Talk:Anti-Masonry/Archive 2

Persecution of Freemasons article

I believe that it was merged, so can someone doublecheck that and AfD it? MSJapan 07:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Done - Persecution of Freemasons now redirects here; no AfD needed. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

hitler

Um.... I'm not changing it...yet. But exactly how were Hitler's actions towards Freemasons not at the top of persecution that Freemasons have experienced??? Grye 07:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I've reinstated the sentence and rewritten it slightly. Hitler's actions might not be _the_ top of persection, but it is probably the top of persectution Freemasons have experienced. WegianWarrior 09:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Reordering the article

As it stands currently, I feel that the article could do with a reorganisation... I suggest the following layout (keeping the current text, off course):

• Historical Anti-Freemasonry advocates
  • Prior to Twentieth Century (does not currently have a subheading)
    • The Morgan Affair
    • Taxil hoax
  • Twentieth Century
    • Supression by fascist regimes (Spain under Franco, Italy under Mussolini, Germany under Hitler)
    • Supression by communist regimes (Soviet Union, eastern Europe after 1945)
• Anti-Freemasonic claims and allegations

(a short introduction, stating that there are several claims and allegations raised by anti-freemasons, ranging from cronyism to satanism)

• • Criticisms of alleged Masonic cronyism
  • Criticisms based on the moral faults of known Masons
  • Political conspiracy theories involving the Masons
  • Allegations that Freemasonry is a new religion
  • Claims that Freemasonry worships Satan
• References / notes:
• See also
• External links

Any comments, suggestions? I'll wait a few days before implementing it, to make sure everyone gets a chance to comment if they like. WegianWarrior 09:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not bad, but if there are only one or two incidents, I would avoid giving each century a subheading at the moment, and just combine everything into "prior to the 20th century". I would also probably not leave the advocates section separate, but put them in the correct historical context in one of the other headings, which might mean you could leave the separate century headings. MSJapan 06:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I've refined (or possible made more complex ;) ) the suggested order of the historical section (see the italics).

As far as placing the advocates sections under the correct historical context... If you mean what I think you mean, I'm not sure if it's possible; the claims and allegations are general (and false, off course) and not tied spesificly to a set time as far as I can see. I might off course misunderstand what you are trying to say. WegianWarrior 09:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The allegations should stay where they are, but the Advocates section has specific enough dating to where it can be merged into the correct historical section. I also did a bit of a rewrite to clean up some stuff. Nothing major, though. MSJapan 10:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just finished reordering the article, and I was bold and rewamped the references too - the new system automaticly orders the footnotes, as opposed to the old system where the number order was messed up if you reordered the article. Hopefully everyone will find it a good move, but feel free to disagree. WegianWarrior 09:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The article itself is much cleaner. Now I think we can work on the internal details. I'm going to rework the intro at some point, and I'm going to retitle one of your sections, I think. A big issue I see, though, is the Notes: It's set up so the same work is cited on the same note every time - the result is that note 6 appears both before and after note 8. That's confusing, and most likely improper method, academically speaking. Can we make sure everything is either re-cited or Ibid. every time so that there is a straightforward numerical progression from beginning to end? MSJapan 03:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to reply. The multiple notes with the same number is a side effect of the new system I've implemented - if it is a problem, we could go back to the old one (and order the notes manually if we shifts blocks of text around). WegianWarrior 10:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Catholicism and Freemasonry article

On this text:

‘’Many, especially in the Catholic church and among evangelical Christians, hold that Freemasonry is a religion distinct from world faiths such as Christianity and Islam.’’

I'm not sure whether replacing Catholicism and Freemasonry as a link with Roman Catholic Church is going to point the reader to the most relevant discussion. JASpencer 13:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point - wikilinks are contextual - if you want to link in Catholicism and Freemasonry, you need to mention it as such. Like I said, it's a bit weaselly to point out of context like that, and I'm pretty sure it violates policy (although I would need to look it up). It certainly violates accepted convention. It's sort of like pointing Vatican to the banking scandal - accurate, but tangential as far as the name is concerned. Furthermore, we're not supposed to point readers to discussions, we're supposed to point them to factual articles so they can make up their own minds. Your phrasing makes it sound like you're trying to convince the reader of your position, and that's not what the purpose of WP is. I do think that the article is important, though, and I would suggest adding it as a "see also" at the end of the section instead of trying to work it into the article, as I don't think it fits as it is written. MSJapan 17:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've added links in two subsections that are strong on the Catholic angle. Are you seriously suggesting tha the Catholicism and Freemasonry article is more POV than this article? JASpencer 20:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No, as they are both based on fact, but I think we have a duty to point a wikilink to what the reader expects to be there - I wouldn't click on "Catholic" and expect to go to "Deism", for example. My point is merely that if a wikilink is used, it needs to be listed appropriately and in the right context. MSJapan 05:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, and sorry for flying off the handle on that. JASpencer 14:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and Merger tags

There is a very obvious NPOV Content Fork with this page and the Freemasonry page. That has gone so far as to people on the Freemasonry talk page arguing that information should be moved to this page from the Freemasonry page. There is no reason to not have the history of and arguments against freemasonry on the freemasonry page. This is a non-negotiable issue according to wikipedia policy, and must be resolved for this page to be NPOV.

The way to fix a Content Fork is to merge the 2 offending pages, and therefore i'm adding POV warnings and Merge proposals to both pages. Seraphim 21:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This has gone back and forth. The reason they were de-merged last time was for article length -- Freemasonry was far past 32K before the Anti-Masonry page info was moved back here.--SarekOfVulcan 21:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

They chose the wrong fork then. They should have forked off the history of masonry, or masonic Organizational structure, or masonic Membership requirements, or not fork at all. Maintaining NPOV in an article is a rule passed down by the Wikipedia Founder, the maximum length is a custom that can be ignored, where as maintaining NPOV of an article is ""absolute and non-negotiable". I'll also note that It's at 48k now without the anti-freemasonry content, so it is being ignored anyway. Seraphim 21:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That was done by consensus, and you have no right to unilaterally decide that the consensus was wrong. You want to RFC it, fine, but you've got no background to tag it. MSJapan 21:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, you do not need a background in a subject to point out biased information. A requirement for RFC is to have a dispute, and a discussion about the dispute. In my opinion it is very obvious that this is a NPOV issue, and therefore requires the application of the NPOV tag. For me not to add the tag would be to go against wikipedia's "absolute and non-negotiable" rule when it comes to NPOV violations. I'm not going to keep re-adding it since obviously the editors here all disagree with it, but I still 100% believe that there are NPOV violations, and will be moving this up the chain after a few days of discussion have passed. Seraphim 22:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Your comment to me shows that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV. Where else are you going to find Masonic ritual quotes in context save in a ritual reference book? And who else is going to know that ritual properly save a Mason? You're confusing NPOV with authoritative sources. MSJapan 22:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

In order for that statement to be NPOV it must be clearly stated in the article that The Masons believe it to be .... not "some sources". The article is hiding information about the inherent bias of a source behind the words "some sources". If the article said "The mason's handbook claims that the rituals are beautiful" that would be different. Inherently Biased sources are still ok to be added to an article while maintaining that article's NPOV status, however it should be pointed out to the article's reader where that information is coming from. Seraphim 22:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This is what I'm talking about - fundamental errors. We don't have a standard handbook. Everyone in every jurisdiction has their own, and they aren't all exactly the same. The quote actually comes from a publically available book by a Masonic writer, Albert Mackey, not some organizationally written book. Everything written is written by individuals, not the Fraternity. No one person speaks for Masonry, nor does one ritual, one sign, one anything. Fundamental errors... MSJapan 22:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

All i'm saying is that it should be stated that the source is written by a mason. It's not "Other sources" calling the system beautiful, it is a mason himself saying that it's beautiful. The fact that it's someone giving something he is directly involved in a complement means that there is an inherent bias in the statement, that the readers of this article must be made aware of. It's not "other sources" in general that are saying this, it's a single source, written by a mason, talking about masonic practices. Seraphim 23:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it's a Masonic writer quoting directly from his standard source, so there is a very big difference. You are claiming bias based on the fact that you say Mackey wrote the quote about the Fraternity he was involved in, and I'm telling you that that is not the case, because Mackey is not the originator of the quote. Mackey takes the statement from a ritual book, and as it's a lot easier for a general reader to get Mackey than it is for them to get and understand a ritual book, we used Mackey. This is why you need to understand the subject in order to comment, and why this is a useless argument - there's simply nothing to argue. There's no other way to put this: there is no bias in the statement except for the one you see because you simply don't know otherwise. MSJapan 02:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this statement true, a member of the masons is the original author of the statement "a beautiful system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols."? Seraphim 02:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't tell you yes or no, because I don't have the right books. Perhaps someone else knows. However, would you consider the Rotary statement of purpose to also be POV if it was in an article, as a Rotarian obviously wrote it? Honestly, some of this requires some common sense to be applied, which may be the problem. I wouldn't expect a statement about Masonry written by a non-qualified individual to be of any value in an encyclopedia article.

Frankly, who wrote it doesn't matter. We could just as easily take it out without any harm to the article. It seems to me that you're nitpicking to find a reason to get the article to say, "A Mason identifies himself by this method, here's all the secrets for every jurisdiction, and have fun going to Lodge. Have a nice day!" You're just going to have to live with the fact that the article will not do that, and that that is not a violation of NPOV. MSJapan 02:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know enough about masons to do 1/2 of the stuff your accusing me of. I will be happy with this one line if you change it from saying "some sources" to "a masonic manual", since that is what the source is. And some sources is incorrect since it's plural. Seraphim 04:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This is obviously going to have POV problems, perhaps they need to see if they can get some "anti-Masonic" editors. The claim and fact dialog in the last section is particularly blatant. I also found some time ago, when looking at the pre twentieth century history that a lot of it had been cut and pasted from http://www.masonicinfo.com/ . Nothing wrong with that, but the text did need to be cleaned up.

I personally am a bit dubious with putting anti-freemasonry as one homogenous movement, as sites such as masonic info do. After all the Catholic prohibition on freemasonry may influence Evangelical doubts - but it is hardly the same. Similarly totalitarian dislike of all autonomous groups (especially secret ones) is not really tied in with theological objections to naturalistic religions. The anti-establishment critique of masonic influence may be made by some Catholics or Communists, but it is also made by a lot of people who are neither Catholics or Communists for reasons to do with neither theology nor a fear of potential opposition groups.

