Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 20

This is an archived page, please do not edit. The current active talkpage is at Talk:Freemasonry. WegianWarrior 07:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

New Edits

The line under the symbol should read 'Compass' not 'Compasses'.

The line under the symbol should read 'Compasses' not 'Compass'.

Nuttyskin 15:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Several new edits, are anotated, by me on the History page of the article. Imacomp 18:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC) While reading this page i noticed that both Ancients and Antients were used... is this correct? --Frup 03:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in context both are correct - for historical reasons. Imacomp 21:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

History of Freemasonry section edited, anotated by me on the History page of the article. Imacomp 01:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

History of Freemasonry section edited, shortened and moved to History article, anotated by me on the History page of the article(s). Imacomp 12:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

More edits done along the above lines. Imacomp 21:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Introduction tidied up. Imacomp 09:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sections moved and merged to give only one "Ritual and Morality" section, instead of two - all now under "Principles and activities" Title. Imacomp 19:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

New Editors

Hi. How come I cannot edit the article here? Do I sign in again? Azuredeltascribe 09:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to be logged in, and be an "established" editor (I think the minimum is 50 edits or so.) User:Ben Standeven 18:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Mass of individual edits by Osgoodelawyer

I took the time to go through all of Osgoodelawyer's edits... they are all small formatting changes. I agree that it would have been easier for me if he had made these changes all in one lump edit... and will leave him a message on his home talk page to point this out... but nothing he did is worth further comment. Blueboar 23:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Issues with the opening lines of "Religious Opposition" section

As the article currently stands, the opening lines of the Religious Opposition section read:

"Although sections of other faiths cite objections, in general, it is Christianity and Freemasonry that has had the highest profile relationship, with various Christian denominations banning or discouraging members from being Freemasons.

While regular Masonry has always tended as much to rationalism as it does to mysticism, the very existence of the possibility of hermetic interpretations within Freemasonry has led" ...

The first line is, in my oppinion, akwardly written. I would like to substitute something along the lines of: "Although sections of other faiths cite objections, it is with Christianity that Freemasonry, in general, has had its highest profile relationship of controversy."

As for the second line, I am not sure that Freemasonry "has always tended as much to rationalism as it does to mysticism"... I would say the fraternity has historically leaned heavily to rationalism and downplayed any mysticism. I would rewrite the line to read: "While regular Masonry has always tended more to rationalism than it does to mysticism, the very existence of the possibility..."

Since ANY change to this part of the article can cause controversy, and because my changes would shift the meaning of the lines, I thought I would raise my concerns here first. What say ye all?Blueboar 23:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Your first edit will be the fine. The second one should be removed and should never had been there in the first place because it doesn't cite its sources. The only word in that whole paragraph that might have a possible cite is 'Deism' and even that can be debated in the context of the cite used. As far as I am concerned that whole paragraph is just something someone made up as they went along. (Simonapro 10:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC))

No Simonapro several editors contributed. Imacomp 10:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The numbers of contributors has nothing to do with wikipolicy. See WP:CITE and WP:NOR. (Simonapro 11:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC))

Number one, Simonapro, how about reading something else besides CITE and NOR, or even better, understanding what CITE and NOR mean before you decide to use them as the basis for every argument you have?

Second of all, I'd like to point out that the statements as written come across as Eurocentric, in that we are assuming Christianity has the most objections because we are most familiar with it, so I think we need to think about whether that needs to be in there at all. I also think that the mysticism comment is a bit out in left field. I would personally toss the lot and write a new section intro. MSJapan 16:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That also works for me. I just raised the issue because found the language awkward. A rewrite would probably solve the problem. Blueboar 16:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with a rewrite of the introduction containing WP:CITE. It should made here in talk to ensure that it meets wikipolicy. (Simonapro 17:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC))

I have tried to think of a good rewrite (I even tried posting one)... but am coming to the conclusion that the entire section needs a reordering and a rewrite... all properly cited of course (Just to keep Simonapro happy).

Some small formating changes done. I do not think they affect any change to the topic itself. Imacomp 08:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Imacomp... I had one quibble with your edits... Quaesitum est was not issued by a Pope, but by Cardinal acting as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. While it is noteworthy that this cardinal is now the Pope, by saying that Benedict issued the document it makes it sound like a Papal encyclical, which it was not. If any Pope 'issued' the document, it would be John Paul II... as he was Pope at the time. I have reworded to reflect that. Blueboar 12:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have linked the 'Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith'. As a note a Pope actually established that council. (Simonapro 20:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

Interlanguage links

For some reason, the interlanguage links are getting cut off after italian, as though the FA linker isn't working properly; I don't know if the problem is here or somewhere else. Ben Standeven 18:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

They are all there and working fine for me... so either the problem has been fixed, or it is just a local problem with your connection to the page. Blueboar 19:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be working OK for me now too. Ben Standeven 01:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Compasses

User 128.61.98.24 poped in to add the comment "The line under the symbol should read 'Compass' not 'Compasses'." Unfortunately, he added it at the top of the talk page and not here where it belongs (I will assume he is a new user, and didn't know the standard practice). Anyway, I will answer it here...

