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"Orients" recognized by UGLE

This relates to a question at another article ... I know that UGLE recognizes some Grand Bodies that use the term "Orient" instead of "Lodge"... but I need some examples. As a related question... which Grand Body does UGLE currently recognize in Italy? Blueboar (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind... I found a list at the UGLE website. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia-Arabic Article

The Wikipedia-Arabic article in its current form is very shameful because it contains many false claims. For example, it states that the thoughts and dogmas of Freemasonry are very evil and satanic like: Infidelity to Allah and all faith and reject religions as silly hoaxes * يكفرون بالله ورسله وكتبه وبكل الغيبيات ويعتبرون ذلك خزعبلات وخرافات. Work to demolish religions * يعملون على تقويض الأديان. Pornography and using women as means of conrol * إباحة الجنس واستعمال المرأة كوسيلة للسيطرة. Calling for sterility and birth control among Muslims, which may diminish Muslim power * الدعوة إلى العقم الإختياري وتحديد النسل لدى المسلمين.

The Arabic article received some protests, and I tried to modify it many times, but every time it was replaced by the old misleading article.. (and they still claim that freemasons control the world!)

Deism and Freemasonry

Unfortunately, there is a lot of attempted revisionism by fundamentalist christians these days, anxious to to deny that many of America's Founding Fathers, some of them famous Masons, were in fact Deist. To deny Deism as significant in Masonry is to deny the significance of members like George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Paul Revere, Voltaire, etc. Many of the most powerful Masons in American history were Deists, and it is well documented in the historical record. If anyone here is unaware and needs lots of references here for what they should have learned in school, just reply here. Until then, please stop deleting references to Deism in the name of Jesus or for any other silly reason. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.151.209 (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. In Ben Franklin's own words: "My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist." [[1]] Wikipediaphile (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Our IP editor makes the assumption that I reverted his edit due to some sort religious POV on my part. I am not sure where he gets this idea, but it is quite incorrect. I reverted his insertion because it was essentially irrelevant to the section. The point of the list of religious faiths is to demonstrate that Masons are members of many different traditional "mainstream" faiths. Yes, there were (and probably are) Masons who have been Deists. But the vast majority were (and are) not. The fact that a few famous Masons may have been Deists is essentially irrelevant to this article, which is about Freemasonry and not about the religious faith of any individual member. We could easily give a list of other famous Masons of the Revolutionary Era who were not Deists.

I am also curious as to why the IP editor seems to think that Deism is "significant in Masronry". No single religious faith (Deism included) is significant in Masonry... as religious faith is considered a matter for the individual brother to decide and is not discussed anywhere in Freemasonry.

All that said, since there is no reason why a Mason couldn't be a Deist, I will leave the listing of Deism in the article pending further discussion... I really don't think it adds anything to the article to list it, but I don't strenuosly object to including it. Blueboar (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me second that point, Blueboar - religion plays no part in Masonry. Just last month I had the privilege of looking across the room to see a Jew take his obligations in front of Christians, Moslems, Buddhists, Jews and the odd Hindu or two. It was a wonderful lesson to the world - pity they could not see it :) docboat (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar, my apologies to you if I was wrong in my assessment of your motives, but it is a real issue I have run into frequently among masons. To answer your question, many historians believe that Deism was the inspiration for the establishment of the first Grand Lodges in England in the 18th century and the Masonry that spread to the colonies in America afterwards. It can be said the core beliefs of American and English Masonry, though not called Deism, are essentially those of the Deists: belief in a Supreme Being, belief in a universal moral code, and rejection of any particular brand of monotheism as authoritative within Masonry. You are correct that no particular faith has special significance or authority in the Craft, but the irony of that fact is that it is largely due to the influence of Deism. Deists may have been a minority in numbers, but they played a significant role during some key periods in Masonic history. Just as Masons are a tiny minority in the world, they have played a significant role in history. In the same way, you might say Deists are the 'masons of the masons', a minority who's influence has greatly outweighed their numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.151.209 (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling that you are conducting a bit of revisionism yourself. Considering that Freemasonry predates the rise of 18th Century Deism, I don't think it is correct to say that Deism was an inspiration for Freemasonry (if there is any connection, it would have to be the other way around... and even that is inaccurate). The tradition of not discussing religion in the Lodge dates to 17th Century (not the 18th) and was an outgrowth of the religious wars of that era. The concept was that by banning discussions about religion, Catholics and Protestants could meet together in harmony... without getting into sectarian argument. Your contention that the core beliefs of American and English Freemasonry are essentially those of the Deists is significantly off the mark... yes, there are similarities, but they are not actually related. First of all, having a belief in a Supreme Being and a universal moral code is not limited to Deism... it is a hall mark of Western society. Both play a part in Christianity, Judeism, Islam, and indeed most monotheistic religions (and some non-monotheistic ones as well). Your third criteria is even more off the mark ... your contention that Freemasonry involves a "rejection of any particular brand of monotheism", shows that you know little about Freemasonry. The Craft most definitely does not reject anything... it simply remains silent on the topic, leaving decisions about "brands of monotheism" up to the individual brother. There is a huge difference between rejecting something and not talking about it.

You are also quite wrong in thinking that the men who played a key roll in the history of the craft were Deists. I am not sure who you think these influential "Masons of the masons" might have been... but the men who had the greatest impact on the history and development of Freemasonry through the years, the men who created its Constitutions and rituals, the men who defined what Masonry was and is, were not Deists. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think that it rather over-states the importance of Deism as a major philosophy, in comparison to the others identified. Also the proportion of Masons who might identify as Deist is likely to be extremely low compared to the others identified. However I note that since this started a reference has been added (clearly representative since it's a reference) so any effort to remove the statement is likely top lead to the usual escalation, accusations etc.

It's OTT, but this entire subject in WP is becoming significantly less representative of Freemasonry anyway.

ALR (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, we have gotten a bit off topic. I don't think anyone is arguing that there have never been Deist Masons. I think the issue is whether we need to specify this in our list of religious faiths to which Masons adhear. I don't mind doing so, but I don't think it really adds anything to do so. I tend to think of Deism as falling under the "(but not limited to)" category.

In any case, to close off the discussion of Deism and its connection to early Freemasonry... I found this article instructive. The author's conclusion is essentially: "You can not make definitive statements about Freemasonry and religion, because it depends on who, where, and when you are talking about"... which seems to be a fairly accurate conclusion in my opinion. Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the addition of deism because a few masons wer known to be deists. If we were toi add every religion that one mason or one past master or one past grand master was the list would become unruly. I think it is best to cover the most common ones and leave it open. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well Deism is a very controversial. After all it has been removed. If it's controversial it should be referenced. Also the Duke of Sussex was a pivotal figure in the development of Freemasonry. JASpencer (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It is 1 person. There have been many people that have been influential to freemasonry. They may or may not have been diests. The fact is, this article is not an article on "REligious Beliefs of People Influential to Freemasonry" I would have no problem with a reference to deism in that article if you could make an argument for it. This article is on freemasonry in general. This articles does not warrant a list of the religious affiliciations of every notable mason. I believe a list of the most common is appropriate. If you can demonstrate that deism is a popular belief among masons, I have no objection to including it. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Merely because it's been removed is hardly a convincing argument for saying it's either controversial or should be included. Deism really isn't on a par with Christianity, Islam etc in terms of numbers of adherents (if one could be described as such), official recognition, any form of organisation etc.

ALR (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, just because something is controvercial, does not mean it merits discussion in any given section. It has to relate directly to what is being discussed. The religious leanings of one Mason is not important to the larger question of Freemasonry and religion. I would also disagree with the contention that the Duke of Sussex was all that influential to Freemasonry. He simply happened to be chosen as the first Grand Master of UGLE. It had become tradition in English Freemasonry to elect a member of the Royal Family as Grand Master. Prior to the Union of the Moderns and the Ancients, the Duke of Sussex was Grand Master of the Moderns... while his brother (I think he was the Duke of Kent, but I may have the wrong Dukedom here) was Grand Master of the Antients. With the Union, there was a choice between one or the other. Neither one really played a big roll in the unification. Blueboar (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, the more I think about this, the more I come back to my original position... Deism just isn't in the same category as the others on the list. I have added an "etc.", which covers any and all religious faiths not specifically listed. The "controvercy" over whether Masonry was influenced by Deism or not (or, alternatively, whether it influenced Deism or not) might belong in some other section ... but it just does not fit in this section. Blueboar (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I very seriously doubt that your own, unsupported, to date unsourced, opinion, or that of anyone else, is sufficient basis for changing the existing content of any article. However, if you wish to have a discussion on the subject of Deism, then I believe that we would be best advised to contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion for what might be some individuals with a greater degree of expertise and/or individuals who can contact someone with such knowledge. However, I think that we can all agree that seeking to change content based on the unverified, unsupported opinions of editors who are not considered experts in the field is almost certainly directly against the guidelines of wikipedia. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Restoration of deleted material

The statements made in the section which has been restored is similar to that which was taken by at least a few news organizations. On that basis, I believe that we are more than justified in asking those individuals who wish to remove this information to provide alternate sources of their contention that their interpretation of the ruling be such that the information should not be mentioned at all. Also, I have to once again question how it is remotely justifiable to remove sourced material on the basis of it disagreeing with an indidivual editor's POV. Discussing changes to the sourced content is one thing, removing it outright is something else entirely. And I note once again that the editor who removed the content made no effort to make his own to discuss the matter before taking such highly questionable steps as unilaterally removing sourced content. I now hope that the matter receives the full input required to determine whether such content can be added. Yes, I know it has been discussed before, but that is not reason to say that it cannot be discussed again. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The statement I deleted grossly mischaractarised both the court's comment (actually a footnote in the decisison) and the Pew forum source that is cited. It takes both the court's footnoted comment and the source out of context. I have attempted to re-write the statement and place things back in context... but I suspect that my re-write will need further work. Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Systematic Bias?