This is not an attack on the editors here, it's just an observation that if a page like this is for historical reasons mainly maintained by people with one point of view then it will tend to get biased quite easily.JASpencer 13:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

JAS, Anti-Masonry has a long and complex history, just as Masonry does. It has taken many forms over the years, and many different groups (each for their own individual reasons) have come out against the Fraternity. That in itself makes the topic worthy of an article. it is similar in scope to anti-semitism. Spain during the reconquista had very different motives for anti-semitism than Germany during the Nazi period, but both need to be discussed in an article on anti-semitism. You are correct that Anti-Masonry is not a homogenous movement, Catholics and Communists each have their own motives for being Anti-Masonic... but they have the common bond of being anti-masonic. It is a broad category and it deserves to be given its own article, seperate from Freemasonry just as a discussion about anti-semitism should be seperate from an article on judeism. Each article can mention the other, and linking them is proper Wiki protocol. But they should be seperate. Blueboar 13:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

JASpencer, I don't think you were here before, but the problem with getting an anti-Masonic editor is that the page becomes a cut and paste of FreemasonryWatch. Factual research done by others has shown that that particular material (especially the Satanic stuff) is a complete fabrication. I did some looking around myself at one point, and found the same thing that people like Art DeHoyos did, and that was that much of the material was connected to Freemasonry only because a man who eventually became a Mason wrote it at some point in his life. It would be POV to let the argument stand as fact. What then happens is that we get into revert wars because of WP:V and the fact that most anti-Masons are anti-Masons because they either refuse to read critically or they are evangelical Christians - they think the article is here to say what they want and what they think rather than be an information resource by presenting claims and fact. For example, would it be fair for the Anti-Semitism article to say Jews eat babies because somebody said so, and then not refute it as an unfair accusation (and in fact a blatant lie)? Without refutatory material, the article is POV.

As Blueboar said, though, that's only part of the argument, and in order to cover other political and religious reasons, we need space. This is partially why the article was broken out in the first place. If we merge it back in, we can't really deal with it properly, and history has shown this. MSJapan 16:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

the fact that most anti-Masons are anti-Masons because they either refuse to read critically or they are evangelical Christians - so in your honest opinions do you think that there are any critics of freemasonry who are not evangelical Christians or read critically? JASpencer 17:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

He did say "most". That implies that there are some who are not. Blueboar 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

So therefore the some who are not, should not be unfairly silenced. Seraphim 03:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

And where do you see people unfairly silenced? Because there's a separate article? What part of "this article is too big to merge" seems to be unclear? You can't pick and choose which Wikipedia policies apply and which don't as it suits you and your argument. If you don't like it, run an RFC, keeping in mind that you are bound by the results of the RFC. MSJapan 05:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously if the articles were merged this would get shortened. That's why I set the tags so that this one would be merged into the other, since it is obviously a sub-section of the Freemasonry article. Also I realize that if the merger happens, this article will be shortened substancially. That is 100% ok since NPOV does not mean equal time, it just means that each side must be given appropriate attention. Where people are being unfairly silenced, is all the people arguing that they won't allow anti-masonic editors "and the fact that most anti-Masons are anti-Masons because they either refuse to read critically or they are evangelical Christians - they think the article is here to say what they want and what they think rather than be an information resource by presenting claims and fact" yet when people try to present real critisism's they are attacked and then their claims are attacked with counter-arguments that they are not given the chance to respond to. Instead this article is a history of masonic persecution by anti-masonic groups. Stating "As a general rule, anti-Masonic claims, especially with regard to Satan worship, stem either from a lack of comprehensive reading, from a lack of understanding of the symbolism, or the usage of quotes outside of their context" in an encyclopedia article is rediculious, we are suppossed to present and deal with facts, and you cannot say that all anti-masonic claims come from a lack of comprehensive reading, symbol interperataion, and usage of quotes outside of their context. For me I believe that the root of it is problary the secrecy surrounding the group, and the fact that members are not allowed to discuss certain "secrets". If those secrets didn't exist i'm sure most of the critisims would not exist either. Also on that note i'd like to point out a contridiction i've been running into alot the past few days. It has been pointed out to me over and over that any information pertaining to the secrets is unverifiable, therefore nothing definate can be said about what the secrets are. However you guys are quick to say stuff like "While there have been many claims made against Freemasonry, the claims of Satan worship, being both the most pervasive and the most long-lasting of the accusations leveled at Freemasonry on an institutional level, are also the most untrue." however in saying that you are saying that the contents of the secrets have nothing to do with Satan, which is a contradiction, you can't have it both ways. Seraphim 08:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to attack any other point that you have made, but the claims of satanic worship amongst the Masonic Order is simply untrue, Masonry has its very roots in the judeo-christain belief and (as it has been shown by this article) stresses belief in a "Divine Being" whether this is God, or Jehovah, or Yahweh is irrelevant and it doesnt seem possible that this claim has any base in fact, this is an article based on facts not the allegations of evangelical Christians. Their points should be properly addressed and given the attention that they are due, then the facts should make themselves known. Im not a veteran wikipedia editor or anything of the sort so if ive said anything in the wrong please correct me, but as someone who has had my life saved by Masons i can vouch for their validity, this is not a satanic order nor should it be stated that it is or isnt when there is no basis in fact, only assumptions, thanks for your time. f1r3r41n 13:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Seraphim - you are showing a very POV attitude here. You seem to have made the assumption that one of the secrets of Masonry is that Freemasons worship Satan. Since they do not, there is no contraditcion in stating that the contents of the secrets have nothing to do with Satan. In the context of this article, the fact that some people say Freemasons worship Satan is verifiable and worthy of inclusion, it is part of Anti-Masonry. To keep the Article NPOV, we include the Masonic responce to that claim. Stating: "As a general rule, anti-Masonic claims, especially with regard to Satan worship, stem either from a lack of comprehensive reading, from a lack of understanding of the symbolism, or the usage of quotes outside of their context" is not POV nor oppinion. It is fact. If you look at the article several examples of this have been given. Finally, please remember that this is an article about a distict phenonina known as Anti-Masonry, not a place to "prove" Freemasons are evil. Blueboar 16:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that masons are satanistic at all, if you had read what I wrote and not taken what I said out of context you would have notice that I was using used that as an example since it is "both the most pervasive and the most long-lasting of the accusations leveled at Freemasonry on an institutional level" according to your article. I don't believe that it's a satanistic group at all. I'm just pointing out that you cannot have it both ways. If you want to insist that nobody can know what the secrets are since they are secret, you also cannot dismiss claims by saying that "that's not what the secrets are". Infact f1r3r41n summed up my point for me when he said "this is not a satanic order 'nor should it be stated that it is or isnt' when there is no basis in fact, only assumptions". Seraphim 21:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If I misunderstood what you said, then I appologize. Nevertheless, I still disagree with your comment. This page is, in part, about the claims various anti-Masonic groups have made about Freemasonry. I see nothing wrong with responding to that with the claims that Freemasons make about themselves. Blueboar 01:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with that, what is wrong is the way it's set up. If you look at the history of the page, the person that added all the counter-claims originally listed them as responces, and any other information that is added to the article gets reverted. If you look though the page's history, there was a few times a completly sourced article about freemasons and nazi germany that is just being outright removed, also I noticed that alot of the "facts" that respond to the claims are mainly pointing out that the person who wrote it was not a mason at the time, or was not speaking of masonry, however as is pointed out numerous times also, inorder to be a mason you must believe in a supreme being. If someone is a satan worshiper and writes books about it, then later becomes a mason, claims that he wasn't a mason at the time seem to be pointless, since it inferrs that masonry allows people who worship satan in since it falls under the belief in a divine being portion of their requirements. (Of course i'm not saying at all that masons are satan worshipers, i'm just trying to point out that some of the "facts" listed as counter-points to the claims can just as easially be dismissed as the "claims" they follow). Also i'd like to point out yet again. My original reason for slapping the NPOV tags on these 2 pages is that this is a POV content fork. It fits all the requirements as such, and this page should be deleted and the content represented in some way over on the main freemasonry page. Seraphim 03:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to get you for lack of knowledge on your part again. Most likely, what was removed was added by a user or sockpuppet of a user who was banned from editing any articles regarding Freemasonry. Furthermore, the article you mention was sourced from FreemasonryWatch, which was also decided by the WP ArbCom to not be a valid source of information. It was a copyvio for FMW to have it posted, and it was copyvio for us to use it, as it was not in the public domain. That's not POV, that's policy. I will also point out that your argument is false. None of those books were about Satanism, they were about magic, and had nothing to do with Masonry. They were made to be Masonic by later editing because maybe 10 or 20 years later the author became a Mason. That's the point. Don't conflate the arguments in order to make a point. I'm also going ot point out again that this is no more a content fork than Anti-Semitism, and if we merge them back, we're going to get the same arguments that it's not covered properly, because it is simply too large a subject to cover adequately in one article. In short, you want to take an encylopedia article and turn it into a stub because you disagree with it. For the last time, arguing back and forth here is going to get you nowhere; start an RFC or be quiet. MSJapan 05:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

<qoute>this page should be deleted and the content represented in some way over on the main freemasonry page.</qoute> This approach would mean that one would either have to remove large amouth of relevant, sourced and refernced information (well, for the most part sourced and referenced), or the main article would be hugely bloated. Do you also suggest condensing all of Category:Roman Catholic Church into the single article Roman Catholic Church? Or do you want to merge just the sub category Category:Anti-Catholicism, or only the article Anti-Catholicism (or possible Criticism of the Catholic Church) on into Roman Catholic Church?? After all, what is good for the goose must be good for the gander... I don't see Seraphim arguing on those pages.

Minor sarcasm aside, the guideline you are building your argument on is a guideline, not a policy - and your argument rest on the mistaken idea that this page has been branched out (mainly) because of POV issues. As far as I recall, having taken part in both the previous merge into the main article, and the discussion afterwards, this page was reestablised to conform with another guideline, namely Wikipedia:Summary style. It has naught to do with POV, and all to do with NPOV and the sheer amouth of information that ought to be presented to the readers.

