Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 29

Charitable Efforts section has NPOV issues

Great article. But:

"Freemasons are the second largest charitable organisation in the world closely following the National lottery . There are literally thousands of philanthropic organisations around the world created by Freemasons. The Masonic Service Association[46], the Masonic Medical Research Laboratory[47], and Shriner's Hospitals for Children[48] are just a few of the many organisations and areas Masons contribute to both intellectually and monetarily."

"Literally thousands" and "Just a few of the many" are not NPOV...

The Shriner's Hospitals for Children are a prime example of how Masons internationally contribute to their community. In a recent article by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution Shriners were noted for expecting to save the State of Georgia $1.3 million dollars[51]. By offering no-cost services to children with orthopedic problems and burn victims, Shriners improve the daily lives of millions.

That last phrase is an ungrounded claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.163.104 (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How so? Seems self evident to me... health care at no cost surely improves lives of those recieving it. Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

yeah great job signing that btw. npov is when you use loaded vocabulary and record inaccuracies. those are just summative statements about the numbers which cumulatively represent the individual organisations. i really don't see that argument at all. --InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 21:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I felt that the whole article wasn't NPOV 81.23.49.232 (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this article has serious bias toward Freemasonry, and fails to clearly and fairly detail the allegations and concerns against the organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keiboman (talk • contribs) 00:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can see how a large notice such as "see Anti-Masonry" might be difficult for someone who can't sign Wikipedia posts to find. There's so much criticism of Freemasonry incorporated into the articles here that most of your complaints are addressed in other articles entirely devotyed to the topic. Moreover, "allegations and concerns against the organisation" have no correlation to expounding on "Charitable Effort". MSJapan (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

False source

LOL, I checked the source that was provided on the "fact" that Masonry has millions of members.

http://www.ugle.org.uk/masonry/YQA-about-freemasonry.htm

^ they clearly state..."We probably have 5 million members."

PROBABLY?

LMAO are u kidding me? PROBABLY?

The Anti-Vandalism King (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I gather you missed some of the very specifically NONspecific wording that you removed: membership estimated, which is then followed up with reliable sources that provide the estimate.--Vidkun (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Also... you will note that there is a second source, which backs the world wide estimate. Blueboar (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I PROBABLY own the world. Lets document this. The Anti-Vandalism King (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

MMAfan2007, please note that the material is double cited... Let me quote what the other source (Hodapp) says: "Today there are somewhere between 4 and 5 million Masons world wide, and just under 2 million in the United States." In other words, we cite a reliable source that gives an estimate for the world wide figure that does not contain the objectionable word "probably". While the UGLE website corroborates what Hodapp says (admitedly hedging its statement more than Hodapp does) that website is mainly being used as the citation for the UK estimate (which it does not hedge in any way). Blueboar (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

RLUIPA / Scottish Rite case

I am thinking that this paragraph should be taken out entirely. I think it gives Undue Weight to what was essentially an asside comment by one Judge, and making it sound as if it were it were a ruling of law. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re - I've noticed you do a lot of deleting in this article. Although I'm sure some is consensus, you really should take into account the straverse material included. While many things I've seen you delete usually are due to redundancy, I think that this page should have sections which briefly speak about other project articles and provide links. I just don't see the need to go deleting and revising this page so often as you do, that's all. --InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 21:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Although the comment is merely the opinion of one judge, it could serve as precedent for a future court ruling, which is what makes it particularly interesting to me. I hope that the case is adequately documented somewhere around here. Did you leave any reference to the case in the original article? --Alexfoley (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say that if it does end up serving as a precedent, and if there is a future court ruling... then it might be worth mentioning... but as it is, No. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Charity section

I don't think we need to go into so much detail as to the Masonic Medical Research Laboratory and Shriner's Hospitals... In an article that is a broad overview of Freemasonry, it is enough to mention these charities in passing and provide a link to their websites in the citation. I am not trying to belittle these entities, or say that these entities don't do great work... they do, and Masonry can and should be very proud of them. But we don't need to spend two paragraphs in an already overly long article discussing them.

What really needs to happen is for seperate articles to be written on these entities (if such articles do not already exist) and then we can link to those articles. Blueboar (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I note that the Shriners Hospital does have an article already... I have linked to it. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ideas needed

I would like to ask anyone greek speaking that have contributed in this article to read the greek article el:Ελευθεροτεκτονισμός to give ideas and advices.--Iordanis777^listening 10:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I nominated the greek article el:Ελευθεροτεκτονισμός, so anyone greekspeaking or with greek account who would like to help us make it featured is wellcome.thank you in advance.--Iordanis777^listening 09:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iordanis 777 (talk • contribs)

The el:Ελευθεροτεκτονισμός, Is officially FA!Very nice!I hope the articles for FM in all the wiki projects some day will have the FA star.--Iordanis777^listening 08:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iordanis 777 (talk • contribs)

Article watch brigade

It has become apparent that there is an active article edit brigade on here that is actively engaged in stopping anyone who doesn't agree with the hive mind consensus on this topic by reverting them. This is sad, particularly because some self-admitted masons are in on this. Can someone tell me exactly why a link listing of US grand lodges - in an article about freemasonry - should not be here? I will let it go once I see the evidence for it, until then, I'll keep reverting people who are reverting me. AnotherObserver (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's all in the archives. But the case in a nutshell is that we don't link to individual Grand Lodges nor list of Grand Lodges because that would mean we would have to list to EVERY Grand Lodge / Grand Orient (and in fairness, probably every irregular group that calls itself a Grand Lodge too...). If you got a compelling argument why this should change, I'm sure the other editors are willing to listen and discuss. I know I am. WegianWarrior (talk) 09:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also add that there is no edit brigade. The link you are putting in, is one Grand lodges list of Grand Lodges, and as User:WegianWarrior put it, if you do that then you need to put everyone. Incidentally, why use Kansas list of Grand Lodges why not use another province/jurisdication? Nobody has mentioned it yet, but you have already breached the Three revert rule which is there to prevent edit wars. Instead of reverting why not look at List_of_Grand_Lodges and ensure that it is accurate and inclusive Boooooom (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

