Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 30

Problem w statement

We have a problem (nothing to do w Freemasonry itself) in the statement:

Historically, Freemasonry has attracted criticism - and suppression - from both the politically extreme right (e.g. Nazi Germany)[80][81] and the extreme left (e.g. the former Communist states in Eastern Europe).[62]

The statement is correct EXCEPT the Nazis (a term they rarely used themselves) were not extreme right. Politically they were extreme left and almost indistinguishable from Communists.Aaaronsmith (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is debatable... certainly most people consider the Nazi's (and other facist regiemes) to be on the extreme right. Blueboar (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

In many ways I'd agree with Aaron, the economic policies of the Nazi party were explicitly socialist and the manifestation was very left wing. The social policies on the other hand have become what most people define them by, particularly in comparison with their contemporary heirs.

There is a balance to be sought between accuracy and common usage and in this context I'm unconvinced that using the strict definition is useful. The debate should be taken elsewhere, specifically as FM doesn't have a political position.

The useful point may be that examples are inappropriate and the statement could benefit from restructuring.

ALR (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, I'd say Aaron has it backward; Communism moved right and became similar to fascism, not the other way around. Either way, it's a semantic issue that should be addressed at a more relevant article (such as Nazism), not here. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with much above - although many political philosophers and theorists would state that the NSDAP was indeed a 'left wing' party (especially economically) that particular debate is better addressed elsewhere, and nothing is lost by leaving it as it is. Middlesex Fire (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Nazism was literally national socialism, and Stalin pronounced his own form of communism to be socialism in one country.

Nuttyskin —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC).

Is it time to archive again

It has been a while since we archived the talk page (a good sign that the article is achieving some stability and consensus). But it is getting a bit long. Should we archive the older discussions? Blueboar (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there were no objections... archived everything prior to Dec. of 08. Blueboar (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Masonry 2

I note that you reverted the OED definition of Anti-Masonry but kept it as a reference. I can confirm that the Definition in the OED is not as you left it in the article. Lucian Sunday (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from User_talk:Blueboar

And I can confirm that the definition that I have used is accurately taken from the OED. Perhaps part of the confusion is that we are using the definitions of two different words and two different editions of the OED... Lucian Sunday is using the definition of the word "Anti-Mason" (a person) taken from the 1989 edition, while I am using the definition of Anti-Masonry (a concept) from the 1979 edition.

I think my choice of wording and definition is better, as the article is discussing more than just people who are Anti-Masons... it is discussing the entire concept of Anti-Masonry. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The article was previously claiming that the definition came from the 1989 Edition. Your first Revert reinstated this claim. You now claim a definition from the "1979 Edition". The Oxford English Dictionary was published under its current name, in 1928 (First Edition) and 1989 (2nd Edition); What is this "1979 Edition" you claim to have?. Lucian Sunday (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... I double checked the publication date in my copy and corrected it. Perhaps "edition" is not the correct word? In any case, 1979 is the date of publication listed my copy... to be as specific as I can, I am looking at the two volume "Compact Edition"... Library of Congress Card No. 76-188038... It says it was "First Published 1971", and lists reprintings in 1972, 1973, 1977 and 1979. Knowing that the OED did indeed first come out in 1928, I assume this refers to publication of the "Compact Edition" and not the OED itself. The definition of "Anti-Masonry" I took is in Vol. 1 (A-O), p.369.

I can agree that we should use the most up-to-date definition... Does the version you used contain a definition of the term Anti-Masonry (as opposed to "Anti-Mason")? Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Including Bolding & italics The full entry is:

Anti-Mason (U.S.) One who is opposed to Freemasonry, used esp. (in the U.S.) of a member of the Anti-Masonic (political) Party. So Anti-Masonic a.; Anti-Masonry

Lucian Sunday (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

But is there a separate entry for the word: "Anti-Masonry"? If not, I feel strongly that the older version should continue to be used, since it specifically defines the concept as opposed to the people. Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Now why am I not suprised by this? Why do you think I felt the need to double check a reference (which as it happened turn out to be spurious)? Why have you not reverted a reference that you yourself now admit is spurious? Lucian Sunday (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith... There was an error... I have fixed the problem by correcting the citation info. There is nothing "Spurious" about it. The definition given is that given by the OED. If you want to discuss reasons why some different definition (or why some different, but related term) is more appropriate, I am willing to listen... but the important thing is that the term is defined as stated in the article. Blueboar (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit refers to Oxford English Dictionary (Consolidated Edition), Oxford University Press, 1979; would you please double check the existence of such a publication? Lucian Sunday (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that it is currently sitting on my desk, I can verify the existance of the publication... but since you obviously will not assume good faith and take my word for it, I gave the Library of Congress Card Number in a previous post. Feel free to look it up. Blueboar (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