User:128.61.98.24, Thank you for trying to help, but the instrament shown in the picture is a "set of compasses" not a "compass". A compass has one pointy end and, usually, a holder for a writing utensil. A "set" of compasses has two pointy ends and no holder. It's a singular vs. plural thing that dates to medieval times. Thus, in Masonic terminology one always refers to the "square and compasses". Blueboar 01:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Freemasonry

How come no one has set a WikiProject up for Freemasonry yet? It seems a perfect topic for one, especially with all the work going on on Freemasonry-related articles lately. It could provide us with a place to organize new articles such as those on Grand Lodges, appendant bodies, and major terms, and to apportion work on already existing articles. Anyone want to put the effort into setting this up? Maybe Blueboar? OzLawyer 18:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking I am some sort of Masonic Wikipedia expert... but, alas, I am not - I'm simply a "know-it-all" loud-mouth with a bit of free time on his hands :>). I would not know where to begin on something like this. I do, however, think this sounds like an excellent idea, and would support anyone who does want to start such a project. Blueboar 01:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The WikiProject as been set up at WP:FM. Despite your protests, Blueboar, you're probably the most knowledgable frequent editor of Freemasonry-related pages, and I hope you will accept the responsibility of being one of the main organizers of the WikiProject. The whole idea is that it becomes a team effort when we set up a WikiProject, so it won't be so much responsibility, really. Anyway, I invite you and everyone else here to join and help make Freemasonry one of the best documented subjects on Wikipedia. OzLawyer 18:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I look on edits to Freemasonry articles on a case by case basis, and since I'm a Freemason I have some knowlege on the subject. Imacomp 19:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC) As to this Class B stuff - who rates the classification and upon what authority? Imacomp 19:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed several new editors have arrived. True Grammar and format edits will for the most part go unchallenged. However attempts to miss-represent Freemasonry will not. This article has been subjected to heavy editing by several competent members of

Freemasonry, worldwide. The sub-articles deal in greater depth with certain issues. The main article has bee thus shortened by consensus. We here are quite good at fending off vandals etc. The arbitrary setting up of a "Project" adds nothing to the blood sweat and tears already expended here. Imacomp 20:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Chill dude. I think this is a good thing. A group effort to improve all of the articles, and this one too. By setting up a project with standards, etc it will make it easier to fight off vandals and misinformation, because a lot of times, regular joe editors will point to the project as if it were policy. Ardenn 20:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Pail. The main article here needs no more filler information. Try the sub-articles please. Hence your edits lost in my revert. Imacomp 20:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Osgoodelawyer. Some of your edits were lost as colateral damage in the revert, since I've not the time to re-do them and at the same time filter out the crap put in by others. Imacomp 20:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ben Standeven Your edits are just crap that you have done before, and have been talked to death. Your edit war on citations and refs that you do not like will be reverted on sight, as vandalism. Stop it. Imacomp 20:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTE that almost every word in this article has been heavily talked about before. Read the archived chat before jumping in with both feet. The balance of the article is not enhanced by trying to convert it into an "exposure" of so called "secrets" or by closed minded anti-Masonry. Also note that this article is only about the three degrees of "Craft/Blue Lodge" Freemasonry. Most secondary sources and "disclosures" are just full of crap - even if written by "Freemasons". Official stuff is attributable to a Grand Lodge, or some such authority, but remember that no one person speaks for the whole of Freemasonry. (And that includes me!) ;) Imacomp 20:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Simonapro. There are two sub-articles on religious isses, and one is specifically RC. Please see if linked cited refs are there, as the main article has been edited down to an agreed size. Imacomp 20:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've bumped the article to "Class A" as I consider it as Complete. I've done this on my own authority... ;) Imacomp 21:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Good. I think it should be A-class. I was just wary of making it so, since it hasn't gone through GA-class (which admittedly isn't a prerequisite), and is significantly changed from when it was a featured article. As for the question about classifications, right now I'm using Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, which many WikiProjects are using. We're free to design and implement a different scheme if this one is not considered fitting. Come join the WikiProject and give us input on this and other issues. OzLawyer 22:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm already a Freemason, under UGLE. FM membership here is taken on trust, and a continued editing track-record in the interests of truth on the subject of the Craft. Imacomp 22:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Imacomp, what on earth are you talking about!? A WikiProject is a place to get together and collaborate on articles in a specific area. Sort of a message board where editors can decide what needs work and who wants to do it—to give a little structure to improvement efforts. It has nothing to do with proving you're a Freemason. OzLawyer

Erm well see the "Death toll" of FM badged editors defending truth on the subject. I've even had several weeks of being called a sock of a permo-blocked editor by revisionist FM editors. Hence you get a "robust" reaction here whatever your take on the subject. This is why the article is heavily cited, etc. Imacomp 23:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not really following you here. What's your beef with the WikiProject? You do understand it's an attempt to deal with all the Freemasonry-related articles on Wikipedia, and not just this page, right? For instance, I would see it as a good place to organize addition of articles on all the regular Grand Lodges, and to add and edit articles about related appendant bodies and the like. That is, if we can get enough editors who know a thing or two about Freemasonry to join and participate. OzLawyer 23:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"Rv.to Edits that are trusted." What???