I've been thinking about this for some time and I'm going to post this to see if people here agree with me. Although much of this post is about Latin Freemasonry, this is about the treatment of Freemasonry in general and so I've put it on this page.

It follows on from the question of deist members and Freemasonry as a religon on this page, and also questions on Latin Freemasonry. I believe that there is a systematic bias throughout Wikipedia towards UGLE freemasonry, and I believe that this is the fault of many contributors here.

Firstly I am in no way questioning the good faith of any currently acting editors. I believe that the bias is due to a large number of unquestioned assumptions that to outsiders like myself appear either to be ludicrous or highly controversial, and there is an awful lot of head butting when this is carried out.

The reason I've come to this conclusion is the reaction to the article I started on Latin Freemasonry. The very need for the article itself was questioned as a POV fork because it took material from two or three other articles, notably Catholicism and Freemasonry. The idea that it was in itself a subject worthy of an article took a while to be accepted. This has changed my view of the nature of the editors who are Freemasons. On the face of it this is a bizarre point of view as Latin Freemasonry was the most politically influential strand of Freemasonry, and it still is the second strongest strand by numbers (although that is by some distance from UGLE Freemasonry).

My previous belief had been that there were strong points of view involved, and I too had strong points of view, but that these were not bad in themselves. In a way they could counteract each other. I now believe that it has gone beyond this. The disputes over Latin Freemasonry opened my eyes to this. Due to the fact I am a Catholic whose politics are somewhat to the right, I have no brief for this fiercely anti-clerical and left wing phenomena. But it is as obvious as the sky is blue that it is important and worthy of an article.

Recently there have been strong objections to using self-descriptions such as "liberal freemasonry" or "adogmatic freemasonry" or else its existence as a coherant entity questioned. I think there is a simple reason, and that is that it is simply not seen as important because many editors have been taught that it is not important, and this view coincides with the view of the United Grand Lodge of England, which regards these bodies simply as "irregular". This was confirmed by an exchange that MSJapan had earlier this year with a Belgian (and so Latin) Freemason. He quite cheerfully admitted that articles on "continental style" freemasonry where likely to be systematically challenged on notability grounds. His objection was to a large (56 member) international Masonic organisation called CLIPSAS.

This pattern also shows itself on the Freemasonry pages with sensitive topics such as Freemasonry's religious status or its relationship with deism having sourced material being deleted at will.

In short I believe that within Wikipedia there is a systematic bias towards the Anglophone Freemasonry. I further believe that alternative views are wrongly being treated as inherently unreliable (although with patchy results). I believe that this is done by a small number of editors who are Anglophone Freemasons, because they are Freemasons. Although I do not question the good faith of any of the editors, I believe that this is being done in a systematic way.

I could go on, but I think that it is time to open up this particular idea to the floor.

JASpencer (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I beleive that I can establish that virtually all the variant forms of Freemasonry are almost certainly notable as per WP:NOTABILITY, so I have to seriously question one of the statements quoted above. Also, I too have noted that there does seem to be a pronounced, very likely unconscious, extant bias in favor of UGLE Freemasonry, with editors having expressed concerns repeatedly that what they call "irregular" Freemasonry should not be taken as being relevant to "regular" Freemasonry. Certainly, Freemasonry, which has served as the basis for most of the non-religious, -business, and -governmental organizations in the Western World today is an extremely important subject. I also have noted the concerns that individuals have said that sourced content should be adjusted on the basis of certain statements being "very important" to Freemasonry, and even literally saying that the Freemasonry Project, above, tries to maintain a "low profile", for fears of persecution, evidently, ignoring the fact that virtually every religion project could have the same concerns, but does not let them impact their actions. I too cannot help but question whether some of these editors may have, knowingly or unknowingly, been influenced by factors which cannot help to both color the content and, ultimately, deter from the quality of the content related to the subject in wikipedia. For what it's worth, in the interests of full disclosure, as I reveal on my user page, I am a Roman Catholic, and my politics are probably described as "right" by most people, although I question that myself. My own view of Freemasonry is that it is an extremely important subject, and that it needs to be addressed. I have personal reservations about all secret societies, and those extend to Freemasonry as well. However, I sincerely hope that those opinions of mine have in no way colored my opinions of those who choose to join such groups, but are rather simply "organizational" concerns. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We're comparing apples and oranges here. UGLE Freemasonry is very well-known, and very well-established; there are entire books of lists of nothing but UGLE lodges. CLIPSAS, OTOH, is a group where you might have 6 so-called "Grand Lodges" in a place like Belgium, and no indication of the sizes thereof. These days, the Internet allows Grand Lodges of one (like RGLE), and at that point, WP becomes an advertising vehicle for people who wish to make personal and illegitimate profit off of Freemasonry. So there is definitely a concern about legitimacy, and not making illegitimate organizations sound legitimate by giving them WP entries, especially when no information about them can be found. Furthermore, there is of course going to be UGLE bias, because UGLE people are the largest group! We can only contribute on what we know about.

I think some of the concern with the Latin Freemasonry article was probably (best guess) that it was a culled article, and put together by someone with a negative bias solely to be a negative article on Freemasonry to prove some kind of point, as JAS's statement of POV speaks to. "Latin Freemasonry" also assumes that such activities were confined solely to South America, when in fact, there is a huge difference between "Anglophone" Masonry, which has always been non-political, and "Continental/Liberal/whatever" Masonry, which has always been political, so perhaps there was a misnomer there as well. See The Secret History of the Freemasons by Jasper Ridley for a much better treatment of this.MSJapan (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not myself aware of whether the CLIPSAS group is included in the Encyclopedia by Axelrod. However, inclusion in such a source as a separate entry I believe does indicate that at least that such an entity is in fact notable as per wikipedia guidelines. I do not immediately have access to the volume, nor do I have the list of articles included in it that I made earlier at hand, but will return with that information, with any luck, Monday. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

JAS, I think you do have a point here. There is a bit of bias towards Anglo/UGLE Style Freemasonry. This raises two questions: Why? and What can we do about it?

"Why?" is, I think, easy enough to explain. There are several reasons...

1) This is the English version of Wikipedia. As such it is edited predominantly by English speakers, who come from English speaking parts of the world... mostly from England, the US, Canada, and Australia. It makes sense that they write about the form of Freemasonry that is familiar to them - the form that predominates in these parts of the world... which is going to be the Anglo/UGLE affiliated form of Freemasonry. I am not saying that this excuses the bias, but it does explain it.

2) While you are correct in saying that the "continental style" Freemasonry (most often associated with the Grand Orient de France, although there are "continental style" Grand Lodges and Grand Orients that are not in amity with GOdF) is the second largest "branch" of Masonry... when placed in the context of Masonry as a whole, it is minority "branch". "Anglo/UGLE style" Freemasonry is significantly larger than "Franco/GOdF style Freemasonry". Thus, while I agree that it is proper to discuss both forms, we do have issues of weight to contend with. In any article about Freemasonry as a whole, the bulk of the article is going to be about Anglo/UGLE Masonry, simply because that is the form of Masonry that predominates around the world. Again... While this does not excuse us from discussing other significant forms... indeed, NPOV demands that we do discuss them... it does explain the amount of space and weight that is given to Anglo/UGLE style.

3) Part of the "bias" also stem from the fact that Anglo/UGLE style freemasonry is more cohesive than Continental style... the Grand Lodges that form the UGLE branch of Freemasonry all tend to share common landmarks and ways of doing things. There isn't uniformity by any means, but they are uniform enough that they can be viewed (and, more importantly for our purposes, discribed) as a whole. Continental Freemasonry, on the other hand, is much less cohesive. Significant differences exist between, and even within, the various Grand Bodies. Some accept Athiests, some don't... some accept women, some don't... some get involved in political discussions, others don't... etc. etc. etc. This makes them much more difficult to discribe in an article. In fact, I think we have been over simplifying the situation when we state that there are two branches of Freemasonry (Anglo vs. Continental).... the reality is much more complex there are multiple branches of Freemasonry... a very large and fairly stable branch that is in amity with UGLE, a much smaller (but sizable), less stable branch, that tends to be in amity with GOdF, and a whole bunch of other tiny, unstable branches, with shifting degrees of amity with each other and with the two larger ones. Because the UGLE branch is significantly larger it can get away with lumping every thing into two parts: UGLE branch vs. All other branches ... "regular" vs. "irregular" ... but the reality is more along the lines of: "regular" vs "irregular" vs "also irregular" vs "this is irregular too" vs "this is so totally beyond the pale that it should not be considered a branch of Freemasonry".