D'OH... Compact edition... not Consolidated Edition... I will correct. Thank you for holding my feet to the fire. Blueboar (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this your dictionary? Lucian Sunday (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That certainly looks like it ... The only difference is that my copy was published in 1979. Blueboar (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The 1979 compact version is a two-volume edition of the 1971 Oxford English Dictionary. It is identical to the full 20-volume edition of 1971. Would you agree with this statement from another owner of your dictionary? Lucian Sunday (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And, with that statement, this has officially become one of the most tedious threads I've seen in all my years on Wikipedia. As such, it wins the coveted Sisyphus Award. Congratulations, Lucian! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed getting tedious, Lucian... I have already given you the publication history. YES... I am looking at the 1979 compact version... a two-volume edition of the complete OED (in teeny-tiny little type). It was first published in 1971... and reprinted several times through the 70s. I have not conducted a word for word comparison of the 1979 version against the other editions, or printings, or what have you... so I have no way of knowing how "identical" they are... but I would certainly assume that, barring an occasional new word being added, they are going to be essentially identical. Are you satisfied?

I don't know how much clearer I can make this... the definition of the term "Anti-Masonry" that is currently quoted in this article comes from the OED. OK? If you need additional confirmation of this definition, we can use Webster instead (Webster's definition of the term being simply: "Opposition to Freemasonry"). Blueboar (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am satisfied that Oxford English Dictionary#Compact edition in your possession is simply a repro of the 1933 edition. It should be replaced with the 1989 definition. If you wish to use the Websters defintion I would not have a problem. Lucian Sunday (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is silly... who cares if it is 1933 or 1989... the definition is still valid. Or do you dispute that? Blueboar (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Evidently you care. 20 Years ago OED saw fit update the relevant entry after 50 years and you still want to include a 70 year old definition that you initially claimed was from 1989. Your reference is still misleading/misrepresentaion by the way. But as you said Who Cares? Lucian Sunday (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

In what way was my reference misleading or a misrepresentation? Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that we continue to use the term "Anti-Masonry", as that is what we are discussing in the Opposition section. If you have a more up-to-date definition for this term, fine... but don't change it to another term that does not have the same meaning. Using Anti-Mason instead of Anti-Masonry is both awkward and changes the focus of the section. It would be similar to using Freemason instead of Freemasonry... or "democrat" instead of "democracy", "Christian" instead of "Christianity", or conspirator to conspiracy. They are related words, but not the same. One discribes a conceptual point of view, the other a category of person.Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I do indeed have a more up to date definition - The Websters definition provided by yourself. As an alternative I think OED 1989 assumed the average reader would easily be able to translate Anti-mason to Anti-masonry and vice versa. At the very least Collectonian's proviso needs to be taken into account. Lucian Sunday (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

OK... I think we need a second opinion here... I have asked about this at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#1979_version_of_the_Oxford_English_Dictionary Blueboar (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Added Webster. Blueboar (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Having followed this discussion over a number of days I am inclined to agree with Blueboar because of his reasoning as expounded at 17:06, 25 January. I would be happy with either the Webster, or the 1979. Middlesex Fire (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have put them both in, which seems to have settled the issue. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Further Reading/External Links

Suggest breaking external links into two: one section for external links (to items directly mentioned in the article) under the current title, the second section for further reading (for items not directly mentioned in the article, but which may provoke further interest) - please see my sandbox for how I believe this could currently be organised, and further, how they could sensibly be divided.

This is to stop links such as that most recently provided by Struthious Bandersnatch appearing in the external links as, although they are sensible, and even items of potential masonic interest, they may be largely irrelevant to the article as it stands. Middlesex Fire (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea... The way we have been opperating, "items directly mentioned in the article" should be cited (and thus listed in the "References" section, not the "External Links" section), while "items not directly mentioned in the article, but which may provoke further interest" are listed in the "External Links" section... However, this assumes that items in the last category are webpages (ie there is something to "link" to). So far, we have not had someone add a book for "further reading". But if we do then a "Further Reading" section can certainly be added. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I brought it up is because of SB's edit linking an online book. When I said 'items directly mentioned in the article' I meant something along the lines of the UGLE website, etc - which although the subject of the odd reference, people may want one stand alone link to it also - likewise, things like the online book mentioned by SB - there's nothing like it brought up in the article, but it may be of interest to some. I suppose I should substitute my previous distinction between 'items directly mentioned' and 'items not directly mentioned' to: 'Items directly relevant to matters mentioned in the text' and 'Items not directly relevant, but provoking further interest' Middlesex Fire (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