In regard to your statement about books written by people who later became masons... I happen to know that a number of 'born again christians' used to be alcoholics, drugabusers and criminals before they got religion... would you argue that this means that christians are alcoholics, drugabusers and criminals? People change opinions as they walk thru life, accept it. Or do you think you should be judged by the opinions and tastes you had as a kid?

I have to partly agree with MSJapan - either start an RfC, or do something constructive. WegianWarrior 09:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a content fork, Anti-Freemasonry is a distinct movement which encompasses alot of different views. The movement went so far as to have a major American Political Party in the 1830's and should not be merged into the freemasonry page. This movement also played a major part in many 20th century fascist governments. "Anti" does not automatically mean content fork as is made clear by the following articles.

• Anti-Catholicism
• Anti-French sentiment in the United States
• Anti-Australian sentiment
• Anti-Semitism
• Anti-Protestantism
• Anti-Mormonism
• Anti-Globalization
• Anti-capitalism
• Anti-Arabism
• Anti-Zionism
• Anti-racism
• Anti-fascism
• Anti-intellectualism
• Anti-science

This is by no means a complete list of "anti"'s on wikipedia, only the ones I found in five minutes. None of these articles have an NPOV or a Content Fork tag on them. Because they describe a social movement, their beliefs and an acceptable response to the arguments made by the movement. Anti-Freemasonry is about a movement which is over three centuries old and are a key component in many governments that exist to this day.

Content Fork in a nutshell "Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject." The Freemasonry article deals with Freemasonry. Anti-Freemasonry deals with those that attack freemasons, their beliefs and opinions. Just like all the above articles deal with the people that attack Catholics, the French, Australians, Jews, Protestants, Mormons, Globalists, Capitalists, Arabs, Zionists, Racists, Fascists, Intellectuals, Scientists, etc, their beliefs and opinions. Once again either start an RfC, or do something constructive. This article needs some work and time shouldn't be wasted on this any longer. Chtirrell 06:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a content fork, Anti-Freemasonry is a distinct movement which encompasses alot of different views. If it encompasses alot of different views then it hardly a distinct movement. Or am I missing something?JASpencer 12:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"Distinct"," whereas it is seperate from Freemasonry. "Distinct" means "Readily distinguishable from another" and "Clearly defined," not "homogeneous." For example, Communism and Capitalism are both distinct movements in terms of each other, however each encompasses a wide range of diverging beliefs within their own movement (i.e. Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Stalinism, Council communism, Anarchist communism, Christian communism for communism and Libertarianism, Anarcho-capitalism, Objectivism, Laissez-faire Economics) Therefore, Anti-masonry can be distinct from Freemasonry (as is required to not be a content fork) and still be diverse (which is the nature of most if not all major social movements). Hope this clears up any problems with my wording :) Chtirrell 15:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a real problem which I don't think any of the Masonic editors are addressing. Anti-freemasonry is utterly different depending which party it comes from. The very nature of this article is in danger of bringing out the equation Catholicism=Fascism=Pentecostalism=Communism=Anti-establishmentarianism. This is certainly not a danger that has been guarded against here. JASpencer 21:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that there needs to be more alot more work in this article in this area. Right now, I believe it is too much in a "claim -> fact" format and it should be more in a listing of the anti-masonic groupings (i.e. Facsist Anti-masons, Catholic Anti-masons, Conspiracy Theorist Anti-masons, etc) with refutes allowed for each of their claims. Even as a mason, I do not believe the current format is nutural enough. Each one of these groups are very different with different arguements, but still fall under the umbrella of being anti-masonic. Nowhere should catholics be grouped with facsists or a 1830's political party be grouped with autocratic islamic governments, inregards to this article. Each of these sub-groupings of anti-masonry deserve their own section in this article along with a general historical outline of all the movements. This will serve as the only point of convergence in their idealogies. However, the refutes can not be removed at all, many falsities and misquotations have been made regarding freemasonry and if the quote stays (which we may decide to remove or not), the refute must also stay. Although, I also believe that the current "claim -> fact" wording should be changed to "claim -> refute" to stay within NPOV. In my mind, well referenced and logical refutes will easily stand up to many of these claims, without having to push the term "fact." Just my teo cents. Chtirrell 22:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

but still fall under the umbrella of being anti-masonic. Only really if you are pro-Masonic. It's like doing an article on anti-Christianity labelling together esoteric Masonry, Hitler's table talk, Stalinism, Richard Dawkins and the French Revolution. Anti-Masonry, at least as it is in this article, is simply anyone who has ever criticised Masonry or Freemasons.JASpencer 23:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Masonry, at least as it is in this article, is simply anyone who has ever criticised Masonry or Freemasons... exactly!! That IS the subject of this article. Look at the all the "anti-whatever" articles listed above. It will be the same. The article will discuss all the differing and different groups who are opposed to the "whatever". Thus, if you did an Article on Anti-Christianity you would group all those who criticised Christianity (although Freemasonry would not be listed there as it is not Anti... but that is another issue). Now, if you want to go further and discuss a specific group's reasons for opposing the "whatever", you form a sub-article entitled something like "Specific Group's" opposition to "whatever". A perfect example is the Catholicism and Freemasonry page, which I know you are familiar with. Blueboar 23:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You all seem to be forgetting something. In wikipedia the time given to the opposing view is suppossed to be proportional to the amount of people that have that view. If you are arguing that Anti-Masonry should have it's own page because Anti-Semitism does, then you are arguing that Anti-freemasonry is as wide spread, and as important an issue as Anti-Semitisim. Which it most definatly is not. Seraphim 04:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Masonry is just not important to you. It is widespread - it has occurred and still does occur in Europe, the Americas, and Asia. It's also all over the Internet. It often goes hand-in-hand with antisemitism, and to Masons, it is just as important as antisemitism is to Jews. This arguing is getting pointless, and frankly, you have a choice - start an RFC or be quiet. This is getting us nowhere, and no one is going to agree with you when you continue to display a horrific lack of knowledge, as you have done previously. You don't understand the nature of the policy you are arguing about, you don't understand the topic, and yet you need to be right, as long as you don't have to actually do anything yourself. At this point, you're actually preventing us from making any changes to the article because you're wasting everybody's time with this discussion. MSJapan 05:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't start an RFC untill a lengthy discussion has been done. I was in the wikipedia irc channels asking for help on what to do and they said just keep talking on here for a while so that's what i'm doing. I seem to be confused... your saying that Anti-Freemasonry is as widespread and as important to history as anti-semitism? That's your argument? Seraphim 05:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. It has persisted for hundreds of years in many countries (just like anti-semitism has), has spawned at least one political party and has had other effects on politics (the UK bill drafted requiring disclosure of membership, just like the Nazis and many other political groups have considered anti-semitism a basic tenet), and Masons were persecuted by the Germans in WWII because they were Masons (just like the Jews were persecuted for being Jews). It has also kept many conspiracy theories alive, and is very prevalent in today's society in certain areas. MSJapan 05:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But I feel that equating anti-freemasonry with anti-semitism is absolutely rediculious. Ok here's another question. If i was to say that in masonic rituals they worship strawberries, what would your responce be to that.

You'd have to be able to verify it. Ardenn 05:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Lets say I have some random source where some guy wrote where he said he snuck into a ritual and saw that they were all worshipping strawberries. Seraphim 05:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability - 1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new information into an article should cite a reputable source for that information, otherwise it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source is on editors wishing to include information, not on those seeking to remove it.

--Ardenn 05:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok obviously my example isn't leading where I want it to go. I was trying to make the point, that any claims with a fairly good source about what goes on in the masonic rituals cannot be proven or disproven due to the secrets. Therefor saying stuff like "While there have been many claims made against Freemasonry, the claims of Satan worship, being both the most pervasive and the most long-lasting of the accusations leveled at Freemasonry on an institutional level, are also the most untrue." is impossible to say, since it is impossible to know what goes on in the rituals. Also i'd like to point out, that alot of the "FACT" sections that come after the "CLAIM" sections are not facts, but interpertations of the facts. For example the claim from Albert Pike 33° Legendas XIX° ~ XXX° Pg. 40 - 44 is rebutted with a so called "Fact" that contains the wording "This passage seems to be an expansion on a New Testament passage". Another one "Helena Petrovna Blavatsky 32° Ancient and Accepted Primitive Rite Grand Orient of France The Secret Doctrine" is rebutted as saying "This is conflating two things: one, the Antient and Accepted Primitive Rite was started by John Yarker in the United States, and had nothing to do with the Grand Orient of France." however it's been pointed out over and over to me that the secrets vary from lodge to lodge, and that nobody in one lodge can possibly know what the secrets of another lodge are. Therefore how do they know that The Ancient and Accepted Primitive Rite is US only. Another thing, a few of them are dissented as saying that the person did not become a mason untill after the book was published. However the year the person joined is not cited, I don't even know if it is possible to prove that. Also according to the General Requirements section of the main page, 2 of the requirements to become a freemason are "Be of sound mind, body and of good morals, and of good repute" and "Believe in a Supreme Being, or, in some jurisdictions, a Creative Principle (unless joining a jurisdiction with no religious requirement, as in the Continental tradition)." I don't understand how someone who wrote a book titled "The Book of Black Magic" was then 4 years later, allowed to join the masons. Seraphim 06:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave that for someone more familiar with it to answer, but I'll leave you with Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Ardenn 06:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ardenn, please explain to me in any way shape or form how i'm violating that at all. That is a passive agressive way of accusing me of violating those guidelines, and could be interperated as a personal attack on me. It is not appreciated. If you feel i'm not adhering to those guidelines please list out how. If you don't want to respond to my points, that is fine. But leaving comments like this is innapropriate. Seraphim 06:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Firstly Ardenn and Seraphim, can you please state if you have an interest in this. Most editors on this page have somewhere on their user page stated that they are Freemasons, while myself and DonaNobisPacem state our Catholicism (and from our edits it's quite clear we are not Masons). Sarek states that he is both a Catholic and a Mason. I think I can take a guess with Ardenn.JASpencer 13:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I have none at all. I started this NPOV dispute about a day or two after discussing how the secrets were covered in the main article. A friend simply mentioned the masons to me and I came here to read up about them. Seraphim 16:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've got a bridge to sell you, then. There is no way that a casual reader would be this stubborn about it. MSJapan 16:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no biases either against or for Freemasonry, my only interest is in Verifiability, neutral point of view, and What Wikipedia is not among other sources. Ardenn 17:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I must go along with MSJapan here, I find it hard to believe. So I'll ask more blatantly now. Seraphim, what is your religious affiliation? Ardenn, are you a member of any Masonic affiliated organizations or have you friends or relatives who are members of Masonic affiliated organizations? JASpencer 18:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am Wiccan, and I am not currently nor have I ever been a mason. My father was once an entered apprentice, way back when I was like 2 years old, that's about it. Ardenn 18:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

