Talk:William Morgan (anti-Mason)

Personal assumption, not actual fact.

"He disappeared soon after, and was most likely kidnapped and killed by Masons."

There is no proof of Morgan's murder, and many so-called confessions have been disproved, thus the statement that he "was most likely kidnapped and killed by Masons", is not only nonfactual, but libelous. Jasper Ridley is British, not American, nor is he an authority of US history, and his speculations are not fact. Then they use, Henry Paul Jeffers, for a fact check, who is into conspiracy theories, like the Bilderberg Group, etc., to agree with Ridley's speculation, who in no way is factual. Last, they have C.T. Congdon, who wrote about a third hand account, which is pure speculation, and not factual.

Also, here is another unproven statement; "for supposedly stealing a shirt and a tie, a charge that was probably fabricated". Someone really needs to clean this up, since it makes a mockery out of factual writing and reporting.--Craxd (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Added a reference for the charges of theft.

Billmckern (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality and factual accuracy

This article is neither neutral nor factually accurate. Imacomp 16:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is poorly cited and several links are both POV and not notable. Imacomp 16:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The ĕbiographical article is neither neutral nor factually accurate. This person is not notable either, nor are his dusty deluded rantings. (A Christian "Saint". Doh! You are avin a laf, wibble wibble) Imacomp 16:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Fact or fiction, considering the story's role in the American Anti-Masonic movement, including the genesis of the United States' first national third party, "Morgan's little myth" most certainly is notable. 69.214.75.208 17:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Finney's work

There are a number of inconsistencies in Finney's work which render it in violation of WP:RS. For example, it includes the confession of one Henry Valance, who was not a Mason, and was never implicated in the original incident, according to the GL of Vermont page. There were many confessions which were shown to be false, and this is likely one of them. Second of all, Finney says Morgan was an "estimable man", when other sources (as cited also by GL VT) say he was very much "dissolute and shiftless". So, I believe that Finney's work, while notable, fails WP:RS, as the facts of the matter were then and are now still very unclear. MSJapan 18:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand WP:RS. Specifically, if a source is NOTABLE, it should be mentioned. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Notable how? Had you heard of it before? Because I certainly haven't, and I don't know of anyone else who has, actually. So, it still fails WP:RS. The relevant material:

Evaluating sources

Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly, or about their viewpoints.

Obviously yes, both by the original author and the reposter.

Were they actually there? Be careful to distinguish between descriptions of events by eyewitnesses and by commentators. The former are primary sources; the latter secondary. Both can be reliable.

No, Finney was not there, and Valance seems to have no connection; his presence at Niagara is not verifiable. Finney is furthermore reprinting something he was not present for (which I forgot about myself, actually).

Find out what other people say about your sources.

No real mention of it anywhere save on one anti-Masonic site.

Have they reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know.

No.

Are the publications available for other editors to check? We provide sources for our readers, so they must be accessible in principle, although not necessarily online.

Yes.

Also "Partisan websites" further down the page is relevant - Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist political or religious websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source.

We're not talking about opinion here, and it's not used in primary source, nor is it even mentioned in the article to any great degree.

So, I must admit I am very hard-pressed to understand quite where the misunderstanding is mine. WP:RS says nothing about notability of sources, and that's not the issue. MSJapan 21:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, you'd rather rv without perusing the discussion, Hipocrite. Is the problem that it's "wikilawyering" unless you do it? If you're going ot ignore the discussion, then, I've got an even better and simpler reason to remove Finney's work: it's already directly linked to within the article in the relevant section. MSJapan 03:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's edit warring when someone reverts without comment - that would be this. I'll review your comment now that it's clear that you feel the item should be excluded from external links due to it's inclusion in the article main-body as opposed to your old, discarded argument that it failed WP:RS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it your statement that inclusion in the body of the text precludes something from being included as an external link in all cases? Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not a discarded argument at all; it's still totally valid, but if you're going to ignore said argument and do whatever you want anyway, it's not going to do much good to continue to point out exactly where you're wrong, now is it? MSJapan 04:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