In other words... we are biased towards Anglo Freemasonry because it is much easier to discribe than the other branches of Freemasonry. There really isn't one "Continental" style... there are, in fact, multiple "Continental styles".

So now we come to the question: What can we do about it? .... that is a much harder question to answer. I don't really have a good answer. I have problems with all the attempts to adress it so far, but I am certainly willing to explore further attempts.

Finally, a slightly more personal comment directed at JAS... Part of what you are discribing as bias is, in fact, not really bias at all... but a desire to correct misinformation and to counter bias. I don't mean this as a personal attack, but you are not neutral on the subject of Freemasonry. As you admit, you come to these articles with a fairly right-wing Catholic point of view (which is, I hope you will agree, an Anti-masonic POV). This POV influences what (and how) you write about Freemasonry. Please understand that I am not saying that your POV is invalid ... I am simply pointing out that it does influence you. To give but one example: Much of what you have added to the various aricles on Freemasonry focuses on Freemasonry (and especially the Continental/GOdF style) being "Anti-clerical". Given your POV, this is totally understandable. The fact that some of these bodies have been outspoken about the role of the Church in politics is a big deal for the Church, and to those who look at things from the Church's POV. The problem is that it isn't really all that much of a big deal for Masons... it isn't a big deal for Masons from the Continental style lodges, and it is completely irrelevant for the majority of Masons, who hail from Anglo style lodges. Thus (to those of us writing from the Masonic POV) your focus on "anti-clericism" skews these articles... it magnifies something that is (again from the Masonic POV) tiny, and takes it out of context.

What I am getting at is this... when you write about Freemasonry, and especially about Continental Freemasonry, you tend to write based on your POV, and that introduces its own bias. While I agree that I need to examine and address my "pro-UGLE" bias, I ask you to examine your own bias and address it as well. If we both do this, I think we can write some very good articles together. Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I would encourage the above user to assume good faith and sound judgement of others as well. Like I said above, I am myself a Roman Catholic, but my own reservations about Freemasonry extend in equal amount to the Knights of Columbus, Knights of Malta, and other such organizations. I do believe that we would all be better off if we did not instantly jump to assumptions that those who are not Masons are in some way inherently biased against it. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

John, I do assume good faith with JAS... or at least I try to (and most of the time, I succeed). I certainly respect him as an editor. My comments are based on more than two years of working with him, and not an assumption of bad faith. Blueboar (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Giving you more experience with him than I have. My apologies if I spoke out of line. John Carter (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In my experience among non-masons in America or, especially, the UK being right wing (as long as its not the extreme right) tends to mean that you have a benign attitude towards Freemasonry, while being left wing tends to mean that you are more suspicious of it. Stephen Knights "The Brotherhood" seems to be written from a generally left wing standpoint, for example. As far as I can make out, this is due to Freemasonry's perceived links with the establishment. It's true that this reverses in Catholic cultures and that a person's religious attitudes can influence their attitude towards Freemasonry more than their political attitudes.

I would also say that I don't have a problem with conflicting Points of View. People have them and we should work with that. What I worry about is when a point of view is unexamined and unacknowledged. I believe that with the partial exception of Freemasonry and religion articles, there is a pro-UGLE point of view throughout the English Wikipedia on Freemasonry articles that has been unchallenged. While the articles about Christian attitudes towards Freemasonry are battlefields at times - we know that and to some extent can deal with this through established Wikipedia policies such as WP:RS and WP:V. We also have editors who are watching each others' edits which may not make for the most elegant language does mean that POV edits are challenged.

Where the real problem lies is where there are no proponents of the opposite point of view. Latin Freemasonry was an obvious area. The fact that there was no article on this historically important movement was astounding. I feel bolder in addressing this issue because no one is going to accuse me of holding a brief for the orients.

As a matter of record I'm not anti-Mason. I certainly think that it is inappropriate for a Catholic to join, but I do accept that many of the crime and corruption conspiracy theories surrounding freemasonry are overwrought. I also have far fewer problems with secret societies as such. I suppose that's the right wing thing again.

JASpencer (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

One problem I believe we all can address is the fact that, for better or ill, all such "secret societies" in the broadest sense here will have a tendency toward not having knowably creditable outside sources. Spycatcher is one outside Freemasonry example of this sort of thing. Is it accurate? No one who knows will say anything, evidently. On that basis, I think that one problem all such organizations have is the reliability of any outside sources of information. I do think that it would probably be in the best interests of everyone involved if we could come to some sort of agreement just how much weight should be given to negative comments about all such organizations which come from outside the organization itself. Clearly, insiders can easily say that they are not based on accurate information, and it's impossible to verify otherwise if all such internal matters are kept private. Does that mean that the information is necessarily wrong? Probably not. It was basically because of this issue that I recently posted a message on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. With any luck, we can get some outside comments regarding how much weight, if any, to give sources of information from former Freemasons or other external sources which would be useful in determining content. And, for what it's worth, I should clarify that while I do have reservations about any social group which has strict privacy policies, and note how historically those groups have been involved in any number of incidents of covert action, I do not necessarily take exception to them on that basis. The United States was formed by a cabal of Freemasons, among others, and I live there. Unfortunately, almost by definition, it's hard to know what if any similar info might be being kept back today, and I who like knowing everything (just ask me) have moderate reservations about that. John Carter (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the reason someone is usually a "former Freemason" is because they were expelled for conduct, suspended for not paying dues, or somehow felt it conflicted with some shift in their religious belief. These are all reasons to have a negative viewpoint of the Fraternity. A lot of the "Secrets EXPOSED!!!!"-type writers also never held the positions in Freemasonry that they claimed on the book jackets. So it's questionable that the source would be "legitimate", much less accurate or unbiased. I'll see what you had to say on FRINGE. MSJapan (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the board, that's not what FRINGE is for, and it's inappropriate to canvass like that. MSJapan (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the secrets exposed tabloid stuff I think we can all agree can be discounted, pretty much as being on the level of the National Enquirer. However, there are sources from others which might not be quite as dubious. I for instance remember having heard a reference to someone who wrote an article about some new religious movement after he reconverted to Catholicism as part of his "penance". A source such as that might not be quite as dubious. Those are the kinds of sources which I would possibly entertain, unless of course they indicate that the subject is an instrument of Satan out to molest little kiddies or whatever, in which case they can be written off as the goofball lunacy they clearly are. And I note the objections to the earlier statement, which has to date gotten no response. I agree it is no more appropriate to canvass opinions there than it is from the WikiProject Freemasonry page, which so far as I can tell is only watched almost exclusively by active Freemasons, and have since revised and expanded the statement.

Examples: The Hiram Key is written by two active Masons. How reliable of a source is it regarding matters of internal Freemasonry which do not seem to be otherwise discussed outside of the often closed world of Freemasonry? Also, how reliable are the numberous sources which compare Rosslyn Chapel to the Temple of Solomon, which as I remember is supported by the above named book or another by the same authors. How much weight should such information receive? John Carter (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

JAS... you said something in passing above that stuck me, and may go to the heart of some of our dilemma... in talking about "Latin" Freemasonry you said: "The fact that there was no article on this historically important movement was astounding."... I think part of the problem is that from the Masonic side of the discussion (and especially from the "regular" masonic viewpoint) it wasn't a historically important movement. At best it was a fairly insigificant part of a much broader movement - the general trend towards a secular, democratic society. I suppose the difference in opinion in part stems from whether you accept the idea that Freemasonry was a driving force behind this general trend or not. Blueboar (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

True. However, that does not explain why the article was so quickly reacted to as negatively as it was. That could easily be seen as being individuals attempting to limit content based on their own POV, which, however well-informed, is something that can and should be avoided, as seeking to make content conform to any POV is clearly against wikipedia policy. And, if there are enough sources to verify the notability of the subject, then there is no cause to question it. Also, unfortunately, as many of us know, it is often the case that an article about a less important subject be both better constructed and more detailed than a more central article. Maximus the Confessor contains as much, if not more, material on Monothelitism than Monothelitism itself does. We should all realize that it is often the case that these daughter articles develop better and faster than the often much more difficult main article. No one should ever jump to the conclusion that any subject has to be considered notable simply from their own POV. Unfortunately, I think that it is clear that the subject of "Latin Freemasonry" or whatever one wants to call it is clearly notable. So, for that matter, are all the other variations of Freemasonry in any of the books mentioned. If the articles on those subordinate subjects become better or more recognized than what some think is the "parent" article, that has to be permitted. WP:NPOV and WP:Undue weight apply only within an article itself. They cannot be made to apply across articles. John Carter (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

break/Bias continues

Actually, the reason why I reacted to that article so swiftly and so negatively has nothing to do with the topic's notability. It had everything to do with my perception of it being a POV fork, created (in my view) to save material that I had just cut from the Catholicism and Freemasonry article for having serious POV and OR problems. JAS has explained that this was not his intent... and while I have had difficulty assuming good faith about this, I have chosen to accept his explanation. You will note that the debate at that page has moved on from my initial concerns... and that now we are focusing on defining the scope of the article (which has an impact on its title and what is discussed and how). Blueboar (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Responding to the question of reliability of information about these "secret" societies, in most lodges the bulk of information is not "secret". A large amount of material has been written by both freemasons and non-members on that aspect, including much of what occurs within a lodge. The main truly "secret" aspects involve what most people would probably call the "passwords" and "secret signs". Some lodges and masons will even encourage new members to be open with their spouses, and other close loved ones, about what exactly went on in their "initiation" barring those couple "truly secret" things. The order of ritual, the allegorical and moral lessons, etc etc are not really in any way "secret" and the details are available in a virtual cornucopia of references. Vassyana (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. there are LOTS of sources on this. Although there will always be some (conspiracy nuts) who will think that any source written by Masons must be leaving things out and "hiding the truth".