But if something is already listed in the references, then it shouldn't be duplicated as an EL. This is in line with WP:EL. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I see, will check that out. Middlesex Fire (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The section that most applies is Wikipedia:EL#References and citation. Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think, BTW, that the Freemason's Hall link is not terribly relevant to this article (as it is simply another Masonic building - the precedence of UGLE doesn't manifest itself through the building), and would be much more appropriate in the UGLE article. MSJapan (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it was my edit, so I'll reverse it, and add it to the UGLE article if it's not already there. Middlesex Fire (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Membership and religion

There are some statements here which to me seem rather controversial considering the 'Supreme Being' issue held by the Grand Lodges. I don't see any sources listed for them, are they in the 27/52 listed in the first sentence? The one at issue here are "Buddhism, Sikhism.. can and have become Masons" which is odd considering that Buddhism can include atheists (and many do not refer to it as a religion, so is it an appropriate example?) and Sikhism seems (to a lay observer like me) close to pantheism. It's been mentioned before the deism is considered an acceptable interpretation for the SB/GAotU but would pantheist views also qualify? Tyciol (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It very much depends on the Grand Lodge in question - some ask very specific questions of prospective candidates (ie; the Grand Lodges working the Swedish Rite will ask if you're christian; if you say no you're out), others just ask if the candidate ask in a supreme being and leave it at that (in other words, leave the interpretation up to the candidate). And yes, the requirement is generally mentioned in the landmarks. WegianWarrior (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

To expand... It is always a mistake to make broad assumptions about Freemasonry. In the Anglo-American branch of Freemasonry, an avowed Atheist can not become a Mason, while someone with a conception of Deity can. for the most part, the only religious requirement is an affirmative answer to to the question: "Do you believe in Deity". If a Buddhist (or member of any other religious faith) says "yes", then Masonry is satisfied, and the man may join.

You have to understand that Freemasonry came out of Judeo-Christian, Western society. The language it uses is based on that tradition. Originally, it's language of religious equality referred simply to the fact that Freemasonry accepted both Protestants and Catholics. Jews were added to the mix in the 1700s... and then Muslims.

In the 1800s, as the various European powers extended their colonial empires into India and Asia, what was acceptable was broadened even further... In Anglo-American Masonry, the quasi-religious sounding language used in Freemasonry did not change, but it was interpreted differently, so that it included Hindus and Buddhists. In the late 20th century, as various New Age faiths became more common (especially in America) the interpretation was expanded yet further. For most Grand Lodges, as long as the person believes in Deity... they can join.

Starting in the 1870s, the Continental tradition took this expansion even further, accepting that "Supreme Being" can be a philosophical concept that might not have any religious meaning (thus accepting Atheists).

That said, even today, most Masons tend to think of "Deity" in monotheistic terms, and if someone is known to believe in a non-monotheistic faith, it will often raise eyebrows and cause consternation. I have met a Mason from California who follows a neo-Norse religious faith (ie he believes in Odin, Thor and the other Norse Gods). There was a lot of confusion when he petitioned to join... the lodge wanted him in, but was not at all sure whether he qualifed, and they eventually had to ask the Grand Lodge. The Grand Lodge of California determined that there was no bar to his joining. He had a "belief in Deity".

Perhaps a different Grand Lodge would have reached a different conclusion (some are more conservative than others) and when you get to the local Lodge level things can get even more hide-bound... to the point where some local lodges will exclude anyone who is not a White Protestant Christian (sadly, Freemasonry has its share of bigots, just like the rest of society... we are working on it, just like the rest of society)... but in concept, and "teaching" Freemasonry tends to be inclusive, not exclusive. Blueboar (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Spencer_Compton,_7th_Marquess_of_Northampton, the Pro Grand Master of UGLE.

Sikhism is certainly not Pantheistic. Both Hinduism and Buddhism include concepts which can be considered as a root deity, explicitly in Hinduism and subject to the Mahayana school of Buddhist thought.

ALR (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Typo

I can't seem to edit the main page, but the Membership section has a typo. The phrase "an historic" should read "a historic". (comment added by IP editor User:216.164.51.59)

Actually this isn't a typo... I believe it is a stylistic difference between UK and US English.Blueboar (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Freemasonary & Islam; sources used from internet blogs!