And then there is the fact the link in question was placed on every article that has even a tangential connection to Freemasonry... regardless of whether there was any relevance between the Grand Lodge in question and the topic of the article. Spamming of links is discouraged. Blueboar (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

- :Yup, that's pretty much it, and "I'm going to keep reverting people who revert me" is not the best to get anyone to take your contributions seriously. If you are also the IP that originated the link in the first place, you have been blocked for linkspamming before. MSJapan (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Boooooom - you need to stop removing my comments or I will report you. Do NOT do it again, you do NOT have supreme control over the DISCUSSION page of the article. My comment that you removed was: There is indeed an edit brigade. I have been threatened with being banned and harassed for including a list of grand lodges. However, instead of the post gang acting like thugs, I would suggest in the future you respond as WegianWarrior did. Its much better than the hostile attitudes here. Thanks, WegianWarrior, for explaining that. I will leave it alone with that explanation in mind. AnotherObserver (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

AnotherObserver, you are correct that Boom should not have removed your comment (and you should not have removed MSJapan's) ... you are incorrect as to your other complaints. You were not threatened with banning for including a list of grand lodges, you were warned that your repeated reverts were in violation of a wikipedia rule (WP:3RR) and that if you continued you might be blocked from further editing. Giving such a warning is actually standard Wikipedia proceedure. The point of the warning was to inform you of what the rules are, in case you did not know them... so that you wouldn't end up being blocked.

To help you avoid similar warnings in future disputes: the standard on Wikipedia is "edit, revert, discuss" - meaning that if an edit you make is reverted, instead of engaging in an "edit war" by simply reverting it back to your preferred version, you should immediately go to the talk page and discuss the situation. In this case, if you had followed this standard, instead of re-reverting a few times, you would have gotten WegianWarrior's polite explanation (which you seem to accept) right at the start, no one would have turned "hostile" and there would have been no need to warn you about 3RR.

Good luck with your future editing. Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me clear this up for the benefit of AnotherObserver I did not remove his comment BUT reverted back to MSJapans comments that he deleted [[1]] as Blueboar correctly mentioned although he did not identify that my revert was to return MSJapans entry that was removed by AO. I do hope AnotherObserver can now come back to the article a lot calmer and a lot less hostile. If he is a freemason as he claims, then he should show of those truly masonic qualities. Boooooom (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but there you have it. "If" .... docboat (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In this case, instead of threatening people who edit and revert, the best thing to do would have been to explain the reasoning (as one person did) and this wouldn't be here. The "masons" here are truly lacking masonic qualities if it is necessary to threaten those who attempt to edit articles. I'd also like to point out I tire of masons using this sort of "no true scotsman" logical fallacy to justify working in edit brigades like this. Questioning my masonic affiliation is not a way of ensuring the brethren dwell together in unity, and if you were really concerned about such things you wouldn't say such things in public. However, in the interest of the three tenets of freemasonry, I will not respond to this string of insults anymore. Thanks again, WegianWarrior, for your response. AnotherObserver (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Taking two of your comments, intentionally out of order - I'd also like to point out I tire of masons using this sort of "no true scotsman" logical fallacy to justify working in edit brigades like this. Questioning my masonic affiliation is not a way of ensuring the brethren dwell together in unity, and if you were really concerned about such things you wouldn't say such things in public. vice The "masons" here are truly lacking masonic qualities if it is necessary to threaten those who attempt to edit articles. You basically go and do the same thing you accused others of doing. Is that mature? I'll note that what Boooooom did was to revert YOUR (possibly unintentional) deletion of someone else's comment, which is against wiki policy. The biggest complaint you might have is that you feel threatened, when, in fact, you have merely been warned, in accordance with wiki policy regarding adding inaapropriate material, repeatedly, what the wiki policies have to say about your behaviour. Telling a child that if they put their hand on a hot burner, they'll get burned, isn't threatening them.--14:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

OK folks... let's not escalate a minor issue into something larger than it deserves. It no longer matters who did what and when... both sides in this little debate have added to the hostility. Now it's time back away from it. AnotherObserver has accepted WegianWarriors explanation of why his edits were reverted. I think we should leave it at that, and move on. Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Devoted Editing Brigade

Before my comments have been deleted also (by MSJapan) and I have been threated claiming I have no rigths to comment on freemasonary. Sorry but this seems quite like an order with profoundly isolated extremist community with ties that cannot be anticipated as there are no transparancy predicted by Masons themselves. In addition (not expecting an order to expose itself) no inquirity been made on by govermental authorities, which arouses question marks for me at last. I think this strongly extremist tie between the order and the aspostles causes such an aggressive editing page.(cantikadam (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)).

Let us be clear. Your comments, my comments, anyones comments on Freemasonry have absolutely NO PLACE on Wikipedia. Facts are what we need, not personal opinion. And from your edits we can see that you are dealing with personal and uninformed opinion, so it has been deleted. docboat (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, you might want to review the policy on No original research. The personal views of Wikipeidans are not reliable for inclusion. If you wish to add something, you need a source for it. Blueboar (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ofcourse I see what you mean, this is an encyclopedia and every data must be cited and credited but it does still exist subjective comments as they are called NPOV that I have been reading through the most articles on orders, politics, religions and dynasties. The comments or let's say declarations on articles have been cited or they make references which are basicly comments actually in its own sense. So citing sounds merely a judicial reference which inables the sourse to be taken formal, indeed does not change the essence of what is being claimed. I personally do not believe that the author of the article cannot be objectiive at all if he or she is a freemason. I ll check the policy. (cantikadam (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)).

So you would also suggest that it would be impossible for a Turk to be objective on an article about the Turkish genocide of Armenians? I think - and hope - not. You might also be confusing WP:NPOV and fact. NPOV is the manner in which facts are represented. The facts themselves are citable, reliably referenced. You could, however, take a look at the articles on masonic conspiracy theories and add your citations to that list? God knows, enough lies have been told against masons in the course of history, and the ideas you have referred to make interesting reading, and add to the list of unfounded allegations. docboat (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2008 (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) GOOD POINT, molto buono(cantikadam (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)).