So how is St Morgan's little myth getting on? I think a nice brass plate over one of the Masonic Hall's urinals would be a fitting tribute. It could become quite a shrine. Imacomp 07:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

So Few Facts

Morgan's little myth, here, needs the fact tags to be replaced by some cited facts. If the tags are just removed, or reverted, this will say alot about the crediblility of the subject.Imacomp 12:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Some things do follow from common knowledge, such as Morgan's wife's name and that he lived in Batavia. I've got a recent article on him from Philalethes Magazine that I just need to find, so I can add citations for the majority of the material sometime tomorrow. some will probably come out as unverifiable (being a brewer, for example - if it's true, that may have had a lot to do with his membership denial, as working on the liquor industry used to prohibit one from joining a lodge). MSJapan 23:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well since all tags were removed I've put them all back. I know what you mean MSJapan, but I cannot find a general "Crap" tag - and just blanking would just get me blocked. Imacomp 00:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I rv. to 23:47, 12 March 2006 MSJapan. Imacomp 00:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

and back to above again, as JJay is vandalising.Imacomp 00:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Both me and JJay @ 3RR now. Ill stop. Imacomp 00:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The person who tagged every line in the article should see WP:Point, of which this is a clear violation. No attempt has been made to itemize objections to the article. Furthermore, the article already has a POV tag. The fact tags should be immediately removed or explained, one by one. Also please not that I have only reverted the nonsense twice. I have no doubt that someone else will pick up the baton. -- JJay 00:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

JJay reverted a discussed compramise, and has shown bad faith. It is not the duty of the tagger to prove a citation, so JJay is in error. If 2000 tags are needed, then 2000 facts need citing QED. The tags are in themselves one-by-one statments of explaination of a need for a citation - and this is not covered by the general POV tag."Also please not that I have only reverted the nonsense" of your bad faith JJay in discussing only at your 3RR. Imacomp 00:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

A "discussed compromise"- where was this discussed? You tagged every line in the article including items that do not need citations such as the year of Morgan's disappearance. Your comments on this page, where you refer to the article as "crap", or "dusty, deluded ramblings", where you say how you would like to "blank" the contents show that your only interest is in disruption. If there is something specific in this article that you object to you should state it clearly on this page. If you are opposed to this article then nominate it for deletion. However, I would suggest you find a more constructive way to contribute here. -- JJay 00:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussed by MS Japan above, hence I rv'ed to his edit. "I would suggest you find a more constructive way to contribute here." Imacomp 01:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Right. So no discussion preceded your tagging orgy and there was no "compromise". You still have not stated why the tags were placed on every line in the article. Not that I expect you will since that would detract from your edit warring here and on the other masonry pages. -- JJay 01:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Imacomp was right, to a degree - even the bio material had ot have come from different sources (this is the first I've heard about his kids or brewing, and I've read a fair bit of many different types of research on Morgan), so I think it is fair to tag every line that states an uncited fact that cannot be taken as read (for example, Morgan living in Batavia is a given from every source you could find, so it's irrefutable fact, but other things definitely differ from what would be considered common knowledge, like his kids, especially since his widow married Joseph Smith, and I've never heard kids mentioned wrt Lucinda). If it turns out that multiple facts are from the same source, or if certain facts are from WP:RS violating sources, things can be changed accordingly. MSJapan 03:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting that you have to explain the placement of the tags, because Imacomp couldn't be bothered. As the article had no sources, fact tagging every line is overkill and a violation of WP:Point. Be that as it may, see any of the 19th century books for the brewery info and most of the other bigraphical details. -- JJay 03:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