And that's more than is really any of your business. Ardenn 18:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a religious affiliation, I don't believe in religions. And I don't think I know any masons, and being female it's impossible for me to be one. The reason i'm being "stubborn" about this is if you look at the talk page History, this has been pointed out numerous times, the pages have been merged numerous times, at one point they debated changing this page's name to "critisims of freemasonry" but that was shot down because they felt the page would then be a PoV fork. And everytime someone mentions this or tries to deal with the NPOVness of this article they end up posting something like "I give up". For me to just sit back and let some obvious POV material stand on wikipedia would make me a bad editor. If I feel it's not NPOV I cannot morally sit by and let it stay up on wikipedia. I do wish I never read the article in the first place, because I wouldn't have jumped into this mess, but now that I have read the article, I can see the bias of the editors, and it needs to be fixed. If you want proof of the bias in the articles, look at the main Freemasonry page, up in the top paragraph it says "in some sources, as "a beautiful system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols."" when discussing the secret rituals, what the article fails to mention is that it is not "some sources" it is one source, that just happens to be a masonic handbook, yet when I proposed to change the text from "some sources" to point out that it comes from a masonic handbook, I was told that it would be adding needless information to the article, and that saying "some sources" wasn't misleading at all. Last time I checked the word sources is plural, meaning more then one source, and the quoted line is only found in one source that is written by a mason. If I wrote an article calling myself beautiful I would be accused of being biased, yet apparently when a mason calls the masonic rituals beautiful it's justifiable since masons are the only legitimate sources as to what the contents of the rituals are, even though if you find another source that says something bad about the rituals, that is an unverifiable source since nobody can disclose anything about the rituals, contradiction anyone? Seraphim 18:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll break this down one last time: the "beautiful system" quote comes from Macoy, in a book freely available to the public (it's still in print, and can be purchased in many bookstores or online). There was also some discussion as to the fact that the quote appears in certain rituals (noted by those who have those rituals). However, it does not appear in all rituals, as they vary depending on jurisdiction, and even within jurisdictions. Therefore, it is not possible to cite every instance of its appearance, but there is evidence of more than one source. Macoy is just one man, and even though he called his book The Masonic Manual, it was never adopted as a standard handbook anywhere. So, anything else he says is merely his own experience, and not a universal fact regarding Masonry. Therefore, it is not a violation of NPOV not to say it comes from a Masonic handbook, because it really doesn't.

As far as anti-Masonic sources go, many of them are third-hand at best (if not outright fabrication), and as the authors of these sources have never taken part in the rituals, they aren't particularly qualified to comment on them; everything they say is purte conjecture not supported by fact. For example, in Freemasonry, the oaths are plainly stated to have been changed to remove the penalties, and while it's not dated, I believe it was over 30 years ago at this point. Therefore, to take a source from 1875 regarding the penalties and quote it as fact that is applicable to the modern day is at the very least uncritical research, and at most an outright lie (anti-Masonic sources do not value fact very highly).

You are also mistaking knowledge for POV. If someone stated that the Moon was made out of green cheese because a book said so, it would be removed by those who know that it isn't. However, if it was stated that people used to believe that the Moon was made out of green cheese, that is acceptable and correct. Similarly, to claim that the signs and secret words of Masonry are X when there is no modern proof to show this is incorrect. However, I can clearly show that the signs and words are not standard from place to place (I have a citation from Freemasonry for Dummies), and thus to claim otherwise is wrong. The secrets are secret, and therefore there is no authoritative modern source to verify what any of the secrets are. However, as there is a evideced statement that says the secrets are not standard, to include them in a general article is misleading.

There is a particular scope to these Masonic articles, and we need to stay within it. MSJapan 22:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think some important history is being overlooked here; the history of bad faith edits by Masonic editors on the Freemasonry related pages and the history of the creation of the so-called 'anti-freemasonry' page.

On the first point Masonic editors have shown a pattern of refusing to allow any contributions by non-masonic editors to stand for very long, if at all. The large number of Masonic editors on this page exercise complete defacto control of the content of this page and it should be said by definition they are POV as they have all taken very extreme and serious oaths to each other and the 'society', which they do in fact take VERY SERIOUSLY. These Masons consider their oaths and obligations solom ones. This is not a normal Wikipedia situation, we basically have the situation where a cult has decided to take over all pages related to itself and control in a co-ordinated fashion it's content. Masonic editors such as MSJapan have absolutely no interest in being NPOV. They have an interest in wearing down non-masonic editors and Wiki arbitrators so they will give up, with this they have been extremely successful.

In regard to the history of this page it is actually fairly involved. Basically the latest version of the page came about after a group of these Masonic editors decided amongst themselves to remove a half dozen pargraphs on the main Freemasonry page entitled 'Criticism of Freemasonry'. These criticism para's were put there after another lengthy merge debate between the exact same issues which are being discussed now. This shows that the Masonic Editors who have been here for a long time did not respect the decision to merge the old Masonic criticm and Freemasonry page. They just waited a bit and started the fork up again. You see the whole point of creating the misnames 'anti-freemasonry' page was to remove all the criticism of freemasonry to a secondary page and then systematically gut it. Which as you can see they did, now for the second time. So it is a false game being played here. All the material about 'Totalitarianism' was added after moving the criticisms to the new page, and most of the criticism sections have been gutted or deleted. You see today I added a See Also link to the P2 Scandal, well there used to be a complete entry about that as well as much else about persecutions of the church under masonic regimes in Latin America and such.

The problem on these pages is the ill will of the Masonic Editors to having anything remotely resembling a NPOV ariticle on the subject. Time and again they destroy all rewrites or critical information. Establish consensus? It is a phony consensus, because the only consensus the Masonic Editors have is to come back and delete any material they don't like. They are acting as a long term group - a lodge, where as the non-masonic editors come and go. The only solution is to permanently ban all know Freemasons from editing any pages on freemasonry or assign a neutral academic to write a balanced Freemasonr entry and put a permanent lock on the page. Any other work your contribute here now will be utterly futile because in a week or a month they will just delete it all and we will be back to square one again.Basil Rathbone 17:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Content Fork

I thought I would try to seperate out the issue of whether this is a content fork or not. Could I ask for one statement for why it is a content fork and one statement for why it is an article in it's own right.JASpencer 13:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You can ask, but I doubt that you will get just one statement. Let me repeat what I said above: Anti-Masonry has a long and complex history, just as Masonry does. It has taken many forms over the years, and many different groups (each for their own individual reasons) have come out against the Fraternity. That in itself makes the topic worthy of an article. it is similar in scope to anti-semitism. Spain during the reconquista had very different motives for anti-semitism than Germany during the Nazi period, but both need to be discussed in an article on anti-semitism. You are correct that Anti-Masonry is not a homogenous movement, Catholics and Communists each have their own motives for being Anti-Masonic... but they have the common bond of being anti-masonic. It is a broad category and it deserves to be given its own article, seperate from Freemasonry just as a discussion about anti-semitism should be seperate from an article on judeism. Each article can mention the other, and linking them is proper Wiki protocol. But they should be seperate. Blueboar 13:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I replied to the discussion further down as well, but in my opinion, this should be an article in its own right because:

• It is clearly a complex issue in and of its own right. To merge the articles would by necessity cause the issue to not be examined in the depth it needs to be examined in order to understand it. There are far too many facets to consider for it to work effectively.
• It is historically important (as I have stated before, so I won't elaborate here). Anti-Freemasonry has impacted politics and affected religion and society in many times and places for different reasons. These reasons simply cannot be fully explained and explored within the confines of a section in the Freemasonry article.
• It would also limit what could be considered worthy of an article. To pick an example you will know well, I could say that the extent of the view of Catholicism and Freemasonry is that Catholics don't agree with it. However, as you have shown in your article on the topic, there is a lot more to the relationship of Catholicism and Freemasonry than simply the blanket generalization I made, and my statement doesn't really tell you anything.

It really is the Masonic equivalent of anti-Semitism. The hatred and accusations are based on the same sorts of flimsy premises, they recur frequently, and in certain segments of the population, it is definitely ingrained. There are evangelical Christian ministries online dedicated to "converting" Masons. The Nazis published propaganda about the Masons, and persecuted them for being such. In Europe, many people are as suspicious of Masons as they are of Jews.

Since the topic is large and complex, that alone should justify an article, so to call this a content fork really undermines the importance of the whole movement.MSJapan 22:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Not a statement, more a quibble. Anti-semitism is very much based on the opposition to Judaism as something alien and unrooted in the dominant culture. For example it would be irresponsible to say that theological objections to Judaism are de facto anti-semitic or that criticisms of the Israeli millitary are anti-semitic (although the motivations of both may be anti-semitism). You can see a thread of continuity between Roman, Medieval, Renaissance, Nineteenth Century and Twentieth Century positions.