Let's not take comments out of context, please. My comment about John, which you quote, was related to a different issue.

To move on: let's assume you can find sources for the critizisms you you discussed back in Sept. 2006 . The next issue is whether these criticisms are unique to Turkey ... or are they criticisms that are made in multiple contexts? In other words, are your criticisms already discussed in the article in a more general way? Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is called Mafia

<comments deleted> - no personal attacks please. If you wish to discuss the issue, keep it civil and continue the above discussion. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry I have seen the general criticisms already been discusse..but nothing much have changed so far I suppose. (cantikadam (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)).

If the criticisms have already been discussed in the article, then there is no point discussing it further is there? To do so would be a violation of WP:POINT. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So discussion makes sense when ends with a solution. (cantikadam (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)).

Are you saying we have a solution? Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No, if you look at the disputes made on the article. It is good if we get a solution, I am for the solution, I take no sides. (personally I am for the most plausible and logical, I migth be pragmatic in some cases.) (cantikadam (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC))

OK... what needs to be changed in your view? Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you (as an example) see the things as a mason fostered individual. I mean you could have good times at Mason summer camps or so on, I also did anyway, but now I see things different, wider and broader. First you guys have to be less defensive towards the critics, and be more "tranquilo" and pragmatic. What have you been doing (trying to defend your position rigidly) does not help you, so far you guys have responded rather offesively to the critics, just be cool, be sure I do not care who believes in orders or religions or whatever, I am just against that discussion be cut with a "knife". You guys gonna get more strenght if you can look to a mirror in a more pragmatic way that would be plausable also for all who are aggresive towards masons which will lead a solution for "win and win". (cantikadam (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)).

That's not really a problem with the article (which is the purpose of this talk page). Is there a problem with the article that you would like to discuss? Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no real criticism for the article, there is some critics on the hoax criticisms and so on. If this article be more acceptable there must be a wide criticism section as this article is about an order, an order which has many question marks hanging over, even to answer the so called hoaxes there should be a broader section of criticism or contravcy section. The criticism part should be without NPOV. (cantikadam (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)).

It is a problem with the article as it affects the articel in a subjective way, se tu non vuoi vedere l'evento ti vuoi sullo specchio ed accade nulla. "seeing the big picture". (cantikadam (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)).

What about the criticisms section is POV? Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"There have been many disclosures and exposés dating as far back as the eighteenth century. These often lack context,[56] may be outdated for various reasons,[33] or could be outright hoaxes on the part of the author, as in the case of the Taxil hoax.[57]

These hoaxes and exposures have often become the basis for criticism of Masonry usually religious (mainly Roman Catholic and evangelical Christian) or political usually Socialist or Communist dictatorial objections. Why hoax? Any proof? I cannot see any proof against. (cantikadam (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)).

Many of the criticisms that come from Evangelical sources are based upon the Taxil hoax... stuff like the claim that Freemasons are Satan worshipers originated with Taxil and dispite the fact that Taxil admitted it was a hoax, keep getting repeated. That isn't a POV statement, it is a simple statement of fact. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood, but I would at least venture to say that the statement (mentioned by cantikatam) is so broad and generalizing that it basically says nothing other than "all accusations or 'exposes' are unfounded." There is such a variety of criticisms (and such a variety of degrees of those criticisms) that it rather seems like a blanket statement that just discredits any sort of criticism. I assume that was not the intent, but I would have to somewhat agree that the statement is non-NPOV. The article is very well-written, but it does seem to include much less material in the controversy section than the majority of Wikipedia articles of this nature. Just my outsider's objective two cents. Efrafra (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No... the statement in question is actually focussed quite narrowly... read what what it says again ... the statement mearly notes that most disclosures and exposés are either known hoaxes or can be discredited in some way. It isn't a NPOV to say this, as it is simple fact. Blueboar (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

i have a quesstion about freemasonary.

What does it mean when a mason "rides the goat".??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.241.82.230 (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon website has an excellent page that explains all about the history of this expression. Check it out. Essentially, "Riding the goat" was a common expression used by many fraternal orders in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries... it was used in a light hearted way to "haze" potential candidates, by telling them that they would have to ride the goat during the initiation ceremony. The term is rarely used today... but where it is still used, it is in that context. It may have originated from members wanting to ridicule the claims that Masons (and other, similar fraternal groups) worshiped the Devil.

And, no... a goat is not actually used or mentioned anywhere in the ceremonies of Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Category for freemasons

I think there should be a category for members in the freemasons. Is there? I know there has ben before. Has it ben deleted? How strange, if that is so. --85.226.235.208 (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming a perennial question (perhaps we should post a note at the top of the page about this).

Yes we had such a category about two years ago. It was deleted, and changed to a list (see: List of Freemasons). There were several reasons for deletion. The first related to BLPs... there are still a few places in the world where Masonry is illegal, and accusations that someone is a Mason can endanger their life and/or freedom. Second was the issue that people were being constently added into the category for whom there was no evidence that they actually were or are Masons. That was un-managable. By listifying, we are able to insist that some sort of reliable source be provided to back the claim. The final factor was that, for most of these men, The fact that they joined a Masonic lodge is essentially trivia... not at all related to what makes them notable... categorizing them implies that being Masons was/is in some way an important defining characteristic, when it really isn't. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I certainly respect the first named reason. However, they must be numerous other things which are banned in some countrys and allowed in others, so surely wikipedia must have guidelines to handle such a scenario? As for the second, articles are always being categorized wrong in wikipedia, and categorys are not (or, they should not be) deleted for such a reason. As for the last reason, you are right about that, but that's still not a proper reason, as it's a reason based on how people are expected to react individually, which is impossible to rely upon (some might think it more than trivia), and people are categorized to all things which aplies to them. But, anywhy, the question isn't really that important to me, so I'm not going to get more involved, but if people ask about it so often, there seems to be a need for the category, so I'm sure it could be solwed. Best wishes!--85.226.235.208 (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Authentical female freemasons