More to the point of this discussion, we do have a problem in that the bulk of this reliable material deals with Anglo/US Masonry, and that much less has been written concerning the European/Contintental style. A lot of what has been written about Continental Freemasonry is not neutral... written by those who have been in opposition to it (The Catholic Church, for example) or by people with an axe to grind (some of this is favorable to Masonry, but skews the discussion in favor of a particular view point... such as trying to prove that Masonry was a sort of proto-communism). This isn't to say we can not use these sourcs, but we do have to take notice of and weigh the POV and neutrality of the authors when we judge their reliability. All of these facts about sources leads to a certain amount of bias in articles, and makes it difficult to balanace things when discussing the differences between the two branches of Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Vassyana. Part of the problem, like I mentioned above, is what to do with sources written by Freemasons which purport to describe some of the so-called "secrets". Thinking again of The Hiram Key and the like here. Personally, I can and do write off most of that as being some weird version of publicity seeking. But, as both authors state, there officially are no oaths of secrecy in the UK now (seemingly to imply there were earlier - I can't myself address that though), and that they are thus free to discuss these so-called "secrets". It would probably need other, probably multiple, reliable sources, possibly within Freemasonry itself, to indicate that what these individuals say is completely wrong. Again, I personally think most of it probably is. Regarding the other versions of Freemasonry, I think one of our best options is probably to create as much stub-like content on all the variations, either separately or in a main article like defunct Masonic organizations. This would help both establish the very great range of influence Freemasonry has had in the world, and make it easier for individuals interested in developing content relating to those groups to do so, hopefully in a NPOV way. It would also, unfortunately, create more potential battlegrounds. However, if we can establish, possibly through quotes from Axelrod and others, in this article and elsewhere that Freemasonry has had a profound influence on a variety of types of social organizations, I think that the likelihood of vandalism might drop, as the articles would then have more content relating to more subjects, and be more likely to come across as being basic encyclopedia articles, rather than discussions of a particularly hot button subject. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We have to judge all sources similarly... Masonic and non-masonic. We have to ask questions like, what are the author's credentials?... is it likely that they know what they are talking about?... What is their reputation?... and How do others view their work? Some non-masonic sources are highly reliable. Others not so. And some Masonic sources are reliable; Others are not so. In the specific case of the Hiram Key... here we have a source that, while Masonic, should not be considered reliable. Lomas and Knight have been criticized by respected historians for stringing together suppositions and guesses and leave huge gaps in their logical reasoning. They will take a known fact in one chapter... use it as the basis for pure speculation in the next...and then go on to treat that specualtion as "accepted fact" in other chapters... then using that new "accepted fact" to speculate on yet further ideas which, in turn, get presented as fact later in the book. When you examine the book as a whole, it is an intreaging speculative house of cards, but not good history. Blueboar (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I very much have to question the beginning sentence. If it is clear that a source is Masonic, then there is a very likely possibility that the source itself may have a very clear COI. The emphasis on "third party" content in WP:RS makes it clear that parties which themselves may have an obvious COI in general, whether such a direct COI can be verified regarding specific subject matter, makes any such sources extremely suspect. And if one wants to question the applicability of the specific example I cited, well and good. I was not however seeking to refer explicitly to that particular volume other but just use it as an immediately recognizable example. And questioning their conclusions is certainly valid. The question I was seeking to have addressed would be the matter of their possible first-hand knowledge of certain internal matters which might not be known by outside parties. A similar question could be raised about an employee of the Vatican Secret Archives who might reveal that there are a number of unacknowledge documents regarding, for example, Vatican opposition to Joan of Arc. Or, for instance, someone who writes a book or testifies regarding the sometimes unknown internal workings of a criminal organization. Granted, it would help to establish the reliability of an author if his conclusions and other material agrees with otherwise known information. However, if they are in a position to know information which might not be knowable by outsiders, would their information regarding that knowledge be automatically suspect, regardless of the validity of their conclusions? In all honesty, this is one of the biggest problems faced regarding all content regarding Secret societies, and that is one of the reasons why I think it deserves discussion. Certainly, the conclusions reached here may well be applied in several other, similar, instances as well. John Carter (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, what I was talking about really relates more to WP:Undue weight rather than WP:RS or WP:V. Any published book about Joan of Arc can be considered a Reliable Source under WP:RS rules. It does not matter whether the author worked for the Vatican or not (it does not even matter if the author was a Catholic or not). What makes it RS is that it was reliably published. Similarly, any published book about Masonry is considered RS... whether written by a Mason or not. However, in judging how much weight to give a particular source ... ie whether the source should be considered more reliable than another source, we have to look at all the factors I outlined above... things like what is the reputation of the author? What are his/her credentials? Is he/she considered an expert in the field? Is the author in a position to actually know what he or she is talking about? etc. We also have to consider things like WP:FRINGE.

I guess what I am saying is: While many things can be considered Reliable Sources under Wikipedia's rules, not every Reliable Source should be relied upon, and some sources are more reliable than others. I would certainly consider a well respected Catholic theologian more reliable for statements about Catholic theology than some popular author, even though there may be some degree of COI in the theologian's statements. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding theology, I would agree. Regarding internal workings of the organization, that's another matter. This would be particularly relevant if the people in a position to know would clearly have a pronounced COI. And part of the problem with organizations that are known for secrets, rightly or wrongly, is that it's impossible to tell how much weight to give certain material, particularly when there is at least an apparent COI. Regarding this particular subject, I don't myself give much if any credence to the woo-woo stupidity of most claims, at least regarding the current extant organizations. Whether the same holds true for earlier generations, or specific forms of the organization, is another question. How does one determine the due amount of weight regarding a subject about which the only other sources available known to be informed on the subject could be seen as having a clearer COI than the one in question? Personally, my default response would be to try to split it 50-50, but if one side's total response is, effectively, "We deny this" or "No comment", if even that much, without any form of support, the answer's still not real clear. It's really hard to try to determine how much weight to give any statements about internal matters if the only other parties known to know are silent regarding the matter or simply deny it without any further details. It's a bit easier to determine such things regarding, for instance, the US government, because of the number of blabbermouths who seem to work for that entity. But, for example, criminal organizations are another matter entirely. John Carter (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would consider an approved Vatican source to be more reliable on the "inner workings" of the Catholic Church than a source outside of the Church, wouldn't you? Let's take the example of the election of a Pope... normally this is a secret process. The Cardinals are not supposed to talk about what happens in Conclave. But... if one of the Cardinals were to write about what was discussed in a conclave, I would consider it very reliable. Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, if we were talking about information released seriously after the fact, like, for instance, notebooks released on the death of a writer. I wouldn't see any need to question them, provided they don't say something which is really strange. But in that case it's more than not being supposed to not talk about it, it's a matter of policy. That would call into question why this person chose to say something when doing so might cost them their position as a cardinal, if that were why they left office. Certainly, in most cases, I would think that seeing fit to violate that policy probably wouldn't be an isolated instance, so we might be talking about a person who lost his position at around the same time he released such a report. Which happened first? Who knows? Again, the Spycatcher book above is another example. How creditable is it? Who knows? How much weight should be given such information? Generally, I could agree to separate articles, with maybe a quick reference in the main article, like in that case, but under some circumstances even that parallel won't hold. And what if the information were only mildly prejudicial, like, for instance, nepotism? Such allegations might be only "the tip of the iceberg", or they might not, or they might even be false. How much weight do you give something you really can't address for independent verifiability one way or another? John Carter (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How much weight do you give something you really can't address for independent verifiability one way or another? You do the best you can with what you do have. It isn't always easy, and when it concerns a contentious issue it is bound to cause some degree of argument and wrangling back and forth on talk pages until a consensus can be reached. Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, in such instances, I think the best way to proceed would be to create a separate page for the content in question. If it is sufficiently notable for inclusion, and if there is sufficient potential content to justify it being a separate page, it would make sense and be completely in accord with policy to present one perspective on an issue which takes up too much space to be presented in toto in a parent article. John Carter (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Having read through the entire article, I can't help getting the impression that it all reads a bit like it was written as some kind of press release or a brochure for Freemasonry. Here in Greece, a certain journalist named Costas Tsarouhas had written, around the time of the P2 scandal, a very extensive book titled "Η Μασονία Στην Ελλάδα" (Freemasonry In Greece), ISBN: 9603447145, questioning the practices of Freemasonry - among the issues he raised were the participation of masonic lodges in the dictatorship of 1967 (George Papadopoulos and Stylianos Pattakos were both listed as freemasons in this book, which also had a pretty extensive listing of Greek freemasons) and also mentions another occasion: a newspaper in Crete wrote about the shooting down of two Greek Noratlas transport planes by friendly fire during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974, claiming it was the result of espionage by the masonic lodge located in Iraklio. The lodge sued the newspaper for libel, but lost the trial. I have yet to see any announcement that the Greek lodges during the 1967 dictatorship were acting "irregularly" and would be most interested to see someone address these claims; so far, no lodge in Greece has refuted them. Most interesting, in my opinion. I honestly would like to see more extensive coverage of allegations of this kind, especially when they are documented by journalists who enjoy a long-standing reputation in their countries, instead of merely dismissing everything as hoaxes or unfounded claims. Elp gr (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Another point of criticism against Freemasonry on which I would like to see a response is the claim, on behalf of Masonic organizations, that various famous individuals were freemasons, while facts either refute their claims outright or there is no hard evidence that said persons were indeed freemasons. Elp gr (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Many of your comments are discussed at various sub-articles that are linked in text to this one. This is a general overview... we can't and shouldn't go into every criticism. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The people who generally claim people are Freemasons when they aren't usually are not Freemasons, and do so with no proof, usually for some sort of negative reason. The only person I know of who is consistently claimed a Freemason by Freemasons and isn't is Thomas Jefferson. Just because a website or book says "freemason" on it doesn't mean it's legitimate or well-researched, and believe it or not, authors do have ulterior motives. We have not "dismissed" anything; you yourself say that we should directly deal with men being called Freemasons when fact says otherwise, and many hoaxes do the same thing - they either claim men are Freemasons when they are not (all the US Presidents/world political leaders/etc.,), or claim that Freemasons do things they do not (religious practices, political machinations, and so on). So why should we not apply the rules fairly across the board? If a claim is not supported by fact, why should it be stated otherwise, whether it applies to a person or a thing?

