Voltairesghost

Welcome!

Hello, Voltairesghost, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! JASpencer (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

GOUSA

The article's unlikely to go as it's well sourced enough to show notability, but there's almost certainly going to be a nasty fight. To avoid a fight, would you object if the scope of the article was widened to include other continental jurisdictions in the area? JASpencer (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly have no issue with that, so long as each has a seperate header to state some facts about themselves. We are friends with most of them already and do not see any problems with this. I just would hate to see our article swallowed into the void of a generic Anglo-American Masonry article because our style of Masonry would be marginalized. All the argueing concerning numbers seems moot in consideration of the virtual monopoly that they have had in America since the 1800s.

I will try to continue to add more and better sources as they become available. It is somewhat understandable that an English speaking Mason would think that there is no notoriety when many of the sources are in French or Spanish. However, this does not mean that we are French, we only have a small handful of members that are. I believe that it would be unwise to continue calling it continental Freemasonry since it is not in Europe. The common term used by all of these groups when referencing themselves is generally "Liberal Freemasonry". The GOUSA has gone a step further with "Traditional Cosmopolitan" in order not to confuse people with the word 'liberal' as it tends to make people think of politics in America, but this is not agreed upon by the GWU, LDH, or others at this time.Voltairesghost (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Continental freemasonry is a compromise. I started with the term Latin Freemasonry, but that was not popular as it was not a self description. I also suggested the self descriptions liberal (this was objected to as it had political connotations) and adogmatic (this was disliked as Anglo-American freemasonry is not dogmatic). The term irregular was suggested, as this was commonly used. We settled on continental. JASpencer (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we are irregular just as they are dogmatic. Or rather, we are irregular because they are dogmatic. Likewise, the word liberal only has a political meaning in some American culture. Elsewhere in the world, there is no misunderstanding on this terminology. My only disagreements with "continental" are 1) we are not continental Europeans, we are Americans 2) the system of Masonry is not unique to continental Europe in that historically speaking there were many such lodges in America before the Revolution. Who objected to the use of "liberal Freemasonry"? Surely not a liberal Mason. For some reason, politics and any discussion thereof scares "regular" Masons. Open dialogue is one of the foundations of the age of enlightenment from which our organization sprang forth, which includes religion and politics, but not in a manner as to "convert" someone to your beliefs. Whatever the final title is I will leave that to you, but I thought I should offer an opinion as a liberal Mason first.Voltairesghost (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

On the other subject, your style of freemasonry certainly will be marginalised, which is why I'm against the idea of simply merging the GOUSA article into a "Freemasonry in North America" article. I can't seem to get them to understand that this will happen. JASpencer (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that you are assuming that they care to understand. The religious fervor that they approach the subject with is reminiscent of a cult in many ways. This is one reason that we are starting to attract academics and those in scientific fields. We do not push a religious dogma. One of the biggest misconceptions that I used to have before switching to liberal Free-Masonry was the belief that they did not allow for their lodges to work to the glory of GAOTU. This is simply not true, they merely allow their members to make up their own minds and each lodge may choose how to operate based on majority vote. The liberal Masons are generally considered a group of atheists by the Anglo-America Masons, but this is simply a case of ignorance. It is partly the fault of the liberal obediences not having a better mechanism for reaching the English speaking audiences, but it is mostly due to the spread of deceitful information. I expect that there will be much more variety of literature available in the near future. The discussions with various Masonic authors in Europe have already begun in regards to republishing works into English, which is a project very dear to me that I am working on. There is a vast amount of great historical and educational literature on the Craft that is just not available in English, but there is a demand for it because there seems to be a vacuum of good printed information. The misconceptions and inaccurate information available on the history of the Craft has been mostly promoted by the American GLs, which is probably why there has never been a huge push for academic excellence in Masonic research in this country as there has been in England and Europe. This is also related to the work that our GM is doing at UCLA; he intends to create a bridge between American Masonry and the academic environment here. This is a pursuit that could benefit the Craft as a whole.