Though Freemasonry is banned for women, I know they have ben exceptions in history. Elizabeth Aldworth is the most known example, but if I remember correctly, (it was some time I read about this), there have ben more than her, though not many. There was a Hungarian Countess- I don't remember her name, perhaps Esterhazy?- who was given male status as she had became the head of her family after having inherited the title, and thereby elected into the order. This was in the reign of Empress Maria Theresia of Austria, in the 1750s I think. Her membership was soon declared invalid, but it should still be mentioned, if this is correct. I really don't know much about this, but if this is true, it would be interesting to read about!--Aciram (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it would be interesting to read ... unfortunately, with the notable exception of Elizabeth Aldworth, the membership of very few women Masons can be verified, and in order to mention any specific women we would have to do so. Indeed, Verification is one reason why we don't even list famous male Masons in this article. All we can (and do) really say is: "Yes, women have been made Masons." We know of at least one in a "Anglo-tradition" lodges (and probably a few others), more that a few in "Continental-tradition" lodges, and very many in Co-masonry or Women Only Masonic Lodges." Whether these women are "irregular", and thus not "real" Masons depends on jurisdictional definition... but is not really something that Wikipedia gets into. Blueboar (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I know Ardworth's descendants. Just an aside.

There are women only lodges in America and Britain. I have this from a (masonic) Prince. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.129.112 (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I remember there was a female only Lodge in Preston, UK and some mixed lodges hereabouts too, I have seen a group photo of members of one of these female lodges, but don't know if it still meets as there apparently wasn't a lot of interest at one point. --MilleauRekiir (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Women's Lodges, or lodges comprised of both Men and Women, are possible in organizations like Co-Masonry or Le Droit Humaine. How ever, these are not part of mainstream Freemasonry.Saxophobia (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The degrees.

While not a Mason myself, I have it on excellent authority that there are 33 degrees of Masonry as a rule. These are, I am told by my source (a Prince of some degree)actual promotions within the order, not merely supplements to the 3rd degree, although most people only reach the third degree. The numbers of people in 4-33 is, I believe, restricted in each masonic state (for want of a better word), and only when a vacancy is created by either death or promotion can someone else be promoted to the next, or indeed, higher up by more than one, degree. This all from a Prince, confirmed by a Knight and two Master Masons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.129.112 (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Not quite so. You seem to have absorbed an American flavoured form of masonry, and that varies from state to state as well. In most other parts of the world, side orders or higher degrees are seen as just that - side orders and higher degrees. The number is of no importance. docboat (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

First, what the IP is discribing are the degrees of the Scottish Rite (4-33). And his/her information is definitely incorrect, even for the various US jurisdictions. The degrees of that Rite are conferred upon any Mason who wishes to take them. The exception is the 33rd degree, which is awarded for service and/or scholarship (thus, that degree is limited in number... but not for the reasons the IP claims). He also neglects to mention the York Rite system of degrees... which consists of 10 degrees (named, not numbered) in three sub-bodies. But the real inaccuracy is the assumption that any of these degrees is "higher" than another... this is not the case, even in the US. Having the 4th, 28th or even 33rd degree conferred upon you gives you absolutely no higher authority or rank in a Masonic Lodge (the same is true for the degrees of the York Rite). In fact, such degrees are completely meaningless in the Lodge. As an analogy... a few years ago, former New York City Mayor, Rudy Gulliani, was awarded a knighthood by the Queen of England. In England, he is entitled to call himself Sir Rudolf or something... The US, however, does not recognize such titles... he continues to be Mr. Mayor. Similarly, one might be a "Perfect Elu" (14th degree) in the Scottish Rite, and a "Knight of the Illustrious Order of the Red Cross" in the York Rite... but these degrees are not recognized in one's Craft Lodge (ie basic Freemasonry)... one continues to be a Master Mason (3rd degree). Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Mostly right; this sounds a lot like English A&AR, where (IIRC) you have to be invited to take the 18th in the first place, it's almost impossible to get past 30, and the very highest degrees are limited in numbers, meaning that one cannot be selected to receive it unless a holder of that degree dies. MSJapan (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

But still, none of what happens in the English A&AR (or any other appendant body) has any bearing on Craft/Blue lodge Freemasonry. As far as that is concerned, there is no "higher" degree than the 3rd. Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. MSJapan (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Man Blueboar I just love how you nail the facts so cleanly! Many thanks. docboat (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I am a 32nd Degree Freemason in the Scottish Rite, (Sublime Prince of the Royal Secret) but in Blue Lodge I have no more standing or authority than any other Mason, except I have the opportunity to wear a nice gold Scottish Rite ring. Saxophobia (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

And some jurisdictions would even frown on your wearing that ring... or other such "Masonic Bling", since they have nothing to do with Craft Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Most definitely. I've run into Brothers who blame the York Rite, Scottish Rite and probably every other Masonic body for "Ruining" Freemasonry by "Stealing" from the Blue Lodge. Saxophobia (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Commitee 300

I heard many masons hold membership of Committee 300 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Russian (talk • contribs) 10:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What in the world is Committee 300? Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the best known conspiracy theory myths.--Cberlet (talk) 12:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume, then, there is already an article here on wikipedia about it, properly cited and referenced?--Vidkun (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That well known that I have never heard of it and the wikipedia page committee of 300 was deleted in 2007 for no reliable sources Boooooom (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Commitee 300 is a group of very influenced people that has a great impact on World's affairs.They are partially responsible for the World Wars,revolutions and other geopolitical catastrophes,with them controling most of the media and governments.

Frank Russian (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, in other words your garden variety conspiracy theory. About as likely - and verifiable - as the flat earth. Good try though, 3/10. WegianWarrior (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case... I think we can take it as a given that the Freemasons must be behind it. After all, aren't they behind every conspiracy? Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Projects

I would agree that Freemasonry would fit in more projects (like Organizations), I don't believe it fits in Fraternities and Sororities because the stated aim of that project is to deal with articles pertaining to "Greek life", meaning college fraternities. Similar fraternal groups, like the Elks and Buffalo (and even the KofC) are not listed in that project either. MSJapan (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think we should discuss this issue at the Fraternities and Sororities Project page... I don't want to push Freemasonry on them if they want to limit their project to just "Greek life" (ie collegiate fraternal/sororital organizations)... but I also see a need for an overarching project that includes adult fraternal groups (other than the "Secret Societies Project" which in so many cases does not really apply. Perhaps a broader "Fraternal Groups" Project should be formed... which could then be subdivided into collegiate and adult sub-projects... or something like that? Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

A "Fraternal Groups" subproject would go well under the Organizations project. MSJapan (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Freemasonry and sexuality

Does Freemasonry have any opinions or rules in regards to homosexuality? e.g. are homosexuals allowed to be Freemasons? Is it more of a "don't ask, don't tell" situation?