What kind of junk is that? "Rv.to Edits that are trusted." !? It's easy to check a bunch of edits at once, use the compare version button and if anything jumps out of you that was changed fix it. Don't do a blanket revert like that, it basically tells all the users who's edits that you blanked that they aren't welcome here. If you actually care about the article atleast take the time to look at what people are contribuiting instead of simply reverting back to the last time someone you know edited. Seraphim 05:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

But I do "know" you Seraphim, and I look very closely at any of your edits. Imacomp 11:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That's great, now give the same respect to the people that you blanket reverted earlier with that junk reason. Seraphim 16:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh Seraphim, but I do give others the respect I give to you. Imacomp 09:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No you don't, reverting people because they made alot of edits that you don't feel like checking with a reason "Rv.to Edits that are trusted." shows that you have no respect for the editors at all. Seraphim 14:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Grading of article

Reading thru the assessment scale, it's clear that this is not a 'B' grade article. Personly, I find it to be somewhere between B and A, but closer to A. WegianWarrior 07:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree and concur that the article is "Grade A" - hence it is "Complete". Imacomp 10:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No article is ever 'complete' - there is always room for improvements. Much like life in general, we must always strive to become better and never let ourself rest on our laurels. WegianWarrior 10:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is complete as per the description of Grade A. Imacomp 11:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Number 1, the "complete" that Grade A describes isn't really "complete" in the normal way the word is used, it means that the article has enough content to become a FA. Secondly, from the A-Grade requirements " It should be of a length suitable for the subject" the article is way way too long, sections like "History of Freemasonry" are longer or as long as their sub articles, if you want put the article up to see if someone will give it good article status. But right now it simply is not A-Class. Seraphim 16:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Seraphim here. The article is extremely long. Ardenn 16:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I know it must kill you ;p Seraphim 16:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur... still way to long. A lot of the information in this article has been copied over to the sub-articles, but we never got around to summarizing what we have here. This is especially true for the History section and History of Freemasonry. We definitely need to cut what we have here down and simply summarize the key points. Oh... welcome back Seraphim. We missed you. (not your arguments - just you ;p )Blueboar 18:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

:P Thankee Blueboar, I won't be around non-stop like I used to be, cause i'm at home and not at school, but i'm baaack. And I promise not to edit Jahbulon for atleast a month ;P Seraphim 18:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why I'm robust

Posted to my talk page: "Just thought you'd like to know. Since blanket reverts that you recently did, for example this and this are completly against wikipedia rules, and i'll stand up to them instead of rolling over like the other editor did :P Seraphim 00:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)" This kind of sets the background to the facile "murder" verses "killed/executed" reverts. Like so much about this article, this has been debated to death, and I do not feel any need to be diplomatic about NAZI murders. I would gladly go to real war over this issue; as did my Father, Grandfather and Uncle. There was nothing legal about this subject under international law. Imacomp 10:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The facile Djkimmons edit was rejected by several consensuses before - and is now simple vandalism. Imacomp 10:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you look up what Consensus means. Reaching consensus means the section is no longer changed because everyone agrees to stop changing the section. Reaching "consensus" doesn't mean that a section is no longer edited. Infact if a section is being changed out of the so called "consensus version" by defination there is no longer consensus on the content of that section. Your also admitting that you have an emotional bias in the wording here, and are showing the exact reason why the emotionaly charged "murder" word is incorrectly being used. Also please stop misusing the word "facile". No edits to these pages are facile, and by using that word are you are it's simply a personal attack. Seraphim 16:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to give a possible suggestion for an alternative to the murdered/executed debate. I believe that neither term is correct because of the question of legality. The killing of all victums of the holocaust was legal in terms of the German Legal Code in place during the Nazi Regime. To Execute can be defined as "To put to death, especially by carrying out a lawful sentence" and thus fullfills this situation. However, these actions were considered illegal according to the International Courts held after WWII. Several Nazis were found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, both of which include "murder." See http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/imtconst.htm Murder can be defined as "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice" and thus fullfills this situation.

(b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

(c)CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

I would give the suggestion that we do not use the charged words murder or execute. We could use "killed" with a brief explaination about the differing legality of the Holocaust. We could also use the word "exterminate," which was used by both the Nazis and the International Courts afterwards. This word also convays the inhumanity and burtality inwhich the Nazis committed these crimes. Hopefully a compromise can occur that all editors can be happy with. Chtirrell 15:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Killed by the Nazi regime works for me. The facts are, that while neither word fits 100% of the 2 executed is better since the person carring out the killings was an executor, not a murderer.. Seraphim 16:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

But they were murdered. It may be a charged word, but it's charged for a reason—it's a terrible thing. When used correctly, murder is absolutely appropriate. One cannot call the deaths of Freemasons (or anyone else) who died in combat murder--that is an incorrect use. However, the extermination of people, as done by the Nazi regime, is murder, and the word used to describe that action should convey the horror of the situation. OzLawyer 18:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

They were not murdered. No defination of the word "murdered" fits the situation. People who are "murdered" do not recieve death sentences from a goverment, and have their sentences carried out by an executioner. That's simply not how it works. A murder is carried out by an individual or a group of people outside of the law. The Nazi's controlled the land, they made the laws, they executed people under their laws. It's an execution. I have no problem with the perished/killed wording, since that describes it also. However by saying "murdered" you basically are putting the killings of the hundreds of thousands of holocaust victims on the same level as a random gangland street killing that happens every day here in America.