You had asked me for more information on the schism between the Antients and Moderns. Jeff Peace, one of my co-founding Brothers of the GOUSA, wrote this little article and can probably provide more reference works beyond those of Dr. Jacob.[1] Let me know if you want me to ask him for any specific recommendations. Regardless of your interest in Masonry or inability to join, I am a seeker of knowledge and truth and commend anyone else who considers such pursuit fruitful.Voltairesghost (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So the Moderns were full fledged Deists and the Ancients were (perhaps) slightly unorthodox Christians? JASpencer (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that may be oversimplifying, a little. The Moderns did not view Masonry in a religious light. In their mind, it was an instrument for improving oneself through exploration of nature and its truths. Of the Moderns many were Deists, many were Pantheists (by Spinoza's definition), and some were Theists too (Christian or otherwise). The Antients, however, inculcated a religiousness to the lodge proceedings, which turned into dogma and then became "tradition". This was never the intent of the Moderns and is still not today. They imagined a society where the motto was "Liberty-Equality-Fraternity", and that these tenants would be found at every level and practiced by everyone. They strive to form a civil society that is free of oppression and fear. Be it from a dictator, religion, or otherwise.

In general, Freemasonry is not anti-Catholic, I have many Catholic friends, and the Catholic Church has changed tremendously in its function over the last 300 years. Free-Masonry formed in a time when people were still being punished for their beliefs and scientific thought outside the teachings of the church was heresy (e.g. Galileo). The Catholic Church today is a much kinder and gentler sort than it once was and tends to unite rather than divide, in many cases (I am thinking of when John Paul sat with other world religious leaders). Whether or not I agree with its dogma is irrelevant so long as it is not harming others, trying to make others believe a certain way, or interfering with political processes. Of course, that goes for any philosophy or religion.Voltairesghost (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I found this quote that explains the definition of what Cosmopolitan means in regard to Free-Masonry:

Cosmopolitans carry their name (citizens of the world) in its virtual and most eminent sense. They regard all people of the globe as the same branch of one and the same family, and the universe as a state were they are citizens together with uncountable other reasonable beings, in order to – under general Laws of Nature – promote the perfection of the Whole, each of them according to his particular species and manner industrious for its own prosperity.

Coming AfD

There is almost certainly going to be an Article for Deletion vote coming up. As the notability requirements have been met, the article will almost certainly be kept, and I would guess that the nominator and seconder half know this already.

However, please be careful what you say when it does come up. If you goad them, accuse them of bias (whether this is true or not) or talk about future notability you could persuade quite a few people to vote for deletion even if there's no merit in it.

JASpencer (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, I understand and do not mean to make anyone believe that I insist anything based on the future. In fact, I believe that the points that could be made on the matter, have been made, and that it is now time to cease the conversation. It cannot possibly be productive beyond the evidence that has been already been shown, and I do not wish to continue making a point to people that do not wish to concede. I am sorry that I had to pull the bias card, but there are just so many of them in relation to our group. We are a young group, but we are strong and making an impression on the world community. As I have always conceded to them, I have no intention of comparing our numbers to theirs because they are a giant compared to us. However, as I was trying to say to them, notoriety is not defined in the relation of one organization to another. This was the point that I was most admantly trying to hit home, and I believe I made my case.

In the case of creating a liberal/continental/etc. Free-Masonry in NA topic, I am still not against this until such time as it is undeniable by the overwhelming evidence of our notoriety. This is up to you and the others how to proceed however as my only concern was to be shown in the light of truth and to not be drowned out by the Anglo-Americans on a generic FM in NA topic. Thanks for your time and consideration in this matter as it has helped, I believe, to clarify the topic of notoriety in many regards that were not so clear before.Voltairesghost (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stay on. There are two others from your tradition and while they both have a very good standard of English (better than my German or Flemish) they are not native English speakers. They have also been, even if unintentionally, bullied by other people and are showing little inclination to do any more work. Catholics like me, even of the slightly traditionalist bent, are two a penny on this project. You are a rarity. Don't allow yourself to be bullied. JASpencer (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I will be around as I have been just not trying to make that point anymore. It is beating a dead horse at this point and would only degrade into an arguement of a lesser sort if I continue to push the issue. There are some other Brothers that could have joined me here, but I thought that to present the information alone was a better route. Perhaps I will invite them into the more general discussions on the articles. It may be time we have more of a presence here.Voltairesghost (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I reverted your edits at Continental Freemasonry because the tone was very POV (trying to show that somehow the liberal tradition is "right") and frankly, rude ("Anglo-American tradition insists", "The use of God in Masonic politics has a long history", and so on and so forth). The sources you cite do not support the inflammatory editorializing you have added. Furthermore, Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a battleground. State the facts, and only the facts. If you cannot do so, please refrain from editing the article. MSJapan (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have hit such a sore subject for you...The fact is that the sources that I cited, had you actually read them, backed up the assertions that were made. Just because you disagree with the facts does not mean that it is a NPOV issue.Voltairesghost (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

VG, although MSJapan has been unnecesarily provocative I do think that he has a point. I've changed the language and put in a few citation requests. While there is a massive systemic bias towards the Anglo-American tradition throughout the English Wikipedia the way to correct this is to carefully edit. I hope some of my edits have shown the sort of things that can be done. JASpencer (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that much of it is directly from the articles. Perhaps, I should have quoted more?Voltairesghost (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would have worked far better. Thank you for being so understanding on that. JASpencer (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the quotes from the article to make it clearer. Sorry for the misunderstanding on it. I hope it makes more sense now. Also, I changed the header since the context is more about recognition than history anyway.Voltairesghost (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Needs work. Writing an encyclopedia is not simply ripping out blockquotes from one article to support a position. There is intentional "UGLE is wrong"-style language in there, and it is unnecessary ("American masons may be surprised that" is not germane to the point - it is in Bessel's work because it deals with an audience that had assumptions. This article should not begin from that same premise. "Anglo-American tradition insists"? No it doesn't, because it is neither an active insistence nor is it limited to England or America. The Landmarks of UGLE-derived Freemasonry require that a member have a belief in a Supreme Being - this can be sourced from Anderson or the like. Also, one major issue is that the article should summarize quotes, not reproduce them in bulk, meaning that you need them to support your points, but they should go inside the ref tags. Otherwise the article starts to push the boundaries of fair use. However, I reverted the quotes rather than fix them because, again, the tone is inflammatory, and I would rather you corrected that than I. I will also point out that Jack Buta's article does not support the point you make about religious contention in Freemasonry - it has a lot more to do with Albert Pike's actions with respect to Scottish Rite SJ in the US historically than to Freemasonry as an institutional whole. Consider this: the article is not there to convince the reader of a position (WP is neither a soapbox nor a battleground), but to lay out the information to allow the reader to come to their own conclusion (Neutral POV). I think you are still leaning too far in the direction of "See? The old UGLE way is wrong, and their assumptions are wrong, and therefore we're right." Fundamentally, this doesn't change the fact that Continental is unrecognized by UGLE, but is regular within its own tradition, which is really the underlying fact of importance. Also, I don't know that a whole piece on recognition is really all that useful to the WP audience, which is largely non-Masonic. MSJapan (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

VG... I think part of the problem here is that you are writing to combat mainstream Masonic negativity about your Grand Lodge. You seem to be trying to prove that your view is "right" and other views are "wrong". Please read WP:Neutral point of view. Another problem is "audience". A lot of what you are writing requires the reader to already be familiar with masonic history, and the intricacies of Masonic recognition, regularity, and politics. In other words, you seem to be writing with fellow Freemasons in mind. Wikipedia articles, on the other hand, should be written for a general audience... ie non-masons... people who don't know (and frankly don't care) about all the details that you and I know about. You and I can debate and discuss these details on talk pages and user pages... but they don't really belong in an article.

Wikipedia does not really care why Grand Lodge A should be considered legitimate or Grand Lodge B shouldn't... all it cares about are blunt facts... that Grand Lodge A consideres Grand Lodge B irregular is a fact. Why it does so is an opinion. We can report on those opinions in limited situation (only if the opinion holder is notable, and then clearly attributing the opinion to the opinion holder), but we should not try to prove one "right" and the other "wrong". Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You are both predictable in your comments. The quotes that have been flagged as contentious are from a reputable Anglo-American Mason. It is laughable that because the truth offends you that you pretend that it is somehow violating NPOV. Get real... Your adherence to your tradition of Masonry is fine, but you need to open your eyes to the fact that it is not the only way. You may interpret your "tradition" however you like as that is not my affair, but there is a much different interpretation that I adhere to. Anderson's Constitution is not even followed by your tradition, so do not lecture me on what it says. It is a matter of historic fact that the requirement of a belief in deity did not occur until the mid 1700s. The article is many pages long, therefore, I pulled only small sections to "summarize" the conclusions of the research. I will rewrite the article, you can be sure of that.Voltairesghost (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't go

VG it's a shame to see you go. We could try to take this to a WP:request for comment or look for arbitration. I think you have a point (although I'll be frank and say that your editing could be further improved so that the POV is less blatant, that's not to take away from the fact that it's already improved). The worst result is that you could have wasted your time but proven that Wikipedia is systemically biased in its coverage of Freemasonry. The best result is that you can go some way towards sorting out the systemic bias.

JASpencer (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)