JJayAre you sure any "19th century books for the brewery info and most of the other bigraphical details..." may be consulted? Contacts at the Library of Congress and the British Library say otherwise. The more that anti-Masons depend on this Morgan, and his biography, the closer it will be scrutinised – and the more suspect become the so-called facts.Imacomp 17:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure. I'm also sure that "anti-mason" and the rest of your name calling have no place here. Save your hysteria for the school yard. If you want to start challenging specific parts of the article please do. So far all I've seen is that you know how to add fact tags and revert. -- JJay 18:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Rv- sources not there - You have added nothing, so provide cited facts or find something else to do. Imacomp 20:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is your problem? There is a source on the article. There are also many more valid sources that I could add. You have refused to say what you object to in this article. You have fact tagged every line including the year of Morgan's dissapearance. You have made comments on this page that cross the line of WP:CIV. I'm asking you directly and I hope you can finally provide a response. What exactly are you looking for here? -- JJay 20:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"What exactly is your problem?" Back at you. "There are also many more valid sources that I could add." Then add them at the fact tags. "You have added nothing, so provide cited facts or find something else to do." Each tag requires a cited ref. How else can this be said? "What exactly are you looking for here?". Imacomp 23:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Round we go to the start, as MS Japan wrote: There are a number of inconsistencies in Finney's work which render it in violation of WP:RS. So I'll remove the ref. Imacomp 23:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This is way out of line. You tag the article. Then fact tag every line. But then refuse valid references and remove them. I'm adding that reference again. If you take it out again this goes to arbitration. -- JJay 23:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, and take MS Japan, as well as me. But, if you edit here, so will I if "needed". Imacomp 23:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well bravo. You won't explain what you object to in the article besides that it lacks sources. But you also won't let me add sources and have now removed the reference I added three times without any explanation. There was no discussion of this and you have no grounds to remove that reference. I don't know what you mean by "edit if needed" since you are only looking to edit war. -- JJay 23:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No you are looking for an edit war, and you started it. All my edits have been discussed, as have MS Japans.Imacomp 00:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• JJay (talk · contribs) Just for pre-arb checks. After looking up your blog/bio, I've (had) almost 25 years more time on this Earth to look after myself, (just so you know). Imacomp 00:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about since I don't have a blog/bio. Not that reality seems to matter here. -- JJay 00:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Mis-posted talk User:Gabbe blog seen, but substantive remark stands. Imacomp 00:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

substantive remark stands: Right, which one would that be? The one about you looking after yourself on earth? When you get done with that, why don't you explain the removal of the reference I added to the article. You keep saying you have "discussed" it. I would like to know where, since the book is not mentioned here. -- JJay 01:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsImacomp 00:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminshipImacomp 00:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Solving the problems....

I think citations can be added no problem. Most, if not all of the info comes from the two sources cited. However, I believe that we must also link to the confessions page on bcy.ca here, because it offers a very good case for the confession Finney reprinted to have been a fanciful tale, and mentions that Whitney also told his story. However, I do not think we need to cite line by line; One per paragraph would work just as well, given that the material is only from two sources. I also think that we need to add some of the character material; it is relevant to the situation, because Morgan was not an upstanding citizen wronged by a group of people suddenly and for no reason - he was a man of ill repute who willfully antagonized the community over a relatively long period of time. I think the addition of this information (also from the sources already used and therefore considered trustworthy) and the relevant citations will put an end to the dispute, because I can see from reading the sources that this article is definitely POV. Warring about it, however, will not solve the problem. MSJapan 02:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The source I added was neither Finney nor Whitney. There was no reason given for the repeated removal of that source. I also have many more sources to add. -- JJay 02:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Then you simply need to add sources with the material, not afterwards. I've redone the first few paragraphs, added fact tags where applicable, and cited other parts where I could find it in the two articles already listed. Feel free to put back whatever info I took out that you have citations for, but just be sure to cite it when you do it, otherwise I will not be able to support your edits. MSJapan 02:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You have no right to remove a valid source from an article. That's why we have bibliographies or a reference section. The book I added confirms the brewery information that was previously discussed here for example. -- JJay 11:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Funny, there was no citation for any books save Finney in the reference listing. so what exactly did I remove? I got the brewery information out of the GL Vermont piece, which was already cited. So what's the problem again? And where's the citation? MSJapan 15:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You can see the reference in the edit history. It was removed four times by another editor here that you seem to suppport. Given that no reason whatsoever has been given for removing that reference- which seems particularly strange considering that this was done by someone who claims to want references added to the article- I will be again adding that reference along with others this weekend. I see no compelling reason for why this article can not have a copious bibliography that might be of use to readers interested in further exploring the Morgan case. -- JJay 18:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to make any solid statements until I see the actual citation, but keep WP:RS and WP:POINTin mind, especially if it's "William Morgan, Christian Martyr" you have in mind as a "source". MSJapan 23:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what is up with you guys. The source I added is in the edit history. Your friend removed it 4 times. I have no idea what you are talking about with this Christian Martyr remark either. There is also no need to provide links to wikipedia pages that I know extremely well. However, I am rather curious what WP:Point has to do with adding a source to this article. Maybe you can explain that -- JJay 00:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Because if said source is questionable, and you keep readding it, you are trying to make a point. Speaking of questionable sources, I see you have a Daily News article from Batavia in 1882, but you seem to be trying to cite it as the New York Times. MSJapan 15:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't play games or cite "questionable" sources. I hope that is clear. The footnote I just added refers to both the Times and Daily News articles, which covered the same event. There is nothing questionable about that since I read the Times article first. Personally, I would rather have multiple footnotes for each line in the text. -- JJay 16:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Another version