Anti-freemasonry simply does not have this thread of continuity. In fact one of the dominant themes of criticism is that it is too tied in with the dominant establishment. The totalitarian dislike of freemasonry is similarly not based on the alieness or otherwise of freemasons, but on their potential as an opposition force. The Catholic suspicion of freemasonry may have started as a suspicion of it's English protestant origins, but it quickly became a theological critique of freemasonry informed by the anti-clerical actions of many Freemasons. The evangelical anti-freemasonry position is similarly a theological objection to freemasonry (informed by the propensity of many Protestant denominations to become dominated at the top levels by members of Masonic lodges). I do not see a dominant theme other than "they all disliked Freemasons".JASpencer 18:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not intend to go over this again... See about half of the discussion above. That is the definition of Anti-whatever... It contains all those who dislike the whatever. Blueboar 21:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, should an article be simply based on "they all disliked Freemasons"? JASpencer 22:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That is a simplistic question, so I will give a simplistic answer: Yes. Blueboar 22:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

And that is the argument for this article being merged with Freemasonry. Unlike anti-semitism it has no independent existence as a coherant movement unless you look at Freemasonry. JASpencer 23:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It does have a continuity, though. If you research the arguments, the majority of the arguments are based on the same hoaxes and other fabricated materials. What has happened, however, is that as time has passed, other tangentially related (and some unrelated) things have crept in to the mix. The Taxil hoax, the Morgan Affair, and a lot of creative editing have been the basis of the arguments for almost 200 years out of Freemasonry's documented almost 300 year existence. The same letter that Pike supposedly wrote is still used today, although it was debunked before the start of the 20th century. The prior interests of a particular group of members at the beginng of the 20th century have been brought out time and time again. Even the religious objections are nothing new, but they still apply. The same arguments have been used in different times and places, so I would say that there is indeed clear evidence of continuity. MSJapan 22:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If the major basis of this article's existence is that most (or all) criticism of Masonry is based on "hoaxes and other fabricated materials" then surely it points to a bit of a NPOV problem. JASpencer 22:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not the basis, but it happens to be an often-overlooked fact. There are legitimate claims and not-so-legitimate claims. Without the space to elaborate upon them to explain which is which, an important topic is being overlooked. Speaking of overlooked we need to add the Anti-Masonic Party and other political stuff in here as well. MSJapan 22:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me rephrase. Do you believe that the continuity within anti-Masonry is that "the majority of the arguments are based on the same hoaxes and other fabricated materials"? JASpencer 22:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Also to add onto JASpencer's comments where in the article are the "Legitimate Claims" covered? In the "claim" section every single one has a counter-argument (valid or not) Seraphim 23:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, from my point of view as a Mason, I don't think there are any "legitimate claims" presented in the article. But that is just my POV, and I do not let that keep me from presenting them and discussing them. The point is that the claims have been made. They deserve to be included, discussed, and responded to if possible. That is how Wikipedia works.Blueboar 23:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, religious claims are generally valid, but it is a verifiable fact that the arguments based on writings tend to use faked or creatively edited writings, so they're just not going to stand up as solid arguments. Those also happen to be the sources for the majority of the arguments, which is plain to see if you look around a bit. Since we are here to discuss fact, it would be POV to leave them as strictly claims, because they're not true. MSJapan 02:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar, this is certainly not what you were implying in the Catholicism and Freemasonry article when you were fairly trenchant about the anti-clericalism of many Latin lodges, surely a legitimate criticism for Catholics. However if you don't believe there are any legitimate claims, then you should surely recuse yourself from here as NPOV is impossible.JASpencer 09:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well... I would agree that the Catholic Church has a legitimate concern over that issue.... at least from the Church's POV. We have yet to add a "Freemasonry's responce" section to that article, and so it is a bit one sided at the moment. Blueboar 18:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Content Fork (part 27)

We were starting to get conversation threads intermixing... so I have copied my latest exchange with JAS here:

So, in your opinion, should an article be simply based on "they all disliked Freemasons"? JASpencer 22:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That is a simplistic question, so I will give a simplistic answer: Yes. Blueboar 22:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

And that is the argument for this article being merged with Freemasonry. Unlike anti-semitism it has no independent existence as a coherant movement unless you look at Freemasonry. JASpencer 23:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism has no independant existence as a coherant movement unless you look at Judeism (I would use "distict" instead of "coherant"... neither movement has much cohesion, but both are movements). Anti-Catholicism has no independant existence without Catholicism. Anti-Globalization has no existence without Globalization. etc. etc. etc. What part of ANTI don't you get? ANTI-whatever MEANS being against the whatever. Why must I repeat myself? Blueboar 00:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well so far we've got together six sources of anti-Masonic thought, some of them mutually exclusive - and I doubt that we've finished counting. The Anti-semitism article has two (arguably three) sources, which can - and often is - held by a single person. There is also the same criticism of the "other" that holds anti-semitism together. Anti-semitism is an independent strain of thought. Anti-masonry is simply a way of saying "these people don't like Freemasonry". It is much better dealt with by a series of articles looking at these very different schools of criticism. Otherwise it's in danger of becoming a victim-fest, which....

JASpencer 01:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I very much disagree. Anti-semitism is not just criticism of the "other", and there is not just one reason why anti-semites are anti-semetic. Nor is there only one group that makes up anti-semites. It is as complex as anti-Masonry. For example, with anti-Masonry you have the criticism of the "insider" that equates to the anti-semetic "other". But lets not get focused on just Anti-semitism. That is but one example of an Anti group... look at the others, they all have one thing in common: dislike of the group or concept they are opposed to.

I am getting tired of talking this around in circles. You will not convince me that this article deserves to go away. Improved and edited, yes... merged with Freemasonry, no! Blueboar 02:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Freemasonry is not complex, it is according to you very simple, anyone who criticises Freemasonry. It is divergent - which is a differnt concept. For it to be complex there needs to be an underlying unity. JASpencer 11:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree completely, and you have taken my comments out of context. - see discussion above. Blueboar 13:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar, where are the links between what Steven Knight said, what the Papal Encyclicals have said and what the Nazis said? If there is no other link than "they didn't like Freemasonry" (itself debateable what they don't like) then what is this article other than a pot pouri of victimology. It's neither (1) a robust subject for Wikipedia nor (2) something that can be written from a Neutral Point of View. JASpencer 22:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've stayed pretty much out of this, largely because I previously had some distrust over Seraphims motives and decided to disengage from dialogue. Notwithstanding that the work done on this article has made it much more readable and managable. I do feel that there is one issue which is missing from the discussion here though. Anti-Masonic activities have gone beyond, and continue to go beyond, just dislike. Masons continue to be subject to discrimination, something which I expect neither Blueboar and MSJapan have actual experience of, given the highly overt nature of American Freemasonry. As such I think their arguments tend towards a historical/ academic approach which risks the impact being watered down into little more than a curiosity. Given that I am very close to the issue I'm not in a sound position to contribute to the improvement in NPOV effort going on, but would strike a note of caution about the topic become overly bland and anodyne.ALR 22:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

ALR this is suppossed to be an encyclopedia, a historical/academic approach is what is required. I'm glad that you realize that you cannot contribute from a neutral point of view, but please realize why we make the edits that we do. We aren't trying to cause the article to become bland, or water down it's impact, we have to make sure it is written in an academic way, adding statements or wording to create an "impact" is not what wikipedia is for. Seraphim 02:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

One can communicate the impact of a philosophy or policy without making the article overly-dramatic. The point I'm making is that the article is beginning to make A-F look like little more than a historical curiosity, the impact is real and that is not being communicated, not that it was previously anyway. Current policies in the UK actively discriminate agasint Freemasons however they have been found to be illegal under European Law and as such the wording is being fudged (weasel-words) to continue that discrimination whilst opening up the definitions of what is, and is not, covered by the various items of legislation. The reason for that is mainly down to the 'Cronyism' allegations however not limited to that. the difficulty is that any evidence would tend to be in legal findings, or evidence, and as such not really usable in this form if there is a strict adherence to published citations. For example the evidence presented to an Industrial Tribunal for unfair dismissal has to present to 'balance of probability' rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt' which would be required in a civil suit. A difficult balance to strike, making the article meaningful in the current environment means drawing in material which does not appear to meet the expectations of those editing here whilst elsewhere in Wikipedia, it would. Notwithstanding that, given the contentious nature of the topic and the recent trolling of certain individuals that level of evidence does serve to dilute the efforts of those who seek to undermine Wikipedia for their own clearly POV motives.ALR 19:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Citation for Islamicists seeing Masonry as Christians

Some (not all) Islamicists see Judaism and Christianity as only different by degree. Any way here's an Islamicist who reckons Masonry is a Christian plot:

http://www.mediamonitors.net/harunyahya19.html

Hysterically he takes all the Templar origin stuff seriously. JASpencer 01:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Um... the site says Harun Yahya is a prominent Turkish intellectual, not an islamicist. Can you verify that he is an islamacist? (or should that be islamist? I get confused by the two terms). His site talks a lot about the Templars and Freemasonry, but it does not mention any Christian conspiracy. And a quick google search does not show anything islamicist about him. Blueboar 01:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

OK... I should have used the term Islamist (at least according to the article)Blueboar 01:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes to the history

I am changing the history pages at the moment with the intention of making them a bit more readable. With the exception of some editing on the German article, I'm not aiming at getting rid of any text - just reformatting. JASpencer 10:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

S**anism claims

Can we simply seperate this out into a seperate article and leave a single paragraph on this article? The new article should have an NPOV tag. It is probably the most offensive NPOV area remaining on this article. (I'm not saying that it is the only NPOV area, by the way). It has enough text to justify this. JASpencer 11:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No... that would be a POV fork in my opinion. Those who claim that Freemasons engage in some form of Satan worship form a large part of Anti-Masonry. It must be discussed in full here. Blueboar 13:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a concrete claim with two clear sides to the argument. As the article itself says that it is "the most pervasive and the most long-lasting of the accusations leveled at Freemasonry on an institutional level". That may actually be a false statement (I'll get to that later), but it does show that to Freemasons that this is a claim that stands on its own and is to be attacked as such. It could even be called a straw man.

On the factual inaccuracy of the claim that it is "the most pervasive and the most long-lasting of the accusations leveled at Freemasonry on an institutional level" the first religious condemnation was In Eminenti which laid three explicit objections - religious indifferentism, secret oaths and that it tends towards anarchy in religion and politics. None of them is a claim for s**anism. As far as it being the most pervasive, well the naturalistic religion, secrecy/cronyism and the anti-establishment claims have surely been more frequently laid before Freemasons. For the sake of argument the idea that this is the most pervasive claim may not be absurd, but it does not deserve a statement of fact. That's why I'm going to remove that last sentence. JASpencer 16:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to change the intro to this section so that it at least approaches NPOV. JASpencer 16:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is not the longes lasting claim... but it is the most pervasive. Please leave the statement. And be careful not to change the intro from one POV to another. May I suggest discussion before any changes are made? Blueboar 16:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The statement is factually incorrect. That's not about NPOV.JASpencer 17:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It certainly is true... As a Mason I am constantly answering question about supposed Satan worship. Far more people have heard of and asked about these claims than any other. We can work on the wording if you insist... but the basic fact is that the accusation of satan worship is indeed the most pervasive attack on Freemasonry in the modern era.