—BMRR (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The institution could care less, because sexual orientation says nothing about character. As long as a prospective member is of legal age, professes a belief in a Supreme Being and is of good moral character, that's all that matters. MSJapan (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. My grandfather was a Freemason; unfortunately he passed away before I had a chance to ask him about it. Some people/groups/societies consider homosexuality immoral, which is why I wondered if there was any conflict in regards to the "good moral character" aspect of Freemasonry.

—BMRR (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as their sexual practices do not break the law of the land there is nothing in the obligation that prevents homosexuality Boooooom (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The replies so far reflect the official stance of the organization ... what happens in an individual Lodge may differ. You see, Freemasonry is made up of men from all parts of society, so their attitudes will reflect all aspects of that society... the bad as well as the good. This means that, when it comes to sexual orientation, there are Freemasons who are accepting of homosexuality, there are Freemasons who are strongly opposed to it, and there are Freemasons who don't care one way or the other.

This means that an individual Lodge may have a membership that looks upon homosexuality as a sin, and feels that it is morally wrong. In such a case, an openly gay man will find it very difficult to be elected to that lodge. On the other hand, another Lodge may have a membership with a much more accepting attitude. In that case, there will be no problem with a gay man joining. It really depends on the individual Lodge and the make up of its membership. I would guess that the majority of lodges will fall somewhere in between these two extremes... there will be some who express hesitation at admitting an openly gay man, but if the candidate is acceptable in every other aspect of his life, the hesitation will be overcome.

Are Freemasons supposed to judge a man by his sexual orientation? No ... Are there situations where they do? Yes ... It isn't something anyone should be proud of, but it is reality. The truth is that Freemasonry has its share of bigots, just like the rest of society. Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Boooooom and Blueboar, thank you both very much for your replies. I was also wondering if anyone could list some of the questions that are typically asked of a person who wants to become a Freemason. I realize that this, too, must vary from lodge to lodge, but there must be some questions that are very common...? And how "personal" do the questions usually get?

Thanks again,

—BMRR (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is starting to veer away from an article improvement topic, so I'm going to suggest, BMRR, that you simply call up the Grand Lodge in your state (or country) and talk to them, and also look at the GL website. MSJapan (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Too much cut without consensus

I have to object to the edits made by User:Frenchmason and User:Ortale. Especially the complete removal of the section on recognition and regularity. I realize that these are touchy and complicated issues, but we do need to at least try to explain these issues to readers who may not know that there are difference between the various branches of Freemasonry. Perhaps the article can do this better than it currently does... but the answer to that is not to simply delete all the entire section.

Awaiting further discussion. Blueboar (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all impressed with the material inserted in its place, either, because it pushes too much in the other direction, not to mention being grammatically incorrect. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not an information dump, and while I am more than happy to include relevant information, POV-pushing is not going to help matters. If those editors who want information added are unwilling to engage in dialogue, then it obviously wasn't all that important, was it? MSJapan (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Give them some time to respond... Ortale left me a message on my talk page explaining his "rejection" of my original revert (I have deleted the comment, but you can see it in my talk page history if you want), so I think he is willing to engage in dialogue. However, he also indicates that he is in the UK, and it is getting on in the evening over there. As for the poor grammar, I would assume from the user name that English is not Frenchmason's native language. Of course, that is all the more a reason to discuss the issue here and work with us to reach consensus language. Blueboar (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedian, Dear Blueboar

First of all, I want to apologise if somebody found my amendments as too intrusive. I had actually not noticed the mention at the top of the discussion page. What is sure about those changes is that it had nothing to do with “vandalism”. I just wanted to bring my stone to this common work.

Sorry also for my poor English, I am clearly not an English native.

The all purpose of an encyclopaedia is to present topics with no bias. The fact that http://en.wikipedia.org is in English is an opportunity to present topics to people globally. It shouldn’t be to present topics to the Anglo-Saxon community or from an Anglo-Saxon point of view only.

It is of common knowledge that Freemasonry has started in Europe in the 14th century. It was present in different forms in Scotland, Ireland, England, France and Germany.

In their 1st and 2nd version, Anderson's Constitutions gave a structure and THE RULES to Freemasonry. Those constitutions have been so far considered as the most important document stating sine qua non conditions for being "regular".

The creation of diverse Masonic bodies after WWI had often more something to do with politics and history (eg Uk vs France, Colonial countries vs new nations etc) than with masonic issues per se.

In summary

• In Anglo-Saxon and Northern European countries, UGLE has most of the time influenced the format of meetings (100% symbolism) and tried to impose new RULES (eg 1929) with more or less success (see below details on “Regularity”)

• In continental Europe and francophone Africa, main Masonic bodies are more or less influenced by the French approach (eg symbolism + philosophical essays presented during lodge meetings).

Keeping this in mind, I would like to propose the following changes to the page on “Freemasonry”:

1 – Paragraph on “History”

A - Anderson Constitutions are not mentioning specifically that the “Great Architect of the Universe” has to be understood as a “Deity”. This concept in the 18th century was actually more Theist than Deist. It’s only in the late 1929 that the UGLE has specified that “Great Architect of the Universe”=”God”. It is therefore wrong to write that “GOdF removed the requirement that its members have a belief in a Deity” as before 1877 it had never been a requirement. The only requirement was that all work in a lodge had to be done to “The Glory of the Great Architect of the Universe” with no more definition.