I cannot seem to edit this page & hence hope that someone will erase the following lines in the sub-section "Islam and Freemasonry":-

Many Islamic anti-Masonic arguments are closely tied to both Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism, though other criticisms are made such as linking Freemasonry to Dajjal.[71] Some Muslim anti-Masons argue that Freemasonry promotes the interests of the Jews around the world and that one of its aims is to rebuild the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem after destroying the Al-Aqsa Mosque.[72] In article 28 of its Covenant, Hamas states that Freemasonry, Rotary, and other similar groups "work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions …"[73]

I have checked all three references (71, 72 & 73) above - they all ultimately lead to information gained from internet blogs and iunreliable website. (71) is a blog entry! (72) is an article from a website, claiming to have been written by a doctor. Fine, but I checked where the doctor got the information from, and his source was yet another website (no academic, or print journal information could be traced)! Finally, (73) had a Wikisource article for a reference - this article has been deleted.

If you wish to keep these three sentences, which make claims about what Islam has supposedly said about Freemasonry, then kindly do the following:

1. Make a clear distinction between 'Islam' as a religion, and 'Muslims' as in anyone calling him/herself a muslim. So that when this subsection speaks of what 'Islam' has to say about freemasonry, the author should make it clear whether he means "what certain people, who also happen to be muslims, have had to say about it", OR, whether the author means "Islam, the religion, has in its sacred text (Quran) and jurisprudence (Shari'ah Law / Haddith) information to the effect that Freemasonry is such and such". If the author wishes to claim that Islam, the religion, has the views mentioned in this article on freemasonry, then I find this hard to comprehend since the Quran & Haddith date to 1500 years ago - Freemmasonry didn't exist then. I am assuming, therefore, that the author meant ~some muslims believe that freemasonry is.....in relation to Islam". In which case, I recommend the following; 2. Use sources for your information from print journals (academic, or non-academic). Please do not use internet blogs & irreputable websites because these sources do not contain information, but rather "blog gossip" and "web rumours"! 3. FYI - when writing articles referring to what "Islam" says on this or that, please quote directly from the Quran (if that's where you've found the information), since no other source is considered entirely legitimate; for what people "think" of Islam may be one thing, and what Islam actually says (in the Quran) may be another. Please delete the above lines on Islam since their sources are dubious (not from print, but rather blogs) and their content even more so.

Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates42 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the article is quite specific... Read it again... we are not saying "Islam" says this or that... we are saying that Islamic/Muslim Anti-Masons say this. There is a difference. The article is NOT discussing Islam as a religion, nor Muslims in general, but is specifically discussing "Islamic anti-Masonic arguments" (ie anti-Masonic arguments of an Islamic flavor... a subset of Anti-Masonry) and "Muslim anti-Masons" (ie those anti-Masons who are Muslims). As for the citations, they directly verify what these particular Anti-Masons say and where they say it... They are used not to cite statements of fact, but statements as to the opinion of a specific group of people. Thus they are appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have re-read the article, including the section under discussion, and I still fail to see the distinction made as clearly in the article body. You have clarified it very well to me here in the discussion thread, but the article itself is not as clear. I therefore ask you to add your explanation (i.e. that this is the opinion of SOME Anti-Masonic Muslims) to the body of the article.