Maybe it's because I'm English but I'd heard lots of claims about Freemasonry, and only recently about the luciferianism, and then it's claimed that this is only at the higher degrees. My understanding is that it is only really the, ahem, eccentric sites like Freemasonrywatch who claim this. To simply claim that it is the most pervasive, and not to bring any factual basis is POV and should be either qualified or dropped. JASpencer 17:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it a bit... this is very big in America, where we have evangelical Christian ministers ranting about how Freemasons worship Satan all over the place. Freemasonrywatch is just the tip of the iceberg. Blueboar 17:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It may be big in America and on the internet, but this does not make it the most pervasive claim. Pervasive is a factual claim, and an unproven factual claim is POV.JASpencer 19:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hold on... not all POV is forbiden. It just needs to be ballanced with POV from other sides. Most of this article is very POV favoring an anti-masonic POV, this is one section where the Masonic counter view comes across clearly. I don't mind re-phrasing it to reflect that the pervasiveness is a Masonic viewpoint, but the statement does need to be included in some form. If you wish to re-write, be VERY careful to reflect that. Monkey with that too much and I will all but guarantee that a revert war would start. Again, I would suggest that any changes to this section should be drafted here on the talk page first so they can be fully discussed. Blueboar 19:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

POV dressing as fact is forbidden. I'm not saying that you should not say that it is most pervasive, just that "some Masons claim that...". Of course if you can find a Grand Lodge or whatever that also claims this then it's fine to cite them.JASpencer 19:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to get into wishy-washy words... I would say most instead of some.

Factual is not wishy washy. Most is still a factual claim that you can't hope to substantiate. Some you can. (My original suggestion of "some Wikipedia editors who are members of Masonic lodges" while being factually the most correct is probably not necesary). The parenthetical sentence was a joke by the way. JASpencer 20:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to add the NPOV-section tag to this area, I think that this is a fair summary of the current situation with this section.JASpencer 16:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Link question

I know this was discussed in some detail at Talk:Freemasonry a while ago... but it has been archived and I can not find the discussion. Anyway, there is a link here to the New York Times article: "A Ritual Gone Fatally Wrong Puts Light on Masonic Secrecy". If I remember correctly, there was an issue about linking to the NYT site because registration is needed. Does anyone remember what the outcome of that discussion was? I have no problem keeping the link if it meets Wiki guidelines and rules, I just want to double check that it is indeed OK. Blueboar 13:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

AFAIR it was decided it was OK as long as it was pointed out that one need to register to read the full article. WegianWarrior 14:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not really sure it should be included on purely topical reasons (it does not really say anything about anti-Masorny), but that is another discussion for another time. Blueboar 15:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Claims, Facts and Straw Men

Can we please cite every one of the "claims" made

Not sure what you mean... citations are given in the article. Or do you mean we should cite an anti-masonic website or some other place that repeats each "claim"? Blueboar 17:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I'll start again. Can we please cite every one of the "claims" made in the s**anism section. We can then see if any of them should be included. We should also change the "claim" and "fact" rhythym. JASpencer 17:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I know that is the section you were discussing. Please clarify what you mean by "cite"? As for the claim and fact rhythym... I don't see any other way of dealing with this issue. However, I am willing to discuss it further. But I repeat my request that we discuss before you edit. I feel strongly that this is an important section for keeping the article NPOV from the Masonic side of the issue. Blueboar 17:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well where are these claims made? That's what needs to be cited.JASpencer 17:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I still don't get what you are asking for... each claim has a citation below it, listing where it came from. Blueboar 17:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Who says that these are Masonic sources and proof of Masonic involvement with the occult?JASpencer 17:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I see... you do want a list of websites and books that repeat the claims. If you look at the external links, you should be able to see several examples. Blueboar 17:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, however I think it would be instructive to see if it is coming from one or two sources. One of which will be freemasonrywatch which is not seen as a citable source most of the time. JASpencer 19:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

All of the claims are cited right after, they are quoted from books. What is not cited is alot of the information in the "fact" parts. For example, saying that someone was not a mason untill X years after the book was published, is in the "fact" section a few times but I don't see any sources for them. Seraphim 19:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point Seraphim. Once we get some agreement on the fundamental basis of this section we can start looking at this. This Masonic site may be a place to start looking for the citations. (I'm not going to comment on the prose style).JASpencer 19:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"One of which will be freemasonrywatch which is not seen as a citable source most of the time." In this case I think it could be cited. Most of the objections to citations from Freemasonrywatch deal with what is said there ... in this case we would be citing that it is said there, which someone could check by simply looking at the cite. I note that freemasonrywatch is already in the external links. Blueboar 20:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Seraphim writes: "All of the claims are cited right after, they are quoted from books. What is not cited is alot of the information in the "fact" parts. For example, saying that someone was not a mason untill X years after the book was published, is in the "fact" section a few times but I don't see any sources for them." See all the little numbers that are in bracketts scattered around the the Fact parts? Those link to citations. Sorry. Blueboar 20:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've never actually seen any "anti" claim that Freemasons 'worship' Satan, in the same way I've never actually seen any self-admited Satanists that they worship Satan. So once again we have Masonic Editors setting up a strawman and knocking it down. There has been some good analysis of Masonic Ritual that show it is by and large a mockery of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is the usual admission/definition of Satanism, it certainly 'square's' with statements and rituals used by 'Satanic' groups. It also 'squares' with what Christianity knows and teach's about Satan and his agenda. Does Satan want to be worshipped or does he just seek to lead souls away from God and Heaven and into his clutch's?Basil Rathbone 06:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

POV intro to S**ansim section

These are the main claims made by critics of Freemasonry regarding what they see as conclusive proof that Freemasonry is a religion whose purpose is the worship of Satan. However, many of these "claims" are simply that; they are often creatively edited, and much of the "damning evidence" is introduced by the critic and is not present in the original book. Here are the main claims made that Masons worship Satan, where they are sourced from, and the factual evidence that rebuts these claims.

This is a bit of a joke, isn't it? Do any Masonic editors want to try to improve this before I start picking at the carcass? JASpencer 17:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sadly it is no joke... these claims are really made, and Freemasons deal with them constantly. Blueboar 17:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the claims (I've little interest in them as such) but in the POV way in which the intro is presented.JASpencer 17:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am willing to listen to reason about it. Perhaps you could draft a re-write here so we can discuss it? I am willing to work with you if you feel it is worded in an overly POV manner. But it is factual, so the basic gist of what it says should remain in any re-write. Blueboar 17:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I took a stab at rewording it... please let me know if you think this is less POV. Blueboar 20:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The first two lines are much better. I would have put the evangelical angle into this, as I don't think there is any other significant source of this criticism, but then that's me.JASpencer 20:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Could we change "Many Anti-Masons" to "Some evangelical Christians". Later on in the paragraph we could say how this dominates internet criticism of Freemasonry beyond the beliefs' presence among either evangelical Christians or critics of freemasons. In a NPOV way of course.JASpencer 22:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

How about... "Many Anti-Masons, especially some evangelical Christians...". As for the domination on the internet, why not just say: "Of all the critisims of Freemasonry these claims dominate on the internet" and let it go at that. Blueboar 23:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that deals with this. Well done.JASpencer 23:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted this back from "Of these [religious objections] the claim". I'm very wary of sneaking back the "most critics" claim in through the back door.JASpencer 17:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

POV conclusion to S**ansim section

While there have been many claims made against Freemasonry, the claims of Satan worship, which some Masons claim to be the most pervasive of the accusations leveled at Freemasonry on an institutional level, are also the most untrue.

Slightly improved by taking out factual inaccuracy and modifying claim presented as fact, but this should either be drastically improved or simply discarded. It is a rhetorical flourish in an Encyclopedia article.JASpencer 17:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Not a rhetorical flourish at all... it is a simple statement of fact. I have modified it to make sure it reflects that it is pervasive from Masonry's view and not that of those making the claims. Blueboar 17:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

When you say "seen by Masons" is this an official line by some Grand Lodge? Could the Grand Lodge be cited?JASpencer 17:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not some "official" line... but it is something Masons deal with constantly, both individually and at the Grand Lodge level. It is pervasive (at least in the US) Blueboar 17:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

But is this accusation made outside evangelical circles? Was it a serious allegation in Steven Knight's book for example? What are the official Catholic Church condemnations on this score (and I'm not simply talking about blasphemous rituals)? For example the Catholic Encyclopedia article mainly goes on about Giosuè Carducci when mentioning this subject.

Even Humanum Genus (which is not even alluded to in this section) which claims that Freemasonry is a part of the "kingdom of Satan" does not say that Freemasons worship the evil one. The argument is that the doctrines of Freemasonry, by weakening dogmatic Christianity, are working for the enemy of all that is good. This is strong stuff, but it is not accusing Freemasons of conscious worship.

Could you please show me an official Catholic church document that claims that Freemasons worship the evil one? If there isn't one then surely the criticism is not the "most pervasive" if it doesn't include Freemasonry's most persistent critic.JASpencer 19:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"most pervasive" in that it occurs the most often, based on the same incorrect evidence every time. Catholicism is not Freemasonry's most persistent critic by any stretch of the imagination. I don't see entire church pages devoted to how Masonry is incompatible with Catholicism, and I don't recall the pope mentioning thjis fact on a regular basis. So, wouldn't "Catholicism being the most persistent opponent" be a POV statement itself? :) MSJapan 19:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Occuring most often is a quantitive claim, that you can't hope to prove. (Persistent means for the longest continuous time, something I can prove in relation to Catholic criticisms of freemasonry - if you really want me to).JASpencer 19:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"pervasive" and "persistent" are not the same, though. MSJapan 19:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No, but it would be a weird idea of "pervasive" if it ignores Catholic criticisms (and for that matter Steven Knight or the Methodists). In effect you are saying that the only critics who matter are evangelists who have web access.JASpencer 19:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, here is a site from a Catholic evangelical who thinks Freemasonry is satanic: http://www.secondexodus.com/html/evangelization/evangelizingfreemasons.htm , is it "pervasive" now? Blueboar 19:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I am expecting a couple of lay Catholics to say "Freemasons worship S**an". However that is different from being the church itself. I also don't expect them to be anything like as pervasive as other criticisms from Catholics, by the way.