In regards to the other item, it has generally been the practice of Masonic lodges not to comment, and losing a suit can occur for many reasons aside from being guilty (which isn't even possible on the part of a plaintiff), so it is unwise to comment on the merits of the case without having said case at hand. If someone chooses not to comment on something, that is not an admission of guilt or wrongdoing. I'm sure that the court record is publicly available, and you can therefore check that for yourself.

Furthermore, we simply cannot deal with every incident that has ever arisen in every country in every language since the beginning of time with any lodge. What we have dealt with is various general and persistent criticisms, and primarily in English, as this is the English-language Wikipedia. The purpose of an encyclopedia in general is to be a concise overview, not an end-all and be-all of information on a topic, and we need to keep that in mind. someone who wants to know about religious or political issues surrounding Freemasonry is going to get more use out of broad strokes than tiny points. If they want to know more, it is up to them to look.MSJapan (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming question

Several webpages seem to use the phrase "Craft Masonry" or some variation on that as a way of referring to what might be called "regular" Freemasonry. Would use of that phrase, or a similar one, be considered acceptable as a way to name a page on specifically that body? John Carter (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding... "Craft Masonry" and "Regular Freemasonry" refer to different concepts. "Craft Masonry" refers to the degrees that are conferred in the Lodge... specifically referring to the Lodges that confer the three basic degrees of Masonry and the Grand Lodges/Orients that supervise them ... as opposed to the various bodies that confer other degrees (such as the York Rite or Scottish Rite). "Regular Freemasonry", on the other hand, refers to which Lodges (and which Grand Lodges/Orients) are recognised and in affiliation with any given Lodge and Grand Lodge... it is specifically used to discribe the UGLE/US branch of Freemasonry... as opposed to GOdF and all the other branches and bodies that are not recognized by the UGLE/US bodies (ie "irregular masonry".) The opposite of Craft is Appendant ... and the opposite of Regular is Irregular... A Craft Lodge can be Irregular. And a recognized appendant body can be considered "regular". Blueboar (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Regular Freemasonry", on the other hand, refers to which Lodges (and which Grand Lodges/Orients) are recognised and in affiliation with any given Lodge and Grand Lodge... it is specifically used to discribe the UGLE/US branch of Freemasonry I disagree, Blueboar, and think that pushes a UGLE/US POV. Regularity is self determined, recognition is external relations. Henderson did a long discussion about this in his World Guide - there may be Grand Lodges which are regular, but not recognized, for example GOI and RGLI: which one is regular? Both? Neither? UGLE recognizes RGLI, does that make it regular? (although, it's official TITLE says so, whether it counts as regular or not is a POV on either side) GLMA recognizes GOI, does that make it regular? Does it make RGLI irregular? I realy think the regularity issue needs to be dropped from Wikipedia, in terms of defining what is and isn't masonry, and in terms of developing a descriptor, because that leads to Regular/Irregular POV forks. The issue of how each GL deals with determining whom they consider to be regular and then recognize, that should be treated on in summary on the main article, or maybe at Grand Lodge, and then expanded on each individual GL page, if it can be sourced (which will be tough in the US, based on COGMINA.)--Vidkun (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I have seen (though I can't give reliable sources at this time) the habit among American Masons to use the phrase Blue Lodge to refer to those lodges, and their system, which confer the three degrees. Early in my time looking in at the wikipedia articles about freemasonry, I saw an attempt to shift away from that style, and more towards the use of Craft Freemasonry as the term/description. It IS used as a term directly from UGLE official documents, specifically in the Act of Union wherein they describe "Antient Craft Masonry as composed of the three degrees" (I KNOW I don't have that wording perfect), which official use might lead some to believe that is a distinction peculiar to the UGLE aligned GL's. And I'd argue that there may be a point to that, but I don't, at this time, have reliable sourcing to source it, so I'll say what I know: the Continental/Liberal/whatever the heck we call it, Grand Lodges and Grand Orients tend to act more as confederations of Lodges, allowing more flexibility at the Lodge level, especially in ritual workings. Thus, you may have lodges working the French Rite (actually the Scottish Rite as it supposedly was before Pike's changes), the Rectified Scottish Rite, Emulation, Logic, Bristol, Memphis-Misraim et al ad nauseam. In some of these Lodges, they may do work beyond the first three degrees, as there is less of a distinction between working the three and working further degrees, at the Lodge level. This may derive, in part, from Grand Orient organizational issues, wherein the Grand Officers are, in some cases, responsible to a Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite. In one of the talk pages for the term Grand Lodge, I put a quote from a book that deals with that issue.[2] So, there may be an interesting line of research there, see if anyone else has written about the use of the phrase Craft Masonry as being synonymous with UGLE aligned Masonry.--Vidkun (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggested myself using the phrase "Blue Lodge" to describe a separate page, and was told that it would probably not be acceptable. I acknowledge that the meaning of the two phrases seems to be different, as per the comments above. However, given that Craft Freemasonry seems to deal with only those three degrees which are recognized by regular Freemasonry, it might serve as a rough title, if it is the case that the Grand Orients or whatever they're called occasionally use the "additional" degrees. Otherwise, it probably wouldn't be an acceptable name. It does however seem to be a good idea to be able to find soe specific name which could be used to describe UGLE Freemasonry. I know that "traditional" or any synonym to use regarding UGLE type Masonry might be argued by the Grand Orients, so that's out, but would the phrase "Traditional British Freemasonry" or some rough equivalent maybe be a bit more acceptable? John Carter (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Blue Lodge issue is correct, as its use would show an American POV - it's an American colloquialism in Masonry. given that Craft Freemasonry seems to deal with only those three degrees which are recognized by regular Freemasonry That's not correct - what my GL calls irregular (for example, Grand Orient of France and Grand Lodge of France) still use the first three degrees. Those degrees are necessary and sufficient for something to be Masonry - though not sufficient for my GL to call it regular. It's a difficult terminology issue - you as a non-mason, use the term recognized, which has a different specialized meaning to Masons. I'm not saying you don't know that meaning. Recognition is something that is done between Grand Lodges ... however, there are some Grand Lodge jurisdictions wherein their rules specify that such and such appendant body is recognized by the GL. Degrees, as themselves, aren't things that are recognized or not. As for figuring out what to call Freemasonry that is aligned with the UGLE, shouldn't we be looking for what other, reliable sources, have called it? I don't think we can come up with a name for that will meet the verifiability requirements - for example, we can't rename (but can have a redirect) the article on the Roman Catholic Church to be simply Catholic Church. I'm not picking that article to dig at your religion, John, but to use an example that might more easily explain why the naming issue will be a tough one to figure out.--Vidkun (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No reservations, although I would note in the case you cited above the second name actually is the official name of the body in question. Regarding what other people call UGLE-type Freemasonry, yeah, we would be best served by using a name which has already been used, if we can find one which is already agreed upon. That's why I first proposed Blue Lodge some time ago, seeing it repeatedly used in books published in America as a way of differentiating bodies. Certainly, Blue lodge and any other terms could be made redirects to whatever article may ultimately be created. WP:NAME is definitely what we should follow here, and on that basis I think it might potentially be possible to use "Blue lodge" as it does seem to be a name that at least American English speakers would easily recognize. But, as per the church above, there could well be serious arguments from other bodies about using that specific name. John Carter (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess my confusion is why we need to develop a specific name for the article, either craft or blue. I get your point that the freemasonry articles are slanted towards the UGLE aligned POV, but I also agree with others that it is probably due to the dearth of english language source reagrding the other styles, and the possibility that they are more heterogeneous than UGLE aligned groups are. It's better for the article to get more expansion/explanation of the two styles, without getting into a pov issue, such as regular versus irregular. I had once suggested Anglo and Continental, as descriptive term, and got shouted down by a lot of people here, so, frankly, I gave up bothering to come up with a label, and just added some more informations on how, for example, it came to be that GLs derecognized the Grand Lodge of France (it was first about racism, not about atheism).--Vidkun (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would note in the case you cited above the second name actually is the official name of the body in question. Agreed, and well aware of it. But that leads to the issue of, what is the official name for UGLE aligned/type Masonry, and what is the official name for the Continental/French/Liberal whatever type Masonry? There isn't one. As for Blue Lodge vs Craft Lodge, I definitely don't think either of those should be used as the descriptors of UGLE style, as a Craft Lodge is the Lodge which does the first three degrees. All Masonic Lodges must do them, so, even Continental Lodge would be known as Craft Lodges. Yes, Blue Lodge would be something American English Masonic speakers would recognize, but Craft Lodge, or Craft Freemasonry, is something that both American and British English Masonic speaker would recognize, thus, wider based.--Vidkun (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's another bit of my take on it, wherein I'm trying to apply NPOV to the situation of Freemasonry on wikipedia: My Grand Lodge doesn't recognize the Grand Lodge or Orient of France as regular. My GL does recognize the Grand Orient of Italy as Regular, but UGLE recognizes the Regular Grand Lodge of Italy as regular. Those arguments should not define categories on wikipedia, though the opposing viewpoints should be shown. Wikipedia doesn't determine, nor care, I assume, who is regular/recognized by whom, in terms of defining Masonry. UGLE is Masonry. So is Grand Lodge of France, and Grand Orient of France, and the Feminine Grand Lodge of France. I have argued, time and again, against pushing a "UGLE is the definer, because that's where it all came from" POV - it can't be done, and the articles retain a neutral POV. Other Masons HAVE tried to do that here, and I fought it. I WANT the main article to have links to GOdF and GLdf, and UGLE, and GLNF, and I would want those articles to be in the Masonic category. I'm not going to say that something my grand lodge doesn't recognize isn't masonry, at least not in wikipedia.--Vidkun (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the main article should have significant content regarding both Grand Lodge and Grand Orient-style Masonry, or whatever names one wishes to use. The question arises because of the length that the article would have as a result, particularly in the history section, going into the various relevant histories. Although, if the content were sufficiently expanded, it would make sense to have an entirely separate article about the History of the Grand Orient of Italy and the like, I'm not sure right now that there would be enough length to merit such. Also, there does seem to be enough reason to create what might be called an enhanced disambiguation page. Like I said above, the same argument has existed about naming the article on the RC Church. Officially, it should be named Catholic Church, as per naming conventions. However, such was found to be biased by some, particularly a few Anglicans, and the current rather complicated structure was developed. I have a horrible feeling that the same sort of thing might have to be done here. The only other possibility I can imagine would be a Freemasonry traditions or similar page, which would include short sections describing both "traditions" and links to other appropriate articles on the specific bodies themselves, maybe a list of current recognitions, and such. I've been told that the Regular Masonic jurisdictions page is currently considered the page that fills this function, although I'm personally dubious about the title. John Carter (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a hard time with the title of the article, too, and some of my reasons are explained in an old talk page here, regarding recognition and regularity. The problem we are probably going to run into is partly a s synthesis issue - while Henderson explains that regularity and recognition are different, you would likely find that official documents regarding definitions (GL Constitutions, for example) treat them as almost synonymous, if not totally identical. Yet ... GLMA/GOI and UGLE/RGLI would seem to prove that regularity!=recognized. But I can't say that in an article, because, from my understanding of WP:SYN, I'm drawing a logical conclusion that isn't supported by enough reliable sources. I think a good article title would be Recognition and Regularity in Masonic Associations, and use things like Henderson's definition, comments by UGLE about HFAF, a short comparison/contrast of UGLE vs US recognition (South America is a fertile ground to look at for that), without drawing a conclusion as to what the incongruity means regarding regularity vs recognition (it's obvious what my opinion is, so I should probably not write the wording for it). Frankly, I approve of how "Continental Style" masonry works, although i realize that it doesn't meet the rule my GL sets. I don't know how I feel about the "atheism" issue (which is less about atheism IMO, than about freedom of conscience, which can hit into some of your interest, John, in how French GL's may be seen as anti-clerical) but that's not part of writing the article. Bessel, Henderson, Poll, and DeHoyos, possibly a few others have written things on the France issue, which could help flesh things out.--Vidkun (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, independent sources count for more than official sources in wikipedia, so if other sources beyond Henderson said that as well it would probably be just cause to seek to change the name. And there was kind of a similar argument recently about whether Superman is invulnerable. He has regularly been described as such in what might be called official sources, but, well, being killed, as happened to him once, kind of proves you're vulnerable. In that case, the answer was to say he's often been described as invulnerable, but clearly isn't. If, as seems apparent if not accurate, there is some dispute about whether the two words you used are synonymous, then I think a reasonable case could be made that the one which is fairly uniformly agreed to be clearer should be the one used. I don't think WP:NAME would necessarily be a big deal in this case, because I doubt there really is much recognition of either word in the broader population, and Freemasons themselves would probably recognize both terms, so ambiguity probably wouldn't be a factor. John Carter (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that while "Irregular always equals Not Recognized" (no Grand Lodge will recognize a lodge that they consider irregular), it is incorrect to flip it around and say: "Not Recognized always equals Irregular"... some Grand Lodges allow for a category of "regular but not recognized" (most often this is because the Grand Lodge has a rule of "Exclusive Jurisdiction"... meaning it can only recognize one Grand body in any area, and it already recognizes a competing GL). Unfortunately, there is no universal rule on this... definitions of recognition and regularity vary between Grand Lodges.