People Murder, goverments execute. Seraphim 18:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Osgoodelawyer, I completely understand what you're saying. Personally, I have no problem with using murder as the word here. I consider the actions taken by the Nazis to be illegal and thus I would define it as murder. However, others don't see it as being illegal as it was occuring under Nazi law and murder defined as illegal can not be used. I have attempted a compromise using "perished by the hands of the Nazi Regime." This removes the question of legality and still carries the emotional weight of murder. With the broad scope and range of them English langauge, I believe we can find a suitable compromise for the wording of this sentance that convays the legality or illegality of the action, as well as the horror of the situation. Chtirrell 18:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Like I said perished/killed works fine for me. Seraphim 18:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, just from an outsider looking in, avoid emotionally charged words unless you all can reach 100% agreement. Having a word such as murder takes away from the credibility of the article because it reveals the strong emotions of the author(s) and puts the reader on notice to be on guard for other such biases.

What the Nazis did was terrible, I’m Jewish, had had several relatives I never met die in the Holocaust. So I feel strongly about it too and believe the Nazis murdered several family members I will never be able to meet. However, my anger towards that doesn’t belong in this article. It would simply expose my prejudice to the reader. The only passion that belongs here is to create the most credible, factually accurate (which can be agreed upon) article possible.

In this situation establish each fact for each assertion. At the very least, you can agree on that they died while in Nazi official custody. Work up from there to whether you can justify “eliminated by”, “killed by”, “executed by”, “killed against international laws” “murdered”, and “exterminated.” Your not going to change a readers mind about the legality of the Nazi’s actions in this article about Freemasonry. They’ve probably already established an opinion about that by now and if not they can follow the links in the article to the Holocaust.

You must keep in mind that a major goal of these articles is to establish credibility and charged words are unlikely to get you there, regardless of percieved accuracy, for credability to a similar word may be called for. I mean look into a regular encyclopedia to see what I’m talking about.

Take a tally of how each person feels. One or two vs the rest is hardly enough to justify it. 16:51 <Central> June 22, 2006

I have stayed out of this debate so far, because I don't really care which word we use. It is an interesting dilemma... All of these words seem legitimate in the context of the article. Of them all, I like "killed" as it covers all bases without getting into legalisms. Blueboar 22:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Freemasonry (Cont)

Going over a rather tedious summary of the Muslim section, as above in talk: “… Muslim anti-Semitism is directly related to anti-Freemasonry, and visa versa - as the text and links show. the section, as restored covers Islam over the three sections - Political, Religious and Holocaust - and is thus placed in the introduction to these topics… Imacomp 10:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)” Freemasonry, as the article states, welcomes Muslims. “There are no Muslim appendant bodies in FM. Anyway, this article is about the three degrees of the Craft. As to "How successful is the organisation in Islamic countries?" - well why don't you get back to us on that? Imacomp 17:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)” Imacomp 11:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"...This [Holocaust section] is a very important contribution to the balance of the main Freemasonry article - and is a much overlooked part of our cultural history. Imacomp 20:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)" "As per Blueboar's Idea, posted at my talk, I've reduced the [Holocaust] section to a summary. The details, in chronological order, are now at the "Totalitarian Regimes" sub-article… Imacomp 19:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)" Reposted Imacomp 11:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Reiterating my own edits: Muslim anti-Semitism now has its own section, eliminating the problem of classification. The fact that Freemasonry welcomes Muslims is prominently mentioned in this section. (I have not changed the Holocaust section) Ben Standeven 18:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Lots of edits with little discussion. So be it. Imacomp 08:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"...This [Holocaust section] is a very important contribution to the balance of the main Freemasonry article - and is a much overlooked part of our cultural history. Imacomp 20:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)" "As per Blueboar's Idea, posted at my talk, I've reduced the [Holocaust] section to a summary. The details, in chronological order, are now at the "Totalitarian Regimes" sub-article… Imacomp 19:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)" "Reposted Imacomp 11:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)" Reposted for the hard of reading Imacomp 14:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have made several annotated edits. Imacomp 14:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Unrestored section

I didn't restore this paragraph, as it didn't seem to fit anywhere:

(so were many other Founding Fathers, including Ethan Allen, John Paul Jones, Paul Revere, John Hancock, and Benjamin Franklin. Eight of the 56 signatures on the Declaration of Independence belonged to avowed Masons, as well as nine on the Constitution)