However this page does not claim "Freemasons worship the evil one". It claims that Freemasonry mocks Christianity and so ipso facto is s**anic (ie serving the evil one), in the same way that Humanum Genus says this. This line of reasoning should be included in the article, but it is not the same as claiming that Freemasons explicitely worship the evil one - which is what this section says..JASpencer 20:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever... The point is that it is pervasive from a Masonic point of view. That needs to be included in some form. Blueboar 20:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

How about this:

Allegations of Satan worship are seen by some Masons as the most pervasive of the accusations leveled at Freemasonry on an institutional level. They are also seen as the most untrue.

JASpencer 21:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed (speaking for myself only). Thanks for your patience and cooperation.Blueboar 21:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with this statement Allegations of Satan worship are seen by some Masons as the most pervasive of the accusations leveled at Freemasonry on an institutional level. They are also seen as the most untrue., I think it is extremely inaccurate and in fact a Masonic strawman as I point out in the 'strawman' thread above. The correct statement would go something like Allegations that Freemasonry is Satanic are seen by some Masons as the most pervasive of the accusations leveled at Freemasonry on an institutional level. They are also seen as the most untrue. and Freemasonry opposed Christianity, Freemasonry mocks the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ in it's principal rituals. Freemasonry is a tool of Satan and is directed by him.Basil Rathbone 06:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

To serve the evil one you don't need to worhip him

Some of the conversation here has bought up the attitude of Catholicism towards Freemasonry being "S**anic". I'm going to put a short paragraph about the attitude of the Catholic church saying that serving the evil one is not necesarily the same as worshiping him.

This will probably mean splitting up the first paragraph. JASpencer 22:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Why? Blueboar 22:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Why what? Splitting up the first paragraph?JASpencer 22:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well we can start with that. Why split up the paragraph?

Because if we do insert a piece by the Christian critics who do not claim that Freemasons directly worship the evil one (for example the Vatican) then we it should be after the introductory sentence but before all the text about "supposed quotes". The supposed quotes don't relate to what other Christians say about Masonry.JASpencer 23:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Since I have created a section on "other religious criticisms", why not put it there? That said, I do not really think it is needed. The article does not imply that the Catholic Church (or other Christian critics) think Freemasons worship Satan... only "Many Anti-masons" or even "Many Anti-Masons, especially some evangelical Christians" if you must.

Why not put it in "other religious criticisms"? Because it specifically addresses what the Roman Catholic Church says on the issue of Freemasons worshiping the evil one. According to the Church, Freemasons don't, but they could unwittingly be serving him.JASpencer 23:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see the need for it at all, but if you feel it needs to be said, why not put it under the Catholic Church section. I really don't think it belongs under the Satan worship section, as I agree that there is a difference.Blueboar 23:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll put in something in the next couple of days and see what you all think.JASpencer 23:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Done a couple of days ago. JASpencer 22:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Varying Criticisms of Freemasonry

I have been thinking about this list... in some ways it is similar to having an index of the article. Shouldn't it follow the same order in which each anti-Masonic group is mentioned in the article? Just a thought. Blueboar 23:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well it's more flexible. JASpencer 23:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Other Religious objections

Blueboar in particular, what does this paragraph say that is not said elsewhere in the article? Can't we just delete it?JASpencer 23:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

For one thing it points out the similarity of tactics used by different groups of Anti-Masons when attacking Freemasonry. Thus, I felt it should be included somewhere in the article. I was fine with the paragraph where it originally was, but since it starts with religious objections I though it belonged with other religious oriented sections. You can put it back after the totalitarians if you want. Blueboar 23:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well let's look at the paragraph clause by clause:

Other individuals and organisations in the United States and elsewhere in the world continue to attack Masonry today, largely on religious grounds: asserting that Freemasonry promotes devil worship, leads religious men away from the "right" way to find God, or is inconsistent with the religious beliefs of certain (usually Christian) denominations. - This is covered in "Allegations that Freemasonry is a distinct religion" and "Claims that Freemasonry worships Satan"

They often attack Masonry with exaggerated language, and it has been pointed out that their use of language regarding Masonry is strikingly similar to that which was used by the Nazis and other attackers of Freemasonry in the past[2] - This is covered in the first paragraph of the totalitarian regimes area.

In fact, many times, modern anti-Masonic proponents use the same propaganda and false information published by the Nazis and other suppressors of the Craft in the past. - As in the clause above.

And that's before I start getting on my high horse about NPOV.JASpencer 23:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I do want to comment on this... but my non-wiki life is getting in the way. Could we please leave it there for now and pick up the discussion tomorrow? Thanks Blueboar 23:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

non-wiki life - is that rhyming slang for wife. Speaking of which. JASpencer 00:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No, no wife here (yet)... just a busy evening. Anyway, I have changed things around a bit so that the Other religious objections section flows into the Satan worship section a bit more smoothly. Please let me know your thoughts. Blueboar 02:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't read it well (it's in widescreen) so I'll have to reserve judgement on whether or not it flows. However if you are (twice) going to say that there is a "striking" similarity between the way the Nazis and modern (living, presumably non-Nazi) people attack Freemasonry then you really should point out that the allegation is made by Masonic authors. I've changed this para so that (1) it makes clear who the allegation is coming from, (2) takes out the third sentence that simply restates the second and (3) doesn't use the term Craft(!)JASpencer 16:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I still don't like it. It doesn't say anything that hasn't been said elsewhere in the article. The paragraph should go in my opinion. It also has a big POV.JASpencer 17:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

POV-section template added. My preference is to simply delete this as it simply repeats what can be found elsewhere in the article, but in a far more POV way.JASpencer 18:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to delete it unless someone can come up with a decent reason why this says anything that is not said elsewhere in the article. JASpencer 23:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 23:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup... Changed my mind. Do it. Blueboar 01:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge tag

Can I remove it from here and Freemasonry? Ardenn 23:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't think that the case has been made that this Anti-Freemasonry deserves its own article.JASpencer 23:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No, once this page gets to where it's going, (And JASpencer is doing an amazing job) we will then have to look at what's left and determine if a merger should happen or not. Seraphim 23:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the need to keep the tag. I second the koodos for JAS... he IS doing well. In fact his changes are making me even more convinced that this article should be seperate from the Freemasonry Article.Blueboar 23:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Um... No article ever "gets to where it's going". They constantly evolve. that is the nature of a dynamic encyclopedia such as this. Grye 00:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

I have added a short section on Anti-Masonic conspiracy theories. As this article is getting a bit long, I have chosen some of my favorites. If I left out your favorite, please add it. Blueboar 03:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Could each one of these be cited?JASpencer 17:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have merged this with a prior conspiracy theories section, hope you don't mind. These will certainly need citations, which I'm sure will be provided shortly.JASpencer 17:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to add, citations would give the section a chance to avoid a Template:Disputed-section tag.JASpencer 19:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Template added. I won't delete uncited items for a few days. JASpencer 18:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete the section... I'll add it back when I get the citations sorted out. Blueboar 00:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. There are POV problems on the longer standing areas which I've laid out my reservations below. JASpencer 21:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Removal of citations

Basil Rathbone removed the citations that back up some of the criticism of the criticism... this is EXTREAMLY POV. I can understand questioning statements, and demanding citation (after all, we Masonic editors require the Anti-masons to do so, and what is good for the goose is good for the gander.), but to remove them is pure vandalism. I am going to revert to the version that included them. Basil, I appoligize if this also deletes some of your recent edits, but the citations and footnotes MUST stay to keep this article from becoming NPOV. Blueboar 15:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I did absolutely nothing of the kind. You have two links to the Grand Lodge of BC website, two links to Masonicinfo.com, and two links to Paul Bessel the Chief Librarian at the Supreme Council 33 in Washington DC's site. I removed one link from each 'group'. Bessels link was to the exact same page, a duplicate link, but the title was different i.e. Masons murdered by Nazi's & Nazi's murdered by Masons or some such. Actually Bessel contradicts his other page on the Forget Me Not Flower where he has material from Berheim over at Freemasonry-freemason.com or some such saying the German Regular Freemaonry were all Nazis'!!! Masonicinfo has a link to there main navigation page, I removed the link to the specific page attacking Freemasnry Watch. Why single that site out, there are plenty of others? Same for GL of BC there is a link to it's main anti-freemasonry page, why a link to there specific page about Freemaonry Watch. What is the fixation with that site anyways? Recently many additional links to other mainly Protestant sites were adde, are you going to delete them again. And what about the Bernheim articles about german freemasonry's nazi past, are you going to delete them again?

The problem is the ill will of the Masonic editors. JASpencer I appreciate all your good work, but others have come in here and try to fix up the Masonic bias only to find the Masons have deleted it all two weeks later. The problem is the Masonic Editors, you either stop them from editing because of their extreme POV or you get someone like yourself to prepare the Freemasonry entries then lock them down permanently. It is the only way forward. This field has been plowed and replowed.Basil Rathbone 17:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Basil, this page has been on my watchlist for some time and if there is a mass reversion after a couple of months, the POV tag will be back double-quick and the whole process will start again.JASpencer 19:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I wish you the best of success, I hope your approach works and you have the necessary support from the Wikipedia 'powers that be'. My fear, because I've seen it before, is that after a short period of time the same Masonic editors will delete all your work and re-insert their previous versions and that you will have become tired of the whole business and gone onto other topics. Masonry is relentless and it's methods never change.Basil Rathbone 06:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you got any examples on this page. It should be fairly easy (if a bit time consuming) to show before, during and after snapshots using the history function. JASpencer 22:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Widescreen

The article is suddenly very wide, that is it is not fitting on my screen. It's only happening with this article Is this happening to other readers? Why is it happening here?JASpencer 16:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

it is fine for me... try a refresh. Blueboar 16:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Works now. Thanks.JASpencer 19:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

citations in Satan section

JAS, I have no problem with re-working the citations for the claims in the Satan section so that they are footnote links (as they are with the fact rebuttals)... but I do think it is important to include the "as cited on Freemasonrywatch.com" warning. Freemasonry watch is notorious for changing quotations and is not considered a reliable source (we put this to an AfV a while ago on the Freemasonry page and the Admins agreed). Thus, we have to qualify our citations. For example, while I am sure that Holly made use of essentially the same quote that is reported on our article, I do not know if Freemasonry watch "edited" it. We have to either link the quote directly to him, or qualify that it came second hand through Freemasonry watch. I would have similar problems with any of the other citations, but I am especially sceptical of Freemasonry watch. I am not sure if you can do that using the foot note/reference format... but if you can, I am in favor of trying (it keeps the text of the article from being broken up with citations.) Good luck Blueboar 16:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure this could be done in the Masonic counter-claim or in the footnote. It should not be done in, or next to, the main quote. JASpencer 17:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Spain dispute