In a series of vandalism to the disambiguation page at William Morgan, the following version (with no wikification) was posted. Maybe there's something the editors here would value. This version was contributed by User:216.160.128.231. I'd have proposed a merge if the disambig page didn't need to be restored.

begin copy

The case of William Morgan (1774-1826?) is an interesting example of the often fierce socio-political struggle between Masonic and anti-Masonic groups during the nineteenth century in America.

Morgan was an ex-Mason living in Batavia, New York who wrote a short pamphlet in 1826 entitled Morgan's Freemasonry Exposed and Explained in which he endeavored to provide a "clear and correct view of the manner of conferring the different degrees, as practiced in all lodges throughout the globe; together with the means to be used by such as are not Masons to gain admission therein."

This pamphlet was seen by many Freemasons as a threat to the secret activities of their organization and was the start of a controversy lasting decades. Shortly after the publication of the pamphlet, Morgan's body was reportedly discovered in a local river; this added to the growing anti-Masonic sentiment when a group of Freemasons were accused of Morgan's abduction and murder. The case was never satisfactorily settled, but more than twenty years later, in 1848, Henry L. Valance gave a deathbed confession of his involvement in the alleged crime.

In 1882, thirty-four years after Valance's confession and fifty-six years after the original incident, anti-Masonic activists were still using the Morgan case for political gain. The National Christian Association, a well-known anti-Masonic group, honored Morgan by erecting a statue of him in Batavia and invited Thurlow Weed, a retired politician and newspaper-owner, to write an article about Morgan. Weed responded with The Facts Stated, which he described as an attempt to "...vindicate the violated laws of my country, and next, to arrest the great power and dangerous influences of 'secret societies.'"

Cover of Henry L. Valance: Confession of the Murder of William Morgan (1869), titlepage of William Morgan: Morgan's Freemasonry Exposed and Explained (1882), and cover of Thurlow Weed: The Facts Stated: Hon. Thurlow Weed on the Morgan Abduction (1882)

end copy

--Scott Davis ^Talk 09:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This sounds familiar, as in I think I've seen it online someplace before. However, I don't think this is markedly different in content from what we have already, and we can't use it anyway due to lack of citation. Funnily enough, this is really quite POV - it ignores Morgan as a person totally, as well as Miller (the publisher)'s motivations. Thurlow Weed was also just a bit more than "a retired politician and newspaper owner", and somehow the entire Anti-Masonic Party disappeared. This is what generally annoys me about Morgan - there was a lot more going on than Masonic detractors are willing to claim, because the people on Morgan's side weren't necessarily upstanding and innocent individuals either. MSJapan 17:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Er...William Morgan was never a Mason, so "Morgan was an ex-Mason living in Batavia, New York" is already a bad start. Bricology (talk) 07:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

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

• illuminati_(disambiguation)
• Federal_Triangle
• Albert_Pike

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 04:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Morgan's Book

In the text of this article, Morgan's book is identified as Illustrations of Masonry, and a link is provided to the text of the book in question (although personally I would go with this copy as I feel the source is more neutral - minor nitpick.)