Also, I don't see it as that important to the article. Ben Standeven 18:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah if anything it would go under early-american masonic history in the history of masonry article. Basically find a page with alot of refs to Revolutionary Brotherhood and plop it in there ;P Seraphim 18:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

BS knee deep. Imacomp 08:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Regular Freemasonry admits only Men. Imacomp 14:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Notice irregular vandals do not talk here. I've had to defend the article single handed from facile edits and large reverts of vandals. Imacomp 15:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Cut it out. You know your breaking a ton of rules, and acting uncivilly. If you don't want to be banned from wikipedia I suggest you stop. Your just making it extremely easy to file an RFC against you. Seraphim 15:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Go play with your dolls girlie vandal. This is Man stuff. Ps what has the Royal Flying Corps (RFC) got to do with this article? Imacomp

I suggest you read WP:NPA Seraphim 15:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read a nice girlie mag with lots of pictures, and not many big words. Imacomp 15:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC) NPA No pointing at Aardvarks? Imacomp 15:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The information about Masons who were American founding fathers should be in the History of Freemasonry article.Blueboar 22:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

RFC filed against Imacomp

You can find it here.

If you want to know why, simply look at the section right above this one. Seraphim 16:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Quote “…since this dossier has been opened, and without any contribution (in an act of contrition) from me over several days – the edit wars and abuse on the pages has got much worse – with many of the prosecutors being at the forefront. Imacomp 16:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)” Imacomp 00:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Copied here fron ALR’s Talk: “I coulda warned you that Imacomp would use your attempt to make his ramblings legible as evidence of his opponents' malfeasance. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Too right, altering a person's statement - case fails by default. Imacomp 17:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)” Imacomp 17:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

History Summary

Sorry about making the article longer with my reversions; to make up for it here's a summary of the History section:

History of Freemasonry

Main article: History of Freemasonry

In the ritual, Freemasonry employs an allegorical foundation myth—the foundation of the fraternity by the builders of King Solomon’s Temple.

Beyond myth, there is a distinct absence of documentation as to Freemasonry’s origins, or indeed the very term "Freemason" itself, which has led to a great deal of speculation among historians and pseudo-historians alike, both from within and from outside the fraternity. Hundreds of books have been written on the subject. Much of the content of these books is highly speculative, and the precise origins of Freemasonry may very well be permanently lost to history. The scant evidence that is available, points to the origins of Freemasonry as a fraternity that simply evolved out of the Operative Lodges of the middle ages.

Goose and Gridiron

Freemasonry's transition from a craft guild of operative, working stonemasons into a fraternity of speculative, accepted, gentleman Freemasons began in Scottish lodges during the early 1600s. Surviving Scottish Lodge records, as early as the 1630s, show a gentrification process—a transition from Operative to Speculative Freemasonry—evidenced by increasing non-operative notable gentleman within the membership. The earliest record of a lodge accepting a non-operative member occurs in the records of the Lodge of Edinburgh, 8 June 1600, where it is shown that John Boswell, Laird of Aucheinleck, was present at a meeting. The first record of the initiation of a non-operative mason in a lodge is contained in the minutes of the Lodge of Edinburgh for 3 July 1634, when the Right Honourable Lord Alexander was admitted a Fellowcraft.

In 1717, four English Lodges meeting in London Taverns joined together and founded the Grand Lodge of England (GLE). They had held meetings, respectively, at the Apple-Tree Tavern, the Crown Ale-House near Drury Lane, the Goose and Gridiron in St. Paul's Churchyard, and the Rummer and Grapes Tavern in Westminster.

With the foundation of this first Grand Lodge, Freemasonry shifted from being an obscure, relatively private, institution into the public eye. The years following saw new Grand Lodges open throughout Europe, and the export of Freemasonry to North America. How much of this growth was the spreading of Freemasonry itself, and how much was due to the public organization of pre-existing private Lodges, is uncertain.

On 17 July, 1751, five private English Lodges formed a rival Grand Lodge—"The Most Ancient and Honourable Society of Free and Accepted Masons" in order to practice what they perceived as a more ancient and pure form of Masonry. They called their Grand Lodge The Ancients' Grand Lodge—and those affiliated to the other Grand Lodge, by the pejorative epithet The Moderns. These two unofficial names stuck.

This state of affairs has traditionally been referred to as "the Great Masonic Schism". However the Ancients Grand Lodge was formed primarily by Irish Masons living and working in London, and was never affiliated with the older Grand Lodge of England.

The two competing Grand Lodges in England were amalgamated into the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) in 1813, by "The Articles of Union"—twenty-one articles specifing the agreements made regarding the various points of contention. The Union largely confirmed the Ancients' forms and ceremonies, and therefore considerably revised the Moderns' rituals. Both the Ancients and the Moderns have daughter Lodges existing throughout the world, leading to a great deal of variety in the ritual within a single "Rite", even between UGLE-recognized jurisdictions in amity.