Besides that, even if I were to accept your explanation (which states this is only the Point of View of some Anti-Masonic Muslims,and that the references are valid - proof, facts, whatever - since all you need to prove that someone's opinion is such-and-such is simply refer to where he/she said it) I fail to see its relevance in this article. You might as well go around gathering the opinions of SOME Swedish Anti-Masons, and some Marxist Anti-Masons, or SOME Zionist Anti-Masons, some Egyptians, some Socialists, Some Liberalists, some Chinese, and the list will go on. My point is this: there will always be SOME people among any nation, religion, philosophical group, political party, colour, race, gender, or culture who may be Anti-Masonic - this amounts to saying nothing. Unless you want to show that there are elements of Anti-Freemasonry which can be directly derived (and with good reason and justification) from one or more of the basic tenets of Islam (as I've previously pointed out to you, this is the Quran or to a lesser degree of accuracy, Haddith), or within the code of belief of Socialists, or the system of belief of Zionists, or even the main poliies of a given political group, then all you're saying when you quote that someone who happens to be a Muslim (or a socialist, or a supporter of Manchester United football club, or whatever) thinks so-and-so about freemasontry is basically this - iddle gossip. Who cares what one or two supporters of Manchester United happen to think of Freemasonry? Of what importance are these few muslim people whose opinions you have quoted here under the misleading title "Islam and Freemasonry"? Are there learders, presidents, philosophers, high-ranking religious or political authorities? They are nobody. As such, their opinions do not merit mention in an article in anonline encyclopedia. You will be sure to find some freemasons (at least some time in history) who may have believed in gohsts of UFOs for that matter - what, you will list each of their individual beliefs in this article too, regardless of how insignificant they are as representative of freemasonry? If such is the case, then the title of this section ought not be "Islam and Freemasonry" because this DOES indeed allude to the fact that you are referring to some basic tenets within Islam as a religion. Fine, change the title in that case to "Certain Seriously Insignificant Members of The Public Who Happen To Be Muslims and Freemasonry". This ought to reflect more accurately the contents of this sub-section, and which you have kindly clarified in your response. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates42 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't agree with Socrates42. The article is very clear to say: 'some' and 'many' - and the text of the section clearly stipulates that it is various muslims, not islam itself, that have anti-masonic principles. With regard to insignificance - the article relies on the covenant of Hamas, and the previous laws and regulations of Iraq as a basis for some of its points - hardly insignificant or minor in the scheme of things. Your main issue seems to be with the header of the section, not the text of the section itself which - given the clearly referenced sources - is surely undisputable. If you believe that the header may mislead some people, I would state that I do not believe that it is misleading when taken in conjunction with the text below it. I would recommend that the section remains as is, unaltered. Mycroft (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The source of this particular sentence which I have now removed: "Many Islamic anti-Masonic arguments are closely tied to both Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism, though other criticisms are made such as linking Freemasonry to Dajjal." is an artcile written by a Dr. Andrew Prescott. I have just visited his article and looked at his source (from which this particular sentence is derived) - it's a web-blog! Hardly fitting as a "clearly referenced" source that is 'Undisputable'. It is not in a print journal or an academic article. It's a web blog so it is unreliable idle gossip, hence yes, it is dispuitable after all - espcially for what's meant to be an online encyclopedia such as Wikepedia. It belongs to internet blogs concerned with nothing other than gossip, and that's indeed where it should stay! It has no place on Wikepedia. As for the references you make to Hamas and Iraq. I agree that if these can be shown by a reliable and reputable reference, then they should be included and perhaps even elaborated on. Again, I fail to see where this information comes from. The Hamas reference was a WikiSource article that no longer exists. Do you have any references for these, and which would count as reliable? As for the content of the sentence I have deleted; I have done so because it is clearly incoherent and non-sensical. It would be self-contradictory indeed to say that any muslim is anti-semetic because the prophet of Islam (Muhammad) was an Arab and hence a semite himself. Arabs are also semetic people, the prophet was an arab, and hence muslims who follow him cannot be Anti-Semetic because it is self-contradictoty - it amount to saying that some muslims are "anti-myself"! Furthermore, this sentence (dodgy reference aside!) can come across as Islamophobic since it insunuates that muslims are anti-semites (which I have shown is simply impossible, since it's a logical self-contradiction), and such misrepresents the views of Islam. The same goes to the bit on Anti-Freemasonry. I have left the rest because the clearly indicate 'some' and not 'many' - which is misleading.

The source that you dispue is to an article on the Pietre-Stones Review of Freemasonry. The provenance of the article is clearly stated, and it lists dozens of sources at the bottom - not entirely from a blog. With regards to your problem with the use of the term anti-semitism, there is no contradiction, see wikis definition of anti-semitism. I would recommend that the sentence stays. Also, I would advise you not to characterise your good faith, major edits, as minor edits, as it can cause confusion. Mycroft (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there are a number of issues that this exposes, and it may be worth thinking back to why the section is there, and the consierable amount of fairly painful debate that led to it being here. The criticism by religious hierarchies issue is quite emotive and efforts were made to demonstrate that it wasn't just the Catholic Church, or indeed Christianity in general, that has issues with Freemasonry. It's worth noting that the RCC churns out material on an industrial scale, and nobody else really compares, however this is an effort to support the assertion that it's not just the RCC that has objections.

I've always been uncomfortable with the section, some of my reasons being similar to those raised by Socrates42.

I think my main concern is how representative the view is, neither Hamas nor The secular government of Iraq had a position on Freemasonry in isolation, their objection was wrapped up with a host of other organisations. I'm not convinced that demonstrates much other than that they had a list of people they weren't that keen on.

With respect to the groups of fringe nutters, since all we've got is some blogs there is little evidence that they are other than fringe nutters and are actually significantly representative of a faith with many millions of adherents worldwide. Part of my concern is the recency and the nature of the criticism; rehashes of Stephen Knights conspiracy ramblings.

ALR (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that we are splitting hairs, though, in the sense of "I don't listen to these people, so..." when in fact there are people that do. We could in fact say the same thing about RCC stuff, because there are some Roman Catholics who don't necessarily agree with everything the Pope says. I think the important thing is that the criticism exists, and to ignore it is misleading to the reader. MSJapan (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I see the point as undue weight, rather than anything else, although I would rephrase the point about secular Iraq and Hamas around the fact that these are secular not religious positions. They're political objections, not Islamic.