B - transfer “The Grande Loge Nationale Française (GLNF)[11] is currently the only French Grand Lodge that is in regular amity with the UGLE and its many concordant jurisdictions worldwide.” in the paragraph about “History” to a new paragraph dealing with history of “recognition” per country.

Without an explanation of the French Masonic history, writing it with no background is a serious shortcut.

Please refer to the following articles to make up your mind:

http://bessel.org/masrec/france.htm

http://bessel.org/francedc.htm

http://www.fm-fr.org/fr/spip.php?article61

The new paragraph could be named “Mainstream and other traditional and regular masonic bodies” and could summarise the specificities of Freemasonry in each country.

2 – Paragraph on “Organisational structure”

A – The paragraph on “Regularity” as it is, is mixing two very different things: the “Recognition” and the “Regularity”.

Regularity comes from Latin rēgula which meant “according to the rule”.

Given that Landmarks can vary from a GL to another and are sometimes changed (eg UGLE in 1929), the admitted universal rule to follow, since 1723 is the Anderson’s Constitution.

Any Grand Lodge or Grand Orient working in the strict respect of the Anderson’s Constitution shall be considered as regular in their practice.

It looks to me as a misleading shortcut to write that “Regularity” is only a “constitutional mechanism whereby Grand Lodges or Grand Orients give one another mutual recognition” and that “Grand Lodges and Grand Orients in amity with GOdF are commonly referred to "liberal" or "irregular" Masonry” for several reasons:

• Many Masonic bodies, working in perfect regularity, have been created in the 19th century in Continental Europe (eg GLDF and GLB) to propose an alternative to the liberal approach of the GODF.

• Later, other Masonic bodies have decided to leave mainstream masonic bodies when they became controversial, and are still applying scrupulously the Anderson’s Constitutions principle

• In Continental Europe, Mainstream Masonic bodies are rather new (usually created after WWII). They are clearly the minority in their national Masonic environment (eg GLRI in Italy (1993) vs GOI, GLNF (30,000 masons out of 130,000 masons) – founded in 1913 but which became of significant size after the departure of 1/3 of the lodges of the GLDF).

• In Continental Europe: several Masonic bodies are working following the rules of the Anderson’s Constitutions, are traditional and regular in their work and absolutely not “liberal” even though they are in amity with GoDF

Please read the following articles to make up your mind

• Regular and Traditional Grand Loges in Europe: http://www.fm-fr.org/fr/spip.php?rubrique62

• The Masonic Regularity: http://www.fm-fr.org/fr/spip.php?article65 (particularly the last sentence)

It’s important to note that the rules edited by the UGLE in 1929 seem not to be anymore a focus for the “mainstream” freemasonry. For example:

• USA:

o breach of the 5th rule by 78% of US mainstream Grand Lodges as there are now 2 GL in amity per state (which I personnaly find great)

o breach of the 4th rule as most of the PH GL and Mainstream GL are in official relations with Para Masonic groups such as the Eastern Star

• Italy: GLRI (1993 - recognised by the UGLE), founded with no respect of the Landmarks of the GOI (recognised by most of the US Grand Lodges)

• Belgium: GLRB founded in 1979 in Belgium while GLB was the still the regular Masonic body

• France: GLNF in breach of the 1st rule as it has been created in 1913 by only 2 regularly constituted lodges and was founded in France while GLdF was the only Masonic body in Amity with mainstream Grand Lodges

For memory: http://www.geocities.com/freemasonry_masons/texts/ugle_principles.html#GAOTU

B - Transfer “Prince Hall Freemasonry” to the new paragraph dealing with other regular Masonic bodies. Prince Hall Grand Lodges are “other Masonic bodies” and not specificities of the organisation of freemasonry like Degrees, Ritual and Constitutions are…..

C – Paragraph on Holocaust

It may be interesting to underline that Nazis (and the Soviet regime) did not make any difference between Regular and Liberal masons. They all went to camps and had the same inhuman treatments.

It is for many masons in Continental Europe a very important point.

As mentioned in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grande_Loge_de_France

“After WWII the United Grand Lodge of England asked the Grand Loge de France to stop any administrative contacts with the Grand Orient de France, which UGLE consideres irregular. As all Freemasons had been equally persecuted by the Nazis during the war, whatever their masonic bodies were, a majority of brothers of the Grande Loge de France categorically refused to put an end to the historical relationships with the Grand Orient de France.”

6:00 CET, 8 August 2008, Paris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchmason (talk • contribs) 15:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You lay out GLDF's view on the matter very well (The US/UGLE view of it is significantly different, of course, but this is not the forum to debate it)... I have to say that I find much of what you say to be irrelevant. Our goal is not to show why one side or the other in this debate is "right"... nor is this the forum to determine if GLdF is "regular" or not. Our goal is to explain what Freemasonry is to those who do not know.

In a general overview article such as this, we do not really want to get into minutia ... we have to simplify things and paint them with a broad brush. I don't think we would discuss the issue of regularity and recognitionat all, except that it is central to explaining the differences that exist between the two main branches of Freemasonry, (and those differences do need to be discussed.)

Remember, our audience is non-Masons. Regularity is a very difficult concept to explain to non-Masons. This is because it is defined in so many ways. Using a broad brush, we can say that a lodge or Grand Lodge is "regular" if it complies with the "Ancient Landmarks"... but, since no two Masonic Jurisdictions can agree on what the "Ancient Landmarks" are, we run into a problem. Essentially, regularity is what ever a given Grand Lodge or Grand Orient says it is. Each Grand Lodge has its own criteria.

However, there is one thing we can say about regularity... No Grand Lodge will recognize a lodge they consider irregular. And that means we have to try to explain what Recognition is. This is a bit easier to explain to non-masons... as long as you stick to generalities. As soon as you start getting into details you simply confuse the matter. The idea that GLoNY recognizes UGLE, who returns the favor by recognizing GLoNY is simple and easy to understand ... But as soon as you try to explain how GLI and GOI fit in to that relationship things become confusing. Instead of a short sentence or two, you are suddenly dealing with several paragraphs... or even an entire seperate article. It is far too much to put into what is supposed to be a broad overview.