A true great scism in Freemasonry occurred, between the English (UGLE) and French (GOdF) in the years following 1877, when the Grand Orient de France (GOdF) started to unreservedly accept atheists, and recognized Women's Masonry and Co-Masonry. Also French Masons tended to be more willing to discuss religion and politics in their Lodges; unlke the English who banned such discussion outright.

The schism between the two branches has occasionally, unofficially, been breached—especially during the First World War, when American Freemasons overseas wished to visit French Lodges. This stresses the unity of Freemasonry, and has sometimes been viewed as evidence of only a partial schism.

Comments

I think it is still a bit too long myself. (Note that it will need to be promoted to level 2 before being returned to the article.) Ben Standeven 20:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Great minds think alike!... I was planning on doing something exactly like this over the weekend. It is long... but I don't see how to make it shorter without losing key information. I say go with your summary for now and we can tinker to make it even more succinct. Blueboar 21:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Finally someone got around to this :) The only problem I have is that it's too euro-centric, but I guess that makes sense since it's where freemasonry started. Seraphim 02:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say that Freemasonry itself is euro-centric (and in the case of Mainstream Freemasonry, Anglo-centric). The Fraternity outside of Europe was very connected to European colanization and colonialism. As different European nations colonized (or "colonialized") different parts of the world, they imported Masonry. Most non-European Grand Lodges started as "Provincial Grand Lodges" opperating under a European jurisdiction.

I do want to add more about the growth of Freemasonry outside of Europe and the US to the History of Freemasonry article, but in the interest of space we have to limit what we can include here. Blueboar 16:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Moorish Rite Freemasonry‎

Does anyone know anything about Moorish Rite Freemasonry? Is this recognized or irregular? Blueboar 18:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to guess that, since it's only five years old and not very widespread, at this time it is irregular. MSJapan 01:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Disclosures and exposés

Thank you Blueboar - I'm happy with this revised wording. BlueValour 01:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Blueboar 01:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

stub tags

We have been having some difficulty over on the Hiram Abif article... over the last three days several different editors have popped in and amended the stub tag. First someone added that it was an "occult related stub" (deleted summarily and reverted to just plain "stub")... then someone came by and changed it to "history related stub" (also deleted and reverted, as the Hiram Legend is not history)... more recently another editor changed it to "religion related stub" (also summarily deleted as Freemasonry is not a religion... although as it currently stands, the article talks more about the Biblical Hiram than the Masonic one, so at least this had some modicum of plausibility). I am sure that all these people were acting out of good intentions... they want to categorize things. But none of the existing stubs seem to fit. What we need is a "Freemasonry related stub" tag. Does anyone know how to create one? Blueboar 23:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Here you go: {{fm-stub}}. Of course, any article with the {{WikiProject Freemasonry}} tag on the talk page with the modifier of "Stub" will also show up in Category:Stub-Class Freemasonry-related articles (or the talk page itself will, actually). OzLawyer 00:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops, forgot that stub templates have to be proposed, so that one will be deleted. I'll propose it. OzLawyer 00:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is here. OzLawyer 00:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Blueboar 02:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Misleading Edit Summaries by Wegan Warrior

Claims links to external websites are by new age guru's or claims of masons controling the weather or some other nonsense. If you check the websites you will see they are legitimate websites by Christian ministries or secular critics. Current listing of external websites completely one sided to 'pro' position and these websites provide some balance.Thunderbird15 11:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Those sites would provide balance if they were balanced, but they aren't. They have an obvious agenda and bias, and therefore are not permissible per WP:EL. Furthermore, none of those sites are any more authoritative than any other online ministry, and the religion-cults link is flat out wrong. We've had these discussions before many times. Therefore, once again, the links aren't going in there. MSJapan 17:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Lets us analyse the situation in a bit more detail (if for nothing else than to show that you apperantly didn't read my edit summaries). You added six external links, namely Religions-Cults.com, Freemasonry Watch,Catholic Encyclopedia, Contender Ministries, Saints Alive Ministry, Cutting Edge Ministries.

• Now, FMW has been discussed to death on these pages - so it was the first to go. It's anything but a good source, and it's linked to from Anti-Masonry (because, frankly, it's typical of the conspirasy theories some of the anti-masons dream up).

Freemasonry Watch is an excellent resource on Masonry, but it is quite critical of it.Thunderbird15 12:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Religions-Cults.com was next to go. Their claims seems to be based on the same old misinterpration of Albert Pike, nothing relevant to the modern era. What they fail to grasp off course is that Pike only spoke on his own behalf - and he's outdated in addition.

This website is quite good and has a very good description of Masonic ritual and teachings.Thunderbird15 12:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Contender Ministries is so far out it can't seriously be considered for inclusion, so it went as well. Basicly, they seem to base their claims about masonry on a book by a 'Alice Bailey', whom they describe themself as a 'important leader in the New Age Movement' who wrote 'the words of her "Spirit Guide" Master D.K.'. Personly, and I think most peopel would agree with me, the words of New Age guru's Spirit Guide is not a reliable source to anything at all...