In terms of undue weight, we have very little evidence for the size of the group that makes the claims we're citing. I suppose one could argue that if Prescott sees it as significant enough to discuss in his paper then it must be a credible number, but there is nothing to substantiate that.

I think that the comparison with the pontifications of the RCC is quite weak. Whilst individual RCs may disagree with the position taken by Rome, the position taken by Rome is the position of the RCC. There is no comparable singe authority in Islam. In the way that the RCC can't speak for Christianity, no Imam can speak for Islam; even the clerics of Qom can only speak for themselves.

ALR (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Mycroft, the sources you point to "Pietre-Stones Review of Freemasonry" and the Wiki Source article on "Definition of Anti-Semitism" are both "circular reference". If you write a section on what 'other' people think of Freemasonry, surely your source should be something written by these 'other people' and not 'Freemasons' themselves. Secondly, quoting Wikipedia as a reference for Wikipedia itself is not exactly a good reference. Again, you're saying that in order to tell Wikipedia what Anti-Semetism means, I'll go ask Wikipedia! Another variation would be, 'how can I tell if this information which Wikipedia refers to is true?'...'I'll ask Wikipedia itself'!

As for 'Semitic' or 'anti-Semitic' and what they mean, you can visit any other reputable encyclopaedia as a reference for this one and find out that 'Semitic' languages and peoples are Arabic, Hebrew, and Aramaic. I see no validity in the article's claim that some Muslims or Arabs could possibly be Anti-Semitic because, as I have already explained, this is a contradiction in terms, because Arabs are also Semitic (and Muslims follow an Arabic prophet). As such, this section could be misunderstood as presenting views which encourage defaming Muslims and Islam - Islamophobia. If this is the case, then they are politically, and ideologically motivated views and not facts.

This sentence which I attempted to delete (but I can't seem to do so as it keeps being put back) allegedly states the Anti-Freemasonic views of certain Muslims, yet for a reference, it quotes a blog that yet again quotes a freemasonic article ("Pietre-Stones Review of Freemasonry"). I cannot see how this can work. If I want to know what Muslims think of freemasons and give evidence for this, would I ask a Muslim, or a Freemason? Hence your claim that Muslims have Anti-Masonic views based on arguments closely linked to Anti-Semitic and Anti-Zionist arguments is only referred to by 'some' people who claim to be Masons themselves (not Muslims, as the case should be). This is, at best, a gross error. As such, I kindly ask that these errors be corrected in order that they reflect facts and reality. As for the view (by MSJapan) that some Catholics may have opinions that do not reflect the pope's, but should nonetheless be mentioned, I use the same arguments. If Catholics really have said this, show me where and whether there are a "significant" number of them expressing these views such that it merits mention, concern, or study. My objection is that you have not quoted reliable sources indicating that either a 'significant number' or any 'significant figures' in Islam have said what you claim they have said because the references are not reliable. My second objection is to clarify in a line or so that you are referring to the views of 'some' Muslims and not Islam as the title misleadingly indicates. Islam means either the religion, or the totality of Muslims people. Since you have kindly clarified that neither of these is what you mean, then the title "Islam and Freemasonry" is indeed misleading.

Alter the title so that it actually portrays the content of this sub-section accurately, and quote good reliable sources and references, and the information can remain - otherwise you jeopardize the objectivity, truth, and consequently the value, of this article; I am certain that that's not what you intend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates42 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Socraties... first, could you please sign your comments (see: Wikipedia:Signatures#How to sign your posts). Second... Pietre-Stones is not a blog... it is a repository of scholarly essays on topics that are of interest to Freemasons. All of which have been published elsewhere. In this specific instance, the page is devoted to essays by Dr. Andrew Prescott (who is not a Mason by the way). Prescott is a distinguished scholar... he worked at the British Library as their Director of Manuscripts, and at the time he wrote the material being cited, he was working at the University of Shefield... speciallizing in Masonic studies. If anyone qualifies as a third party, independant, accademic source (which is the type of source that Wikipedia repeatedly says is best) on the topic of Freemasonry, it is Andrew Prescott. Blueboar (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Socrates' posts seem to be apologetics, insofar as the point is to try to show that no radicalism exists in Islam. Unfortunately, it does, and people listen to it. The "Semitic" argument is wholly semantic - anti-Semitism is a term devised for use to indicate bias against Jews in particular, and there's no way that anyone can say that bias does not exist in the Arabic world. MSJapan (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I have not come here to discuss my views on extremism in Islam or any other religion, sect, social, political, or cultural group. Nor have I come here to gather opinions as to what anyone else thinks on the matter. I am well aware that extremism is a tendency that exists within any creed and walk of life, and hence I need not be apologetic for any form of extremism as you have falsely assumed.