I do understand that using the broad brush will often lead to over simplification. But it is the best we can do in an overview article such as this. Unfortuanately, that does mean that we will not discuss the situation with GLdF in any detail. You simply can't discuss GLdF without going into confusing detail on regularity and recognition. And that isn't something we want to do. Blueboar (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Great. Let's only keep the Anglo-Saxon view of Freemasonry to make things simpler then. Thanks for the concensus that can be summarised in sticking to your views and only your views.

--Frenchmason (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you're just not interested in simply presenting the view; you want to say "GLDF is right, and UGLE is not". We're not here to prove who is right and who is wrong, and you are. That's the fundamental problem. your material is effectively "GLDF is regular like mainstream lodges, and it's this and that and the other thing" despite the fact that it isn't recognized as such. The politics behind it are irrelevant to the fact that it is not regular as stated by UGLE. We can discuss it in its own track, but a blatant misstatement like that is not going to stand in the article, period. This is not the place to debate whys and hows.MSJapan (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Rm For Dummies refs

The cites for Freemasons for Dummies were refname with no page, and that's just not going to work, so I removed them. I'll put them back if I can find the relevant pages, but I haven't had luck doing it piecemeal, so I'm just going to have to read the whole thing to find the stuff. MSJapan (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Orange Order - revisited

I know we discussed this in detail a year or so ago... but JASpencer has reopened it. As is clearly stated at the UGLE webpage, The Orange Order is not relalted to Freemasonry in any way shape or form. It may have used Masonry as a model... and there may be overlap in membership (especially in the early years), but that is not a relationship. There is categorically no formal or informal connection between the two organizations, and there never has been. Blueboar (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That whole paragraph is a non sequitur, actually, as it has nothing to do with the section in question, but rather the opposite assertion. It's a useful section, though - if UGLE sees it as important enough to talk about, it must be a common question. However, those groups all fall into the category of pseudo-(or para-) Masonic. I'm going to figure out which it is and expand the section, because there are a lot more than just three. I know most other fraternal groups follow a Masonic pattern because Masons started them in the first place to do community service-type things that Masonry itself wasn't involved in at the time. MSJapan (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Pseudo masonic organisations are definately an interesting thing to explore. JASpencer (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Masonry was used (and misused) as the model for most fraternal orders... whether their purpose was political, benevolent, social or something else. I agree that an article on this phenominon might be interesting. However, one thing does need to be made clear in any such article: Just because people who happened to be freemasons were involved in the founding of another organization, it does not mean that Freemasonry was involved in founding that other organization. This is all to common an assumption. Blueboar (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct, but we don't need an article; the major orgs I'm thinking of as examples already have them. I was thinking just a short section with wikilinks and just a basic statement that individuals started the groups based along Masonic lines - just something so the organizationsa section doesn't suddenly "jump", which is what it does now. MSJapan (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

format

US/international mix. In the audit, I chose international. Please buzz me if you want this changed. Tony (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote request re: no one speaks for Freemasonry

From Freemasons for Dummies, p. 15:

No one "speaks" for Freemasonry

"An important thing to understand about Freemasonry is that there is no one, single worldwide governing body for the fraternity. There are literally thousands of tony books out there with long names and respected authors who propound their throries about the history, philosophy, and symbolism of Freemasonry. And there is no shortage of convoluted-sounding titles for office holders, especially in some of the other Masonic organizations outside of the Lodge - Grand this, and Supreme that, and Most Sovereign something or other. It doesn't matter. No one man speeks for Freemasonry, and no one ever has. ..." (italics in the original... bolding mine for emphysis)

Hope that helps. Blueboar (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Entered Apprentice redirect

There's no need to have a separate article on the Entered Apprentice, especially if the information is going to be wrong (which it was), and the sources it relies on are an anti-Masonic book and a generic reference to a spurious 200-year-old ritual, and something lifted from List of Freemasons. This is not appropriate use of sources. What it is is "I have no background or knowledge to draw upon in order to evaluate the sources I use to make articles about a topic I really know very little about, but I'm going to find a way to use them anyway." In this case, however, Stephen Knight's bias and the validity of Duncan have been discussed before. If something is to be done on degrees, it will be worked out here instead of being immediately forked out to do whatever one wishes with it. MSJapan (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Without getting into the issue of whether Duncan's ritual is a reliable source or not, the statement it was being used for was innacurate and is not match anything that Duncan said. I have removed both the statement and the ref. Never mind... I was talking about the wrong EA article... moot point in any case as the redirects solve the problem. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations....

It concerns me that the only usage of "bloody penalties" that could be found is from a blatantly POV Christian evangelical site. Looking over the article, almost every single piece of criticism in this article comes from the same types of groups, and it really needs to be toned down, seeing as how we have two other articles completely devoted to the criticisms of these individuals. As a matter of fact, we should find some references indicating that there are quite a few Christians, Muslims, and Jews who have absolutely no problem with Freemasonry, and even (gasp!) have joined and sit together in Lodge, just to get some perspective. MSJapan (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should quote Kipling?...

Outside - "Sergeant! Sir! Salute! Salaam!"

Inside - "Brother," an' it doesn't do no 'arm.

We met upon the Level an' we parted on the Square,

An' I was junior Deacon in my Mother-Lodge out there!

We'd Bola Nath, Accountant,

An' Saul the Aden Jew,

An' Din Mohammed, draughtsman

Of the Survey Office too;

There was Babu Chuckerbutty,

An' Amir Singh the Sikh,

An' Castro from the fittin'-sheds,

The Roman Catholic!

Excerpt from Kipling's "The Mother Lodge" Blueboar (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar, you asked for a citation for the claim that The obligations are historically known amongst various sources critical of Freemasonry for their so-called "bloody penalties". I simply provided what was asked (well I didn't, I only provided one source, but providing three would have just unbalanced the section for no gain).

I don't want to seem like I'm whining, but write the text and provide the citation. The bias in the article isn't exactly anti-Masonic. JASpencer (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

JAS... When I am wrong I admit it. I was mistaken... I honestly thought the source did not use the term "Bloody penalties". When I read the source I saw the later part (where the author uses "Blood Oath", instead of "Bloody Penalties") and my eye skipped completely over the earlier part where he does indeed use "bloody penanties".