There is nothing wrong with this website at all. Alice Bailey was a leading Freemason, as well as her husband.Thunderbird15 12:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Cutting Edge Ministries falls on their own words, so they went as well. A 'ministry' that claims that US armed forces controls the weather and uses is as a weapon is so far out it simply can't be taken seriously.

This is a Christian ministry that is quite critical of Masonry. Obviously this somehow discredits them *IN YOUR MIND*Thunderbird15 12:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

So, four of six links deleted with good reason. Maybe we should remane this section of the talkpage to Misleading claims by Thunderbird15? I would suggest that before you edit such a controversial article like this, read thru the arcives and find out what has happended before and what the concesious is. And do at least TRY to read other peoples edit summaries - cause you obviously didn't in this case.WegianWarrior 07:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

All of those sites are no more biased than the many pro-masonic sites you have listed. It is quite obvious you are not interested in including any websites that criticize Freemasonry. It is quite obvious you are not interested in a balanced article on Freemasonry, that is an article that includes pro and con points of view. You have provided no justification for your deletions, in fact your fabricated edit summaries regarding allegations of new age guru's and accusations of masons changing the weather show you are more interested in misleading and misdirecting. Well this isn't your personal private web page chums. Not everyone has a positive opinion on Masonry.Thunderbird15 11:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least you have proved that you did not read what I wrote. Shame that, you might have learned a thing or two. WegianWarrior 11:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please disprove my allegation against you that you intentionally made misleading edit summaries in stating that the websites were created by a 'new age guru' and 'contained allegations masons control the weather'. Do you think it is acceptable by you? Are you not concerned about having your reputation here damaged by such conduct?Thunderbird15 12:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say you ought to worry more about what your actions will do to your reputation... please provide diff where I made the statements you claim (even if I know you can't). WegianWarrior 12:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You made misleading edit summaries where you claimed the websites that I posted which you were deleting were created by a new age guru and made allegations that masons control the weather. That was a complete fabrication BY YOU. Three times now you have posted in this thread which is titled 'Misleading Edit Summaries By Wegan Warrior' and three times you have failed to respond to my allegation against you. Now who is having there reputation discredited?Thunderbird15 12:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you still have not managed to provide diff for your allegations, I think it's your reputation that is going down the drain here. Now, I am going to assume you mean these two edits I did: [1] and [2] (I linked to these in my explonation higher up as well). As can esily be verified by looking at my summaries, I state seems to base their arguments on the 'spirit guide' of a new age guru and a website that claims that the US armed forces can controll the weather as a weapon is hardly encyclopedic. Nothing there to suggest the website was made by a new age guru, or that masons controll the weather. But I'm not surpriced - again and again you have shown that you either don't read or don't understand what I write. However, even so, I recommend you take a good, hard look at WP:EL, in particular section 1.3, paragraph 2. WegianWarrior 12:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You alleged in your deletion edit summary that the web pages you were deleting which I had posted were by a new age guru and alledged that masons control the weather. That is a false and misleading edit summary, a fabrication. You did this, now you try and deny it, but you can not, because the edit summary you made, a false and misleading edit summary remains. So it is quite clear who has discredited themself. Quite clear.Thunderbird15 13:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is remarkable clear. I provided links to my editsummaries, which clearly contradicts your accusations. You has provided nothing but wild claims and accuasations. WegianWarrior 14:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to add, Thunderbird, that you have not yet made one substantial edit to any Wikipedia article. Adding five or so external links to a few articles and adding a few minor words does not gain you a "reputation". Causing trouble, however, does, and not the good kind. Furthermore, I would expect someone with a BA in history to be a little more critical of sources. Are you even aware of the lack of reliability of your material, or are you accepting it as blind truth? MSJapan 13:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating, but unfortunatly this thread is about the misleading edit summary of Wegan Warrior. Causing trouble? Yes, someone here certainly is causing trouble. It would seem that my inclusion of links to websites HIGHLY critical of Masonry is quite a "substantial edit" given the torid response it has elicited from pro-masonic (perhaps maybe even Masons themselves?) editors. Yes, there are I am sure many reasons for beign critical of Masonry, secular, religious, social, etc.. Which type of criticism do you approve of? None I would expect.Thunderbird15 13:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, as Wegian's reverts are directly related to your links (which he feels are questionable, and you have not addressed), I would say that the unfortunate thing is that you refuse to enter into dialogue about this. As it stands, consensus is against you unless you can put forth a convincing and supportable argument for keeping said links, other than the fact that it's a form of criticism. The question with sources is validity and reliability, and those links seem to fulfill neither criterion. MSJapan 14:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"The question with sources is validity and reliability, and those links seem to fulfill neither criterion." you forget that that is something that many of the links on both sides cannot stand up to. Seraphim 15:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. What we have so far can be positively verified by outside materials, and what these newer links claim cannot be positively verified. However, there's plenty of evidence that disproves the claims. MSJapan 18:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well almost all the above should be blocked by an Admin for a min of 24hrs for personal attacks. Perhaps they may even warrant individual “special Project” pages – like the one created for me, (see above for the template used in my case). I’m much too soft hearted to do that kind of thing myself. Imacomp 18:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