Secondly, I have not had an adequate and satisfactory response, as yet, to the objections which I have raised above - all of which are universally agreed by academics and researchers worldwide.

1) Unreliable sources and references consisting entirely from web / blog sources;

2) The misleading title which suggests that Islam (the religion / totality of Muslims in the world) and its relationship with Freemasonry. No such relationship, negative or positive can possibly be evidenced as the title suggests, because (by your own admittance) you are referring to 'some' Muslims, and not 'Islam'. So the title needs to be changed since it does not reflect a 'fact' - it is an assumption which is at best a 'gross exaggeration' based on opinions expressed by a minority of Muslims on web-blogs. This minority (whose true identity is almost impossible to ascertain because, after all, anyone can call himself a Muslim on a web-blog and post any idiotic views claiming they are Islam's) is neither a true nor an accurate representation of 'Islam' - so the title is either an error, in which case it should be changed, or it is there for the purpose of propaganda aimed at defaming Muslims and Islam, and falsely alleging that they are Anti-Masonic.

3) From 1) & 2) It follows that no significant 'number' not 'significant' figures within the world of Islam have made these claims such that it merits or deserves to be mentioned in an Encyclopedic entry on Freemasonry. Again, as universally agreed in the world of Academia, the contents of encyclopedic entries must display 'relevance' and 'accuracy'. I have contested in 1) & 2) that web-blogs do not provide evidence of what you claim, hence they cannot deliver an 'accurate' verdict. From this lack of accuracy, the 'relevance' of the sub-section on Islam and Freemasonry becomes itself questionable. As I have clearly stated above, unless you can show that a 'significant' uprising against Freemasonry is currently being fostered among Muslims, then I cannot see of what importance the opinions of 'some' Muslims, some 'Swedes’, or 'some' Japanese people (all within a minority group whose number cannot be ascertained from blog-entries!) are. If you add a section to an encyclopedia article, it has to demonstrate relevance and significance. Its significance could be shown if you can also prove that there is a 'large' number of Muslims who believe, think, or make these claims against freemasonry - but you can't. Your sources are web-blogs and anyone can sit behind his computer and claim to be anyone he likes. It is for this reason that serious academic researchers do not use web-blog to conduct their studies, unless they clearly express in their articles that this is the case; this brings me to my next point..

4) The author of the article you refer to (Dr. Andrew Prescott) is indeed an established and distinguished academic whose standing and work I do not dispute. Dr. Prescott, in the spirit of a true and good researcher, has clearly and honestly indicated in his article that the views which he has gathered are from web-blogs. I quote him from his article:

"Since the events of 11 September 2001, the idea that freemasons worship the devil has become widespread among British Muslims. The following are representative samples of the large number of web postings which document this new Islamic anti-masonry”

Your response to me, on the other hand, denies what Dr. Prescott himself does not attempt to hide. It is not the validity of Dr. Prescott's claims that I object to; rather it is certain contents in your subsection on Islam which 'exaggerates' the issue which Dr. Prescott has clearly and honestly indicated. He clearly says that his opinion about British Muslims is based on what he's found and read in blogs. I expect the same kind of honestly and transparency to be reflected in your sub-section, and which Dr. Prescott has quite rightly stated in his article. Tell Wikipedia readers that you refer to some 'Muslim' bloggers for your claims, and that'll reflect 'facts'; deny this, and you portray the matter unrealistically, making false accusations and allegations against a group of people. Also, your sentence beings with 'Many' Muslims, not 'Some' Muslims as you claim. Look at the article again & see for yourself (this is the opening sentence of the sub-section on Islam, and which gives reference number [71] which is the Dr. Prescott article we've just been referring to).

5) Lastly, I am still debating the validity of references [72] and [73] for which I am yet to receive an adequate response from you. I have checked these references for the below sentences in your sub-section, and here is what I found:

Some Muslim anti-Masons argue that Freemasonry promotes the interests of the Jews around the world and that one of its aims is to rebuild the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem after destroying the Al-Aqsa Mosque . [72]

• • The reference for this [72] is “Can a Muslim be a freemason?” in www.islamonline.com. Retrieved on 2007-05-08. I have visited this website and did a search with the article title provided here, and the search yielded nothing. Can you either provide a full-link to this article so I can check who it's written by, or is it yet another blog topic which has long been deleted from the website since it was retrieved in 2007-05-08?