We also have to take into account that regularity/irregularity is a one way declaration. It is not automatically reciprical. For example, The Grand Loge de France consideres the Grand Lodge of New York to be regular... but GLNY does not reciprocate... it considers GLF to be irregular. Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on that, it seems to me that what is required is separate articles regarding regularity and recognition. Also, at least potentially, maybe an option would be to create a list of bodies and their respective recognitions and acknowledgement of regularity. I know, that would be probably extremely difficult, and maybe require regular updating. But it would be I think possible to limit it to only those major bodies which are explicitly described by at least one other major national body as regular. Whether that would help in actively limiting the number of entries, I don't know. And the word "major" clearly wouldn't be used in the text, but it might be possible to come up with a functional equivalent based on number of members, length of existence or whatever. You all would probably know about that better than me, though. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We are not doing a list of regular lodges, period. Not only would it be a few hundred pages long for each group, it would also be copyvio: every Grand Lodge has an official book that lists which bodies they recognize, and it is updated as needed. That is not information we should be supplying, as the consequences of incorrect information could cause someone to be suspended or expelled. MSJapan (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the list would be unwieldy, and possibly copyvio. We should not, as an encyclopedia, be worrying about someone using information here, and getting expelled from Lodge because of it, however - it's incumbent on every mason to check their own GL for visitation permission, not check wikipedia. However, it becomes a lists of lists, and doesn't really help anyone to learn anything. The idea of an article discussing regularity might turn into an unwieldy issue, because, like the landmarks and ritual, every jurisdiction, as sovereign unto itself, has something different. I think highlights from publish authors regarding the recognition vs regularity issue, and some specific point where two GL in mutual amity don't recognize the same other GL's might be workable.--Vidkun (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitely too unwieldy. There are hundreds of Grand Lodges and Grand Orients... each has its own definition and interpretation of these terms. All we can do is paint a very broad picture using shades of grey, and make it clear to the reader that there is no single definition or interpretation of the terms and how they relate to eachother. Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, I don't believe we actually say that anywhere as such in that section, so that might be useful to note. MSJapan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Recently added image

User:Error recently added [[Image:DiplomeMaçonnique1945.png]] to the section on Ritual, symbolism, and morality (with the caption: "Some traditions use three dots (∴) for abbreviations instead of the habitual period"). I don't see how this image relates to the section in question. What aspect of "Ritual, symbolism or morality" is the image trying to illustrate? Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that was even available in Unicode. It's wholly stylistic, IIRC, and obviously affects content not at all. MSJapan (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