However, the External Links section contains a link to The Mysteries of Free Masonry, also identified as written by Morgan (by both Wiki and Gutenberg) - yet this is not explained in the article.

The two do not seem to be identical (specifically, Illustrations covers up to Master Mason, while Mysteries also covers a number of other degrees.) The title page of the latter book would seem to indicate Mysteries contains the text of Illustrations plus details of other rituals as recorded by a George R. Crafts.

Unfortunately this isn't an area I have much knowledge of, and a bit of searching the interwebs has thus far turned up empty. If anyone could help expand on this it would be much appreciated. ElijahOmega (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The external links section points to the Gutenberg publication of a modern revision of Morgan's work by George R. Crafts. For purpose of this article, I don't think the Crafts work is very relevant, because Morgan obviously had no involvement in Crafts' additions. As to which url to cite, that's also a little bit complicated by the fact that there are so many editions. The present link (and the one you suggest) are to one of the illustrated 1827 reprints, which is prettier, but I'm not sure whether or not Morgan had any direct involvement in the illustrations. Maybe he did, I just don't know. Google Books has an 1827 Rochester edition (evidently printed by Thurlow Weed), but that edition does not have the illustrations. I'm not aware of any online scan of the original 1826 Batavia edition, and I assume the 1826 edition does not have the illustrations. COGDEN 23:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Contribution by User:SilverDawg

A recent contribution to the article by SilverDawg (talk · contribs) was out of place in the article text, and really belonged here on the talk page, so I have moved it below. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: To the above account: Morgan was forcibly abducted from the jail at Canadiagua and taken to the magazine at Fort Niagra and from there taken to the Niagra River and "sunk" on the 19th of September. This information comes from an account of the Special Circuit Court session ordered by the New York legislature and published in the Ohio Star (Ravenna Ohio) 26 May 1831. At least three witnesses are named, including one, Isaac Farwell. I am not certain if this is Isaac Farwell Sr b 1763 Walpole New Hamsphire or his son Isaac b 1804 Charleston New Hampshire. The family lived in Monroe Co NY and Isaac Jr had a son Luke born in Niagra in 1826, before the family moved to Ohio and then Stephenson Co Il in 1836. My extended family, Daniels lived with the Farwells and traveled with them from NY to Ohio, Illinois and then Arena Wisconsin. Isaac Farwell Sr (son of William Farwell and Bethia Eldredge) died in 1846 and wife, Prudence Allen in 1848, and are buried at Howard Union Cem Winnebago Co IL. Isaac Jr's (m Mahala Daniels in Monroe Co NY) mother in law, Phebe Miller Daniels, and brother in law, John Daniels Jr, are also at Howard Union. John Daniels Jr's wife, Candace Emery's aunt, Lydia Hale Emery and husband Benjamin Smith did real estate business with Joseph Smith in Kirtland Ohio.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverDawg (talk • contribs) 16:29, 12 June 2011