In article 28 of its Covenant, Hamas states that Freemasonry, Rotary, and other similar groups "work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions...[73] Hamas Covenant of 1988. [73]

• • This has been referenced as Wikisource. Accessed 2 October 2007. This Wikisource no longer exists - it has, since it was accessed on 2 October 2007, been deleted. You need to provide a valid reference for this sentence / claim, and failing to do so, you need to delete it. You cannot use Wikipedia as a reference for Wikipedia itself (for reasons I have outlined above, and which seem to me to be quite obvious). You need to find another good reputable reference which does not amount to web-gossip.

I have from the start of this discussion been reasonable and clear about my objections to these sentences in your sub-section and to the title that you have chosen for it. I have made demands to correct it so that they accurately and legitimately reflect facts. This is not too much to ask for by any encyclopedic, academic, or public standards. Making ill-founded claims, or false allegations, about a large group of people and their opinions (whose population is in the billions) without adequate grounds maybe allowed in web-blogs, in the streets, or elsewhere on the grounds on 'Freedom of Speech'. But in encyclopedic articles, whose reputation ought to be marked by proof, evidence, accuracy, and transparency, such a move is an illegitimate one. That aside, making these false & unwarranted allegations can directly be viewed as inciting hatred and harm to that group.

For now, please do not concern yourself too much with my views on extremism and kindly address the above points which I have regarding the first three sentences of your sub-section and what I find problematic about them. Kindly address these, and the issue about the title. To summarize what has turned out to be a much longer discussion than I had originally anticipated, you need to amend this subsection, change the title so it actually reflects the content, provide better sources for your content, and delete that which you cannot provide a good source for. Please do not evade the points I have raised by bringing up other issues to do with my views, and address the points I have raised directly. I have not pointed out anything here that any other academic or serious researcher, or Wikepedia itself would fail to understand and agree on. The objectivity, validity, and truth of what I have raised are under question. I have given explicit and detailed reasons for this in order to be cooperative. I would therefore be grateful if you ponder on these and see what you can do about them so that this article is not misunderstood as being bias, inaccurate, badly referenced, or politically motivated - all of which would jeopardize the quality of this article and devalue its content.

Best wishes.

--Socrates42 (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

To take your points in no particular order:

• The Title: This is a stylistic point. The section above 'Christianity and Freemasonry' is titled in exactly the same way - and the section itself makes itself perfectly clear (as does the Islam section) that not all Christians (or all Muslims) are anti-masonic. It would be impossible to come up with a sensible title that reflects what you want it to reflect - instead, we have taken the option of explaining further in the section underneath. If you think it is not clear enough, ADD to it, instead of taking away. The section itself is, in my opinion, clear enough that it is SOME muslims who are anti-masonic (from an Islamic point of view).
• Out-dated or missing sources: Firstly, please assume good faith. Web pages are constantly deleted and renamed, so no one is trying to deceive anyone. However, your point is taken on board, and I and other will endeavour, I'm sure, to find new 'cources for our sources'. In the mean time, as the points were once accurately sourced, I would recommend that they remain in the mean time. I would be happy to see them removed if in a suitable period of time, suggestion: 1 month, we are unable to find new sources.
• 'Blogs and sources': I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this one, and hopefully find a consensus that is useful to the majority of users - whatever that outcome is. The Prescott article mentions 'web-postings', that doesn't necessarily mean blogs - and he has explicitly laid out his sources at the bottom of his article. Having run a search on the article, there is not a single mention of the word 'blog' anywhere, including in the sources themselves.

Thus, I would state that:

• 1) I see no problem with the title; readers take the title in the context of the text that follows. To assume anything otherwise is an insult to their intelligence. Also, the Christian section above is titled in exactly the same way, and as you have no problem with that titling, I can only assume that there is no real problem overall.
• 2) I will endeavour to find more up to date sources for 72/73 - I'm sure others will join me in this
• 3) I see no problem with the Prescott article, or his sources. He is a respected, peer-reviewed academic, who publishes internationally on a number of subjects, notably Freemasonry (although he is not a Freemason). His sources are fully referenced and (I assume) checked. He mentions blogs absolutely nowhere. Mycroft (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

One thing I would suggest is that we expand both the 'Christianity and Freemasonry, and Islam and Freemasonry sections', to include the counter point (elements within both religions who are supportive of freemasonry). Otherwise, I would support a section title change to: 'Christianity and anti-freemasonry' and 'Islam and anti-freemasonry'. Having said that, I know we have an article on the Christian abd Catholic points of view. Mycroft (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Have updated source 73 with a link to Yale Law School. Mycroft (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)