AGFing, I think it may have been included thinking it was relevant to ritual or symbolism, and, if one wanted to really stretch the definitions of those words, it might be. Having said that, I'm not really sure it can be argued to be that important that it needs to be included on the main Freemasonry page, although reference to such unusual punctuation might be relevant in the content dealing directly with the relevant traditions. John Carter (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Question... My computer does not seem to read Unicode... (all I get is a little box). So what punctuation are we discussing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 17:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Therefore sign. JASpencer (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL... that does not help (I get a box at that article too)... but I think I understand. Three dots in a pyramid? Same as is used on maps to indicate a ruin? Blueboar (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, the three dots you indicated in the post starting the thread. John Carter (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah... the abreviation for "Worshipful". Thanks Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It is an example of a Masonic document using the ∴ abbreviation. I think it is part of the Masonic symbolism. I looked around in Commons and only found it in this French document, not in the American ones. The Mackey reference that I am going to add to the article states that at least in the 19th century it was more popular in France than in English branches. It may be a reason why nobody has mentioned before. It may not be very relevant but there is no article on Masonic symbolism. I will revert your deletion and add a ref. --Error (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a piece of punctuation, not a "Masonic symbol". If you admit it's not vert relevant, I'd suggest you reconsider your choice of action. MSJapan (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

IP Vandalism

I note a higher than normal level of IP Vandalism recently. I have requested a semi-protect. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A nice turn of phrase

I was rereading Mark Tabbert's book "American Freemasons", and came across the following:

• "...the information conveyed in the three degrees or in the degrees of the York and Scottish Rites was not true knowledge. It simply referred men to other knowledge contained within Holy Scripture and the seven liberal arts and sciences. Freemasonry did not claim to have or impart the truth. It only encouraged its brethren to seek it. Memorizing Freemasonry's rituals and lectures strenghtened a mans intellectual capacity, and reciting them in lodge reinforced their principles to brothers in attendance."

I like this wording... and am wondering if we can work something like it into the article somewhere. While the passage is talking about one of the reasons for the revival of Freemasonry in the US during the 1840s and 1850s, it is true for all of Freemasonry, even today. Thoghts? Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It might not be a bad idea to blockquote it and toss it in someplace, but I'm not sure where it would be most effective within the article, as it touches on a whole lot of different things. I'd say put it wherever it fits in the best. MSJapan (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Link doesn't work.

Not the following link, this link links to the link that doesn't work. =p http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasons#_note-20 And this link shows where the link is used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasons#Degrees This is the link that does not work. http://www.supremecouncil.org/faq/wwfaq.asp However this link works http://www.supremecouncil.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.236.197 (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed... thanks. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed in "Women and Freemasonry" section

Both the "Women and Freemasonry" section here, and the article Women and Freemasonry need some work as far as citations go. There are not any glaringly incorrect statements that I can see... but standards are standards. Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Islam and Freemasonry

In the statement However, countries such as Turkey, Malaysia, Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt have established Grand Lodges.[63] I have a few issues with. I am aware that both Turkey and recently Morocco have regular Grand Lodges. In respect of Malaysia and Lebanon these have a number of District Grand Lodges within them, Lebanon also has a number of other unrecognised orders present today. Egypt used to have an established Grand Lodge which was for a time recognised. There were also active lodges in the District Grand Lodges of the English and Scottish Constitutions until their closure in the 1950's and erasure in 1965. Iraq used to possess lodges within a District Grand Lodge under the English Constitution. It and all of its subordinate lodges closed in 1958 and were erased in 1965/66. Care needs to be exercised when quoting references. Aquizard 20:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly true. However, it should be noted the phrasing used, "have established", does not necessarily directly indicate that those organizations still exist. As anyone here will tell you, I am not necessarily the best informed person on this subject, but there could be instances when a Grand Lodge may have been renamed or whatever, such that the organization might still exist even if no longer by that name. Using such neutral phrasing allows us to speak only of the fact of the establishment of the Grand Lodges, without addressing their current status. John Carter (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It is also important to note that we do not say they have established regular Grand Lodges. There are Grand Lodges and Grand Orients in some of these countries that are considered irrelgular by UGLE and the US Grand Lodges. That said, I think you are correct as far as Iraq goes ... Saddam was definitely anti-masonic, and under his regieme Freemasonry was outlawed. I don't think there are any Grand bodies of any type currently in that country (in fact, as far as I know, the only lodge currently opperating in Iraq is one that was recently chartered by the Grand Lodge of New York... membership is almost entirely American sojourners at the moment, but hearsay is that a few Iraqis have been initiated.) Blueboar (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Having re-read the reference only Morocco and Egypt are specifically mentioned, with a loose mention of other countries. It may be worth considering mention of these other countries. Whilst it should be noted that Iraq, Egypt and Iran closed down their lodges, both District and Grand following Revolutions within those countries, some countries like Sudan and Aden following Independence closed down their lodges. Also there were a number of other countries particularly in the Gulf States where the UGLE had a District Grand Lodge of the Arabian Gulf in the mid 1960's for a short period of time. Now it was as a result of the mandates issued by the Arab League that these Gulf states, over a period of time in the 1970s closed down their lodges, these Gulf states applying the rules of the mandate and laws were passed proscribing masonry. Indeed the last UGLE lodge to be erased was in 1984. Trucial Lodge No 8160 was based in the UAE, meeting in Shajah. It was instructed to close by the authorities in 1978. A similar event happened in Bahrain in 1975. In other countries like Malaysia, a similar issue was raised within government, but it did not get the support necessary for laws to be formed and so the matter lapsed. Interestingly Pakistan, there the lodges were closed during Ali Bhutto's time in the early 1970's although not a country within the Arab League, but within the Muslim League, like Malaysia, so I have been informed. There is the prospect of developing this part of the section detailing all the countries where masonry has been closed down, and reopened, with source information being quoted detailing the year it was done. In respect of Iraq,the Revolution in July 1958, saw all the lodges and Chapters of the UGLEs District Grand Lodge of Iraq were closed. Their licences to meet were revoked and laws later introduced banning masonic activity, later on dire penalties were imposed, whether or not these have been revoked is a mute point. But I feel(POV) that the present Iraqi government has enough to get on with and I do not see any mainstream masonic activity ocurring within the next 5 years plus. I have quoted the abovementioned year details when they were ereased. The Land Sea and Air Lodge #1 Of the Grand Lodge of New York, was to have been opened UD on a US airbase in Iraq. But I have heard reports that it was opened in Kandhar? There have been reports of a number of Military units having lodge meetings, with special dispensations being given for lodges to meet. There was one that met in Basra until that regiment returned back to the UK. Aquizard 13:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquizard (talk • contribs)

Freemasonry in country articles

I seem to remember that, some time ago, we had a whole bunch of articles on "Freemasonry in X", where X is a nation or region of the world. All of these were deleted. The main reasoning behind the deletion was that while Freemasonry as a whole was notable, there were not enough differences between Freemasonry in X and Freemasonry in Y to make individual country articles notable. It seems that either some were missed, or these types of articles are beginning to creap back... see: Category:Freemasonry by country. Perhaps we should revisit the issue and do another mass AfD? Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

They are mostly Grand Lodges which tend to be notable. The idea that Freemasonry in Italy, France or Mexico are not notable would be a real stretch - but this topic seems to get the rules stretched. JASpencer (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Having taken a second look at the articles, I actually think JAS does have a point. For the most part, the articles should not be deleted. These are predominently articles about individual Grand Lodges and Grand Orients, most of which are indeed notable (we should check to be sure we are not including very small splinter groups with only one or two lodges... these would not be notable).

So, this is probably just a question of over categorization. Most of these categories, have only one article in the category - the article on the GL. These articles are already listed in Category:Grand Lodges. Do we need the "in X" categories? If so, perhaps they would work better as subcategories of Cat:Grand Lodges? Or perhaps the cats should be renamed and reorganized as "Grand Lodges in X" (in which case, I would suggest a larger gouping - as in "Grand Lodges in Europe", "Grand Lodges in South America" etc.)? Just want to raise the issue... I am not advocating any one solution. Blueboar (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How?

Im not sure if it says this in the article but how do you join the FreeMasons. I have always been interested in them and definitly would not mind becoming a part of them.cheesepuffsaretasty!!! (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The first step is simple... Contact a Freemason that you know and express your interest... he will guide you from there. If you do not know any Freemasons (or do not know whether any of the people you know are Freemasons), contact the local lodge (the number is probably in the phone book), or contact the Grand Lodge in your area (again, the number is probably in the phone book). How long the process takes after that will depend on the lodge and how well you are already known to its members... be patient. Blueboar (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Millions of members?