Morgan was never a Mason

Under the heading "Book on Freemasonry", it states "Morgan belonged to the Masonic lodge in Rochester. When he attempted to join the Batavia lodge he was denied admission. Angered by the rejection...Miller is said to have received the entered apprentice degree (the first degree of Freemasonry), but had been stopped from advancement by the objection of one or more of the Batavia lodge members". This is incorrect on many levels. First, Morgan was never initiated a Mason (i.e., received the First Degree, much less the Second or Third). There is no record of him ever having done so in New York's Grand Lodge archives, nor in either the Rochester of Batavia Lodge archives. Nor would he have been admitted by the Rochester Lodge to begin with since his Investigation (necessary for him to pass before he could've received the First Degree) would've determined that -- as a man with a criminal record, frequently in debt, a gambler and a brewer -- he would be ineligible to join. It was, at the time, prohibited to be a brewer, distiller, saloon or tavern-keeper and to become a Mason. And there has always been a prohibition against men who are habitually in debt or have criminal records (although this is occasionally overlooked if the crime was minor and the man's character seems sound -- not the case for Morgan). Morgan appears to have fraudulently received the Royal Arch Degree (sometimes called the "Fourth Degree"), but as he had not received the necessary first Three Degrees, he was still not a Mason. Clearly, he knew and associated with genuine Masons, and he managed to get into Lodges as a visitor, but he was never a Mason himself. The onus is on the claimant to support the assertion that Morgan was a Mason, not for others to prove that he wasn't. This is not done in the article. Indeed, citations #12 and 13, which someone added to supposedly support the claim that he was a Mason, actually say the *opposite*: "That he (Morgan) was really a Mason is doubtful; no record of his raising or Lodge membership exists...there was no evidence educed, then or afterwards, that he ever received any Masonic degree save the Royal Arch..." Consequently, I am going to remove the claims that Morgan was a Mason. Bricology (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd recommend against removing it but rather tempering the language to "claimed to belong" and so on so that things don't devolve into an edit war. In the great scheme of things, it only really matters to Masons whether or not he was actually a member of the fraternity. To non-Masons, he spun a convincing enough tale with enough bits that seemed to ring true that they bought-in. What most aren't really aware of is how even in the 1700s, books and tracts containing Masonic ritual could be had so him citing components wasn't anything like the bulletproof 'evidence' of Craft membership that it would seem to the non-Mason. But that's Monday-morning quarterbacking on my part. :)  Natty10000 | Natter  10:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Point taken,  Natty10000 | Natter , about avoiding an edit war by qualifying the statement. I'll do so. We'll have to agree to disagree about whether or not "it only really matters to Masons whether or not he was an actual member of the Fraternity". IMO, it's an important distinction because it's so often seized as a pretext by anti-Masons to be able to say "see what happens when you try to leave Freemasonry? -they kill you!" Believe me -- I've heard that claim more than once. If Morgan was never a Mason, then all he ever was was an impostor; it illustrates his character that he would have lied his way into ceremonies and lied about being a Brother. That cloud ought to be hanging over every claim of him having been an innocent victim. Bricology (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I made revisions to the paragraph about Morgan's claims to Masonic membership and added additional references. Let me know if these are adequate to the task.

Billmckern (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks good from a copy editing standpoint, Billmckern. Bricology , from the standpoint of nearly 2 centuries later it does have a certain 'how many angels on the head of a pin' quality to it whether he was a Mason or not. Certainly if he had been made one he wasn't one in the ways that matter insomuch as he would be so ready and willing to spill what any Mason promises not to. Personally, I don't believe he was for that reason but had acquired other material that allowed him to pass himself off to non-Masons as a Mason coming 'clean' about everything they weren't privy to. I think what's relevant is that his self-claimed membership was so readily seized upon as being fact which suggests an audience already willing to believe what it was he had to sell. In an environment like that, had it not been Morgan there would have been another case that would've been seized upon in his stead. Hate is depressingly easy for humans to get behind with the skimpiest of pretexts Natty10000 | Natter  19:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Billmckern -- apparently, we were editing that section at the same time, as I got an edit-conflict message when I went to save, and it threw out my edits (assuming that you didn't intentionally revert my edits). I'm going to go ahead and harmonize what I tried to add with what you added. Once the changes are made, let me know if you have any objections or want to tweak anything. Bricology (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I made some edits to try to eliminate redundancy -- some of the passages in the section on Morgan's supposed Masonic membership were repetitive, and some details had already been covered in the preceding section. I also added references for all the details on Morgan's claimed Masonic membership.

Billmckern (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)