All the websites are critical of Masonry, your bafflegab and doublespeak notwithstanding. There are a great many excellent articles on Freemasonry on all of those sites. The problem is you can not abide by any commentary that is critical of your little club. That is too bad my friend, this is an encyclopedia not a marketing and recruitment brochure. All of the links you gents have endorsed are to propaganistic pro masonic websites. Why wasn't there a single link to a website that is critical of Masonry when a simple search on the net will bring up dozens and dozens of them? You have a highly inflated and biased opinion of Masonry it would seem.Thunderbird15 11:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Morgan exposé

I see that User:Tagishsimon has added a link to Morgan's exposé of Freemasonry that is hosted on Project Gutenberg. I am not sure if this should remain or be deleted. On one hand it is a good example of a typical exposé as mentioned in our article... but on the other, it is clearly both a misleading and outdated reference (as we point out in the article... it can only relate to ritual as it was performed in New York in the 1820s... and that's assuming Morgan got it right). Perhaps leave the link but amend the language to point out that it is a questionable refference for modern practice? Blueboar 13:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep and point out inaccuracies I would say - and link from th earticle on Morgan as well. Actually, it make might more sence just to link from the article on him. WegianWarrior 14:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally think it would make more sense to be inked in the Morgan article, and funnily enough, the Morgan article claims the book is called Illustrations of Masonry. Can someone doublecheck as to which book title is correct, and amend the link accordingly? MSJapan 14:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"14:35, 28 June 2006 WegianWarrior (Talk | contribs) (rv - my 3rd revert today.)" So why is he not blocked for 3RR? (I'm too kind to do it). Why not report both sides of the edit war? Imacomp 18:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have never needed to Wikilawyer or resort to reporting to an admin - those are the tactics of others. Imacomp 18:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you seem to resort to foul launguage, personal attacks, sockpuppets and other violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

I agree "dad" (above). Deltascribe 18:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Shut up, sock.

The report is on the fourth revert. The reason it's called the "three-revert rule" is because three is what you're allowed. MSJapan 19:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

From Freemasonry History “12:25, 11 June 2006 Imacomp (Talk | contribs) (My 3rd Rv. But quotes added, as per last edit by BB.)” From my Talk page, “You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 13:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)” Imacomp 20:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Quality going, going, gone

The quality of this "article"(?), and its spawn of sub-articles in the "project”, is zooming through the floor at the speed of BS. I note that no classification can be awarded below "B", but a realistic one would be "F-". I would try to salvage something out of the mess, but I've more important things to attend to - such as picking the lint out of my belly-button. And the lint could do a better job than the current “project” effort anyway. Why not cut your losses and just post a link to the Taxil hoax? Imacomp 17:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Since Morgan’s heap of Alien Autopsy Innards is “so credible” as to get into “Project Gutenberg” then by the same logic [3] - should be reinstated despite comments @ William Morgan (anti-Mason) quote “The biographical article is neither neutral nor factually accurate. This person is not notable either, nor are his dusty deluded rantings. (A Christian "Saint". Doh! You are avin a laf, wibble wibble) Imacomp 16:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)” and, “There are a number of inconsistencies in Finney's work which render it in violation of WP:RS. For example, it includes the confession of one Henry Valance, who was not a Mason, and was never implicated in the original incident, according to the GL of Vermont page. There wqere many confessions which were shown to be false, and this is likely one of them. Second of all, Finney says Morgan was an "estimable man", when other sources (as cited also by GL VT) say he was very much "dissolute and shiftless". So, I believe that Finney's work, while notable, fails WP:RS, as the facts of the matter were then and are now still very unclear. MSJapan 18:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC) “unquote. Imacomp 18:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding material that is critical of Freemasonry

In in reading the discussion about the links Thunderbird15 wished to add (see discussion above) there was a comment that I feel needs to be made again - and it is important enough that I wanted to seperate it from the discussion of any particlar link or citation: WP:EL clearly outlines what is not acceptable in an external link, including: "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)" No link or citation should be included in, or rejected from this article just because it is "Pro-Masonic" or "Anti-Masonic". To do so would violate every NPOV standard that wikipedia has. Any link, "pro" or "con" should be tested for factual accuracy. We do need to include material that is critical of Freemasonry... in fact, NOPV insists that we include such material... however, not ALL critical material is the same. It must be worthy of inclusion. When a site has been repeatedly shown to contain factually inaccurate material, not only is it not worthy - it MAY not be included - based upon Wikipedia's own guidelines. Blueboar 19:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

“Since Morgan’s heap of Alien Autopsy Innards is “so credible” as to get into “Project Gutenberg” then by the same logic [4] - should be reinstated… Imacomp 17:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)” Imacomp 20:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't complain to me... take it up with "Projct Gutenberg" :>) (of course they will take anything.) Blueboar 22:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If the criteria is factual accuracy then there shouldn't be any entries on Freemasonry on Wikipedia as the entire history and teachings of this group is a farcical fabrication. Factuality in Freemasonry? Please give me a break!Thunderbird15 11