That said... Please assume better faith than you are currently doing. I do not assume that every edit you make is based on an Anti-masonic bias, please do not assume that all of my edits are based on a pro-masonic bias. Look at my edit summary... my objection was not to the statement that some people criticize the obligations for having "bloody penalties"... I know full well that they do. My objection was based on my belief (erronious, as it turns out) that the source did not uses the term... so I was simply asking for you to provide a source that did use the term. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the citation supports the assertion, despite the fact that it lends undue weight to the criticism. Personally I'd prefer that an alternative citation was used, since I find the site is explicit about it's bias. for what it's worth the owners of that site don't even consider me, as a non-Christian, worth saving from freemasonry until I've already been converted to their twisted interpretation of the bible.

I can understand that using that site, rather than yet another RCC based source, mitigates for Blueboars concern about the growing Catholicisation of the Freemasonry topic, but given that JAS is claiming only three available sources I don't imagine that any of them are all that inherently sound. I'd also question whether all three are independent or whether there is circular reporting going on, which is quite common in the field, particularly through the late 80s and 90s.

ALR (talk) 09:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be interesting to trace the term "bloody penalties" back to its origin... Who was the first to complain about masonic obligations using that term? The first time I saw the term was in Steven Knight's "The Brotherhood", but I don't know if he originated it. Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Much of the papers issued by the various protestant churches that appeared in the 90s are rehashed from Knight, the Parliamentary report is also heavily derived from Short book which fell out of it. I don't know the provenance as Knight is pretty speculative and takes a lot of hearsay evidence from the disgruntled.

Unless JAS has managed to find something with clear provenance then I'm unconvinced that it has much coverage before then. Lets face it, the traditional penalties are pretty grim, very much a reflection of their time.

ALR (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting read

At the risk of sidetracking this talk page away from discussing the article... Chris Hodapp's blog currently has very interesting discussion about the history and impact of Masonic essotericism (its under the heading of "Are Dummies and Idiots Wrecking Freemasonry?".) Since it is a blog, I don't think we could or should use it as a reliable source in the article... but it is worth reading (and there are some interesting replies as well). Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

References to "hc cm u"

Someone should say something in this article about all of the "hc cm u" bumper stickers that I see on cars all of the time.

Thanks, Doug —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.215.211 (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I get 13(!) google hits on "hc cm u", so I hardly think it's worth putting anything in about it - it seems to be a tiny bit of american trivea anyhow, and less common than the whole 2b1ask1 thing... WegianWarrior (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It really isn't something worth mentioning. The bumper sticker is simply an obscure reference to a particular point in the ritual (nothing "secret", sorry). The letters are a "coded" version of the phrase: "Whence came you?"... which (in some jurisdictions) is the first question in the oral "examination" that candidates must pass in order to move from the degree of Entered Aprentice to the degree of Fellowcraft.

The purpose of the sticker is two-fold: 1) to let other Masons know that the driver of the car is a Mason, and 2) to get non-Masons to ask about the "mysterious" phrase... thereby giving the driver a chance to talk about Freemasonry (with the idea that the enquirer might become interested in joining). In other words, it's Masonic advertizing. Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Good jurisdictional point, here, though, which we may be able to work in as illustrative. Anyone from a jurisdiction that uses a different ciphering format, plain English, or no book at all isn't even going to recognize that sticker as Masonic. MSJapan (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope... no reliable sources discuss the topic.

Purpose

Is there any purpose of the Freemasonry? I saw history, organization, symbols, but I couldn't figure out what is the purpose of the movement? Is there a purpose? Is it "to rule the world" as I've heard? And how it works? What does a meeting look like, do they make decisions, action plans, activity reports... ??? The article is not complete without these points being addressed. Crnorizec (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It has many purposes, as outlined in the article... but ruling the world is not one of them. Probably the most commonly quoted purpose is "To make good men better". Blueboar (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No source for statement

I am a little surprised that is still no source for this statement:

The political opposition that arose after the "Morgan Affair" in 1826 gave rise to the term "Anti-Masonry", which is still in use today, both by Masons in referring to their critics and as a self-descriptor by the critics themselves.

"... as a self-descriptor by the critics themselves."

Says who? Where is the sourcing? This sentence is so flimsy as to invite mockery. Please don't tell me this has been raised before - if so then obviously it has not been resolved satisfactorily because there is still no source quoted.

Without proper sourcing, this section falls apart under its wobbly category heading of "Opposition to and criticism of Freemasonry" ... As I've stated previously, criticism of masonry does not make me or anyone else anti-masonry, just as criticism of Catholics does not automatically make me or anyone else anti-Catholic. I can criticise George Bush without being anti-Republican too. Fancy that!

As for "self-descriptor" - that term does not appear to be in generally accepted usage, garnering only a few thousand links to obscure forums and the like. It sounds more like some coded dog-whistle wizadry than an encyclopedic term.

Finally, users who deletes comments from a "talk" page risk looking like they have something to hide. Other than their real names of course.

Jason Brown Editor Avaiki Nius Agency

--avaiki (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I thought the name was familiar - you're the editor who expressed concerns that the article didn't discuss enought scandals and controversies (not counting the fact that it did then and does now).

Then, as now, the article contains a section on opposition to and criticism of Freemasonry, which serves as a summary of the articles linked to within. And as a summary, according to wikipedia guidelines last I checked, citations don't have to be given if they are given in the main articles: this is the cause both with the Morgan Affair and anti-masonry in general.

As to your comment on people deleting comments from the discussion pages... other than making noise and trying to sound omnious, what you mean by that? If you're referring to the fact that your previous posts here has been archived, learn to live with it - we have to archive this talkpage now and then to keep it useable.

WegianWarrior (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And to answer Mr. Brown's question... see the Wikipedia article on the Anti-Masonic Party... Given that the name was chosen by that political party, and was not a label afixed to them by the Masons, I don't think such an obvious statement needs to be cited. But if you insist we can cite it. Blueboar (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)