Just saying that the Spain section among Totalitarians is marked as disputed as there are words such as "reported" and "no records".JASpencer 18:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Germany dispute

I merged two sections on Germany, one of which called itself an "alternative view". This is by defintion disputed. I've added the section template.JASpencer 18:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As a note, Hitler eventually shut down the Frederick the Great Associations as well. I'll get the refs tomorow and post them. I'm also not sure of the validity of "regular" and "irregular" here. I will need to find a UGLE recognition list from the early 1900s. MSJapan 06:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a brief mention of the occultism of the inner circle of the Nazi's especially the occult rituals of the SS, the financial support given to Hitler by powerful Freemason Henry Ford, and the anti-clerical, pro-eugenics beliefs of both Freemasonry and the Nazi's. After spending time researching the inner beliefs of both movements the similarities become quite striking.Basil Rathbone 06:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms based on the moral faults of known Masons

I think that this section has POV problems because it seems to go on quite a bit about how wonderful and open the Freemasons are. Surely the Masonic counter argument can be put in more succinctly. I don't want to put a Template:POV-section stub here, as this article has quite a few tags at the moment, so I'll wait a day or so before inserting the tag, after which it probably won't need to be inserted anyway.JASpencer 19:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Template added. I would slim this down, but I think a Masonic editor should have a stab at this first.JASpencer 18:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No changes have been made and I'm going to slim this down in the next couple of days. Specifically:

• amongst its aims is the drive to improve its members' morality above and beyond whatever religion the individual member believes in - needs citation or I will remove this.
• Still society claims that Masons are guilty of "Masonism", another citation needed. Who is society? What is Masonism? I've seen only 478 references to it on Google, which indicates it's not even used among many Masons. I'd say the whole sentence should go (or else citations for classism and racism).
• The phrase "charity begins at home" goes some way towards justifying this natural proclivity. Unless that's a Masonic policy it doesn't go towards explaining anything. Delete.
• Critics also attack what they perceive as a preoccupation with ritual minutiae and personal status within the hierarchy of the organization. Some critics also argue that the Freemasons are primarily a social club. Are these criticisms based on moral faults? Bourgeois mentality perhaps (certainly a criticism I've heard), but not of moral faults. Delete.
• Last paragraph. Perhaps these could be listed in a footnote, or perhaps they could all be deleted.

JASpencer 22:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

As I've heard nothing on this I've made all the changes above and taken off the POV tag. JASpencer 13:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't cite it on anything save personal experience (maybe a GL brochure, if i look hard enough), but the first statement is valid. MSJapan 03:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing the NPOV tag

Ceraphim, Basil and other non-Masonic editors, I'm removing the POV tag from the main article. We have a number of POV and disputed tags in relevant sections, and a number should be put on if the sections mentioned here don't improve (which I'm sure they will). The developed/reviewed tag and merge tag should be kept. If you want to revert this please say why here.JASpencer 19:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The sectional tags are fine. Seraphim 20:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed History Merger

The History of Freemasonry article is puny. Surely the history section is better in that article? Could discussion on strengthening and structuring the History of Freemasonry article be conducted over there and the idea for keeping the history in this article over here? JASpencer 23:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI - I am planning to do a major rewrite and extension of that article soon (hopefully within the next month or so). The revised articel will include discussion of some of the other origin theories, and expand the history to cover post 1717 Freemasonry. If you merge it now, I will simply have to recreate it when I finalize my draft. Blueboar 00:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the merger would be okay, it'd help cut down on the size of the article. Ardenn 00:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ardenn - Which article needs cutting down? JASpencer is talking about merging History of Freemasonry with Freemasonry. That would mean the Freemasonry article (already too long) would just get longer. I agree that the History of Freemasonry article is but a stub at the moment, but as I said above - I do plan on expanding it. Blueboar 00:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the history section from this article and Freemasonry should be mered into History of Freemasonry. Ardenn 00:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh... ok... As a stop gap, I could see that... although a brief History section should be kept in the Freemasonry Article for those who just want the bare bones. Actually, I kind of like your idea, as I would not have to keep going back and forth between Wiki articles as I write my draft. Blueboar 00:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It'd help out, I think. It'd benefit the NPOV folks too. Ardenn 01:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure... anyone can help. that is the nature of Wikipedia. I do hope to write a very NPOV article... no Pro-masonic pumping, no Anti-Masonic tearing down... just History. The good and the bad. After all, I was an historian long before I became a Mason... I have a prior commitment to historical fact.Blueboar 03:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

JASpencer is talking about merging History of Freemasonry with Freemasonry. Obviously I didn't make myself clear, sorry. I wanted the History section here and in the Freemasonry article to largely go over to the History of Freemasonry article. I think that everyone understands it now, but just in case. JASpencer 09:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

JAS - I understand. Really, I just wanted to let everyone know that a major re-write is in the works... I don't want anyone to get upset if stuff they moved over there gets lost when I upload my draft. I am going to follow the Wiki mantra and BE BOLD. You can all be equally bold and rip what I post all to pieces when I am done :>) Blueboar 01:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Persecution by Totalitarian Regimes

I've written a new article Freemasonry under Totalitarian Regimes. I think that the section Persecution by Totalitarian Regimes could be pared down to a paragraph in the same way that the Taxil hoax section is. JASpencer 23:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Freemasonry is alive and thriving in Castro's Cuba. In fact it is likely that many of the Cuban Communist Party Central Committee are members. There is also quite a bit to suggest ties between Freemasonry in the Communist Party in the former East Germany as well as Yugoslavia under Tito. The founder of the Red Army in the Soviet Union, the man who ordered the destruction of thousands of Church's and murder of tens of thousands of Priests, Leon Trotsky, was a Freemason. Freemasonry is anti-clerical Socialism whether International or National is anti-clerical.Basil Rathbone 06:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Basil, I don't see what this has to do with the specific point under discussion. Put this talk into the Freemasonry under Totalitarian Regimes article. JASpencer 09:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If it can be verified, I would think it should be put here. It would be a counter argument against any "Pro-masonic" argument that all totalitarian governments are against Masonry. If it can be verified. Blueboar 14:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should put this section down to one paragraph, in the same way that the section on the Taxil hoac should be. I want to see if anyone wants to come up with a suggestion for the paragraph or has an objection to this on principle. JASpencer 19:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Although I believe the section should be written better and have alot of citations added, I do not believe that all the specifics should be removed. Each country dealt with their persecution differently and for different reasons and should not be grouped together without differentiation. Also, I am not convinced, but Freemasonry under Totalitarian Regimes may be very close to being a content fork of this article. Anti-Freemasonry isn't large enough yet and the material isn't seperate enough yet for this to constitute another article in my opinion. Chtirrell 20:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Freemasonry's relationship with totalitarian regimes was not purely one of being persecuted - although a lot of it was - and this period of Freemasonry's history has enough content for an article of its own. Even if it is (arguably) a bit POV at the moment. JASpencer 21:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Political conspiracy theories involving the Masons

I think that an NPOV tag should be added to this section.

• I'd like to take out the reference to the "occult and evil power" which are already covered in the religious section
• NWO, Illuminati and Jews - can this be moved down into a lower paragraph, with citations
• Something needs to be said about how widely the theories are believed (I'd say marginally unless there's some contrary proof).
• "their ideals of liberty, equality, fraternity" - the revolutionary ideals perhaps?
• "and religious tolerance" - something more neutral to reflect the anti-clericalism of regimes subject to the "undenied" "secret plotting". After all Mexico in the 1920s, the Kulturkampf, Italy 1870-1920 or France in 1905 are hardly tolerance - at least from the Catholic Church's view.
• "and persistent enemies of the Masons have been forced to come up with ever more sinister motives as to what Freemasons allegedly conspire to achieve." - well this should either be reworded or deleted. On it's own this deserves an NPOV tag.
• The Pat Robertson paragraph needs citations or should be deleted.

JASpencer 21:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Added. JASpencer 19:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

On the NWO, Illuminati, Jews and other "agents" point, I'm removing this until some decent text has been written for it. JASpencer 13:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes made, POV-section tag removed. JASpencer 13:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing S**anism section

As we have an (in my opinion) improved version of this section at Christianity and Freemasonry - can we delete this section and point anyone interested over there? JASpencer 13:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure... again, if things become too POV, we can redress it later. You seem to be on a roll. Blueboar 21:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

conspiracy theorists????

Prometheuspan 21:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

wait a second here, just wait a darn tootin second. With that one single invalidation, you are going to dismiss hordes of proofs, completely scientific analysis, and gazillions of hours of legit work on the part of people everywhere?

The Freemasons HAVE been involved in culture wars, HAVE been involved in Secret Societies, HAVE used Hypnosis on their own people, HAVE used propaganda wars to cover their tracks...

They have Assimilated the Trance Technologies of The Chumash Indians, and THAT is an extremely dangerous state of affairs, because it involves the creation of Sleeper "Personalities."

THERE ARE statistically significant increases in crime on the 21st and 22nd, (of any given month) including murders, rapes, suicides, and so forth, because of this.

There is a difference between Neutral POV and Neutered POV Prometheuspan 21:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing references

I'm going to remove the links under the titles Totalitarian Suppression and Religious Links as they are already in Freemasonry under Totalitarian Regimes and Christianity and Freemasonry. Any objections? JASpencer 22:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Which links? Blueboar 01:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Totalitarian Suppression and Religious Links. JASpencer 16:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No problems with removing the links here... although I do think your reasoning for doing so is flawed. A link should not be removed from one article just because it is included in another similar article. Every article should be seperate and valid on its own. Thus, if a link fits a particlular article it should be kept, regardless of where else it also appears. So the question is: do these links have a valid purpose in this article? If yes - keep them, if not - get rid of them. Blueboar 02:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I just think we should avoid becoming full of "see also" links. Citation links I'm more than happy with. JASpencer 15:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Now done. JASpencer 09:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Taxil Hoax

Just a heads up, I've slimmed down the Taxil hoax section. Nothig too controversial, but enough to be worth a warning.JASpencer