Yeah right. This is exactly the kind of thing that needs to be meticulously sourced, or it seems like freemasons are trolling for members. Without a real source to that, I can't help but think: ok this is just total bullcrap and it died out hundreds of years ago, there's no way millions of people still go to hidden lodges with secret handshakes and make fools of themselves- sure, I bet they want me to think they're still popular so they get more members. See? Source it. 09:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You have to remember that we are talking about an organization that has chapters all over the world (and meeting in large, prominent buildings, not "hidden lodges"). It isn't very hard to for any organization that is that extensive to get over a million members. Heck, if each of the 51 US Grand Lodges has but 10,000 members (some have more, some have less) we are half way there. But I do agree that the statement needs a source. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Boy did I under-estimate... There are around 2 million in just the US alone... 4 million world wide. Now sourced. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The first comment under "Millions of Members" (unsigned) - would it kill you to talk civil?? 203.3.197.249 (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There are millions of Masons, Shriners, and other orders throughout the United States and all international countries. I have pictures of Lodges in Cuba. You can believe it or not, but we don't troll for members. We only accept the highest regarded candidate. And, you have to know someone to get in, after you ask to get in. Not to mention the lengthy background check. So, conspiracy theory this, immaturity that.
--InvisibleDiplomat666 (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important to note a couple of things here. Firstly, Shriners are not accepted by every Grand Lodge, and thus not considered a "part" of Freemasonry, in many jurisdictions. The Shrine, depending on jurisdiction, does require it's members to be Freemasons, however. One needs to be either a member of the Scottish and/or York Rites, or in some areas the "lesser" requirement of being a Master Mason (with no appendant body affiliation required) in a "regularly governed" Lodge (i.e., a Lodge operating with a Charter from the Grand Lodge of the jurisdiction in which it resides) to be admitted. But, as I've previously mentioned, this does not mean the Grand Lodge of a jurisdiction necessarily recognizes the Shrine as an "official" appendant body of Masonry, as many do not.

Also, the traditional restriction of not inviting a man to join the Craft has either been ignored to the point of being non-applicable (in some cases on a Grand Lodge level), or flat-out rescinded, in many jurisdictions. The long-standing tradition of "to be one, ask one" having once been set in stone is known to most Masons but this has changed substantially, in many places, in recent years.

Further, knowing a Mason to be able to join the fraternity is not a requirement. Many Masons take the first step to membership by filling out a form on a local Lodge's website, or making a phone call to the Lodge itself, without knowing a single member of said Lodge. I think this should sufficiently explain why claiming that Masonry accepts only the "highest regarded candidate" is a touch fallacious. From Masonry's POV this is obviously the most desired outcome of the process, but it is certainly not the case every time. It can be argued that by the time the vote on the candidate comes around, he may be quite "known" to the members of the Lodge in question, but even this is not always the case. (i.e., many Lodges will invite a potential candidate to a social function so Lodge members can meet with him, and at the very least all Lodges assign an "investigative committee" (typically three members) to meet with and screen a candidate. This committee will present their findings and opinions on the candidate to the Lodge before the candidate is voted on.) This process can differ rather wildly depending on area, and in many places no background check (let alone an "lengthy" one) is conducted on a candidate. Not to mention the fact that a statement like "highest regarded candidate" is speculative at best. DocRobot78 (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Good article review - Is it time to try again?

Question... do we want to try for GA status again? If so, we do need to clear up some outstanding citation requests... and probably do some condensing of material. If not, we can probably leave the article as is. Blueboar (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That's definitely a goal, but it tends to be very subjective - we know from the past that some people think the article is undercited, and others think it has too many citations. What exactly do we need to clear up? MSJapan (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should reorganize the project article. And use a systematic theme, like the headers. We could also add more links to other things. Just about everything is indexed on Wiki. Plus, we could assign sections and go for general neutrality. Which would help us in the end with our oath...--InvisibleDiplomat666 (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not all of us took that oath however. :) My guess, and it's just a guess, would be that maybe the first step to take would be to try to have the article undergo peer review, stating that the intention is to try to bring the article up to GA standards, and see what if any concerns are raised there. Then, depending on the outcome there, we'd have a better idea whether others see enough problems to make it unlikely to succeed without major reworking or not. Certainly, my own immediate impressions are that the "Organizational structure" section, with only two sentences, would need to be expanded or otherwise integrated in elsewhere (I'd opt for expansion), that "Prince Hall Freemasonry" certainly does not deserve a longer section than that one, and that the section on "Lndmarks" should probably use at least in the heading a different term which doesn't cause the same kind of confusion to non-Masons, maybe more clearly defining the term as well. "Religious opposition", which is only a single sentence, also should be merged, expanded, or broken up into separate sentences, although I'd personally favor the last option. There right now aren't any citations at all for the first two paragraphs of "Women and Freemasonry", and that might be problematic, unless all that content is based on the first citation in that section. Those are at least a few early impressions, anyway. John Carter (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Conjectural Info

I think some info that isn't cited, well alot, should just be omitted if we can't find documentation. The quality of the encyclopedic index isn't based on original research. Like in membership, everything after the citation can be omitted. --InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 20:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you give us an example? Blueboar (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I just did. That's all original research, after the cite in the paragraph under the heading "Membership Requirements" above "General Requirements". And there is a redundancy with titles. And why did you remove my photos? The section was talking about the WM and officers. And it was talking about meeting in a Lodge. That was an installation, "a meeting in a Lodge". "Every Masonic Lodge elects certain officers to execute the necessary functions of the lodge's work. The Worshipful Master (essentially the lodge President) is always an elected officer." Those pictures were of past Grand Masters elected to their positions. And their aprons.--InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 20:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't Original research... but I can agree that it needs more citation. I will flag it with some citation requests... Give us some time to check for sources and we will improve that section. Blueboar (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Recently added pictures

Let's separate the two issues... we can discuss the photos here and omitting material above. Look at this from the stand point of an uninformed reader (which is the target of this article) ... he/she sees a photo of a bunch of guys sitting in a lodge room. The reader thinks, "How does this relate to what I am reading?" YOU may know what the connection is, but the reader does not. The same goes for the pic of the Grand Masters... to the uninformed it is just a picture of a bunch of photographs on a wall (and actually the eye is drawn more to the aprons than the photos of the Grand Masters). Neither clearly and directly illustrates what is said in the article. Blueboar (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

IN RE - I see your point. However, with the appropriate placement in the article the pictures connect with the uninformed reader. I will add a caption and frame them. Oh, and about the cites. I'm totally down to help, I'm a MM from the Florida Grand Lodge. --InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 21:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy to have your help... whether you are a Mason or not. Here, we are all "on the level" - in that we are all Wikipeida Editors. Whether we are Masons or Non-masons, Regular or Irregular, male or female does not matter. Blueboar (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait for a 3rd opinion with the material contested inserted before further review. If they don't agree it applies, as you suggested, then I will be happy to agree with their revision. --InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 21:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, given that we are both up against 3rr... neither of us should edit war or revert again. The captions do help a bit. I still am not sure if the pictures really add anything, but will agree to let a third party determine the issue. Blueboar (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I was editing the code for the format necessary, making improvements upon your suggestion. --InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 21:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the value. We're writing for a non-Masonic audience. From that perspective, to me, that installation photo looks like a bunch of guys in a room looking at a big light, and the type of meeting is totally irrelevant to the article as a whole (not that you can tell). The other photo is a bunch of framed pictures with a huge flash reflection, so you can't really see them.

I honestly don't see what value the pictures add to the article, even with the captions - "Grand Line officers go through similar qualifications as regular Lodge officers"? Which are what, and why should the general reader care? I can tell you right off that this isn't true without a lot of qualifications, because you're making assumptions that are valid only in your jurisdiction. The Grand Master of UGLE is technically a line officer, but is chosen for life based on his peerage. And what about lines that aren't progressive? Despite the good faith edit, there's far too much assumption about the value of the added photos, and I really cannot support their inclusion. I'd prefer they were removed. MSJapan (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Given MSJapan's comments, I am going to remove them again. Twaz, don't take this personally. We really do appreciate your intent here. The article could use more images to illustrate what it says... but we should use images of the highest quality, and images that directly and obviously relate to what the article discusses. Blueboar (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't exactly a 3rd party. But whatever, they're stored on Wiki if you want to add them later. And, yes MSJapan, jurisdictions do differ. However, all Grand Lodge's eventually elect their officers based on the rules set forth in their bylaws. And you might be surprised to find that you can skip over someone in the line in most jurisdictions as well, provided that you have evidence supporting your reason why. In some jurisdictions, its a vote every year for each Grand official. And the qualifications are a simple nomination and vote, usually. Good research though. I would like to see more pictures in the article, that way the "uninformed" reader could apply what they are learning with relevant images. I think the lack of pictures is one of our weak points as an article. --InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 19:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, that picture of an installation was sanctioned by a DDGM.--InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 19:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

The blurry room image (Installation.jpg) is not, as the saying goes, worth a thousand words.

The other image (Grandlodge.jpg) might illustrate a discussion of the meaning and purpose of aprons in freemasonry, but I could find no mention of that in the article.

I hope this helps. — Athaenara ✉ 03:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on New Section

Hey guys. I just added a "Masonic Organisations" section. I am going to be expanding this some, and writing an article on it with a compiled list of organisations. Help would be obliged. And of course, everyone's thoughts. Travel Safely! --InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 23:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad addition at all. I have moved it to the section on "Charitable effors" as it seems to fit there (with no change to Twaz's text). Only one concern... I know we have discussed the issue of whether to mention the Shrine (and by extention the Shriner's Hospitals) before, and decided that as this article was about "Craft" (or "Blue Lodge") Freemasonry it did not really belong. I am not against changing that decision now if that is the consensus... but we should discuss it and determine if that is indeed the consensus.

Twaz - I think starting an article on the various philanthropic organisations that have their roots in Masonry is a great idea... and will help if I can. As a suggestion... do some research and make it international in scope. Check on what organisations are sponsored by UGLE, and even the various "irregular" Continental bodies. We want to avoid Anglo/US bias if we can. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)