Talk:Anti-Masonry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Archives of old discussions:

External Links[edit]

I made an addition to the External Links section, adding a link to an Anti-Freemasonry site. The "bot" reverted it for no sound reason. What am I to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corriepieterse (talk • contribs) 15:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, read WP:EL, our guideline on what sorts of websites are considered appropriate. The bot targets links to websites that are not normally considered appropriate for an External Links section. It can easily be over ruled... but... you should explain (here on the talk page) why an exception should be made (as relates to including this particular website as an EL in this particular article).
That said... Looking at the link you added, it does not really add anything that is not already covered by the other anti-masonic websites that are already linked. Given this, I don't really see that we should make an exception in this case. Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a blog, so it's a no-go. MSJapan (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crossed out compass and square as lead image[edit]

The lead image should signify a representation of anti-masonry; the image of a crossed out compass and masonic square does that perfectly. The supposed "side box" about freemasonry, promoting the cult's agenda and ideology, should not be so prominent (it isn't on the article about freemasonry itself). Either that, or, perhaps more usefully, a side-box dedicated to information about freemasonry's critics/opponents should be there. Rí Lughaid (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anti-masonry had a unified symbol or imagery that all or most anti-masons used or recognized - much like masons uses the square and compass - your idea might have some merit. Since anti-masonery is at best a inhomogeneous group - and at worst more concerned with disagreeing with each other rather than the masons - I don't see how it would be a workable proposal.
As for the infobox... I don't see how a listing of articles relating to Masonry can be said to promote an agenda or an ideology (note: Masonry don't have either, per se), especially not when the section on Views on Masonry lists at least eight articles that covers criticisms and arguments made against the Craft. As for the location of the infobox that can be debated - as far as I know there is no Wikipedia standard as to where it is supposed to go.
That said, it is nice to see that you flag your own POV so clearly for everyone else to see... WegianWarrior (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether we include the image or not, we should definitely keep the infobox... it is not "promoting" any agenda or ideology... it is simply a navigational tool, pointing readers to a set of articles that fall into a particular topic area (in this case, the topic is Freemasonry). Including an info-box like this is standard practice on Wikipedia - and standard practice is to include an infobox with the lede. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, the image is on other language versions. Is this a conspiracy? Rí Lughaid (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrelevant, as all the projects are independent, and frankly, it looks just as foolish over there as it does here. MSJapan (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Feb 8th[edit]

I reverted this edit for a couple of reasons, most importantly that I could find NO information of said book OR the author online. This usually means it's a self published work, and as such fails WP:RS. Is someone have a link to, or an ISBN number for, the book cited, it would be great. WegianWarrior (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, this is one of those things that is totally made up - I can't even get a GHit on the supposed author's name. It's some sort of faux-Scandinavian language, but it's uncommon enough in English where something should have come up, even if it's a pseudonym. If the book itself existed, even if it is SPS, it would need to be released to the public somehow, and somebody would have found it after 15 years if only in the course of research. MSJapan (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a Scandinavian, it sounds more like a faux German name to me... but it could (in theory) exist as, say, a small self published (for example photocopied) book distributed privately within a limited group. You're likely correct that the source don't exists, but if it do it would most likely fail WP:RS in a spectacular fashion =) WegianWarrior (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do get a google hit on the cited title: "Mason Life" (here)... but that is definitely not a book or magazine that talks about Freemasons. I agree that the revert was justified... the citation seems to be (at best) a self-published limited distribution fringe publication, or (at worst) was completely fake. Blueboar (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic stance on Freemasonry.[edit]

The Roman Catholic Church has, since 1738, prohibited membership in Masonic organizations, citing both political and religious reasons. Until 1983 the penalty for Catholics who joined the fraternity was excommunication.[1] Since that time the punishment has been an interdict, barring the offender from Holy Communion. Although the canonical penalty changed in 1983, the prohibition on membership has not.[2] I believe that there was one exception. I agree that the Roman Catholic Church currently forbids its members from being Freemasons, and has for the most part since 1738, however, I think that during the reigns of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul I, secular members of the Roman Catholic Church (that is, ones who were not priests, bishops, or holding other religious offices, but merely attended church service and took communion) were allowed to be Freemasons, although clerical members of the Roman Catholic Church (priests, bishops, and other religious officials) were still prohibited by the Church from joining Masonry. When Pope John Paul II took office, he immediately reinstated the Church's previous condemnation of Freemasonry, through a statement by Cardinal Ratzinger. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was no exception - the first letter confused people (who thought there was an exception), and the letter from Ratzinger was to clarify exactly the point that there was no Canon Law exception. I believe people were given the benefit of the doubt to allow them to quit without being excommunicated had they joined erroneously. MSJapan (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I read parts of two books about Freemasonry, one was The Brotherhood by Stephen Knight, the other was a sequel, Inside the Brotherhood by Martin Short. I think I remember Martin Short saying that the Catholic Church seemed to tolerate Masonry briefly in the 1970s. But perhaps I confabulated that. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, if the only books you have read on Freemasonry are Knight and Short, I would suggest that you read some other books. Both authors are extremely unreliable. They get a lot of their basic facts wrong. Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I read parts of a book by Jasper Ridley called The Freemasons. Is that book any better? I got the impression all three were "tendentious", as wikipedia editors like to put it. It seemed Short and Knight were very biased against Freemasonry, while Ridley was very biased in favor of it, even though he was not a Mason. I'm inclined to think his book is slightly better even though it was largely apologetic because Knight and Short occasionally toyed with conspiracy theories, while Ridley did not.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jasper Ridley is a much better source than Knight and Short... "The Freemasons" is definitely reliable. As an aside... I would caution against editing Wikipedia based on reading selected "parts" of any book (this can lead to accusations of cherry picking?)... It's best to read the entire book. (Actually, it's best to read a whole bunch of books). Blueboar (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:PaulBustion88 is a WP:Sockpuppet of User:RJR3333. See here. Flyer22 (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ newadvent.org "Excommunication"
  2. ^ Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect. Declaration on Masonic Associations Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 26 November 1983. Accessed 2011-10-09. "Therefore the Church's negative judgment in regard to Masonic association[s] remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enrol in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion. It is not within the competence of local ecclesiastical authorities to give a judgment on the nature of Masonic associations which would imply a derogation from what has been decided above..."

American political Anti-Masonry (1830s–1850s)[edit]

You need to cite this, as it has no source for the entire paragraph. If it is not cited, it will have no credibility to those in the anti-Masonic movement, and make Freemasonry look in a bad light. I added the citation needed tag today.--Craxd1 (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories[edit]

In the first paragraph, I added a citation, number 28, to William Guy Carr's book, Pawns in the Game, which most all conspiracy authors quote. Citation number 36 is a dead link, and needs to be replaced--Craxd1 (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found a new source to illustrate that the claim is made. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also found that the second paragraph for the section, Christian anti-Masonry, was not sourced, nor did it give where their claims came from. I added a credible source, Is it True What They Say About Freemasonry, by Brent Morris PhD, and gave two names, which most claims lead back to, Leo Taxil, and AC de la Rive.--Craxd1 (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Anti-Masonry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-Masonry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are the state lottery and the casinos freemasonry or antimasonry related?[edit]

Question is meant seriously because I do not want to write nonsense in the Wiki. --82.207.238.157 (talk) 04:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok… I will answer in good faith… there is no connection between Freemasonry and Casinos, or between Freemasonry and the lottery.
Nor am I aware of any significant antiMasonic sources that say there is some sort of connection. Oh, I suppose there could be someone out there who says it, but if so - they are fringe of the fringe… even by antiMasonic standards.
In short… it’s nonsense. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti-Masonry/archive" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Anti-Masonry/archive and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 1#Anti-Masonry/archive until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Masonry&oldid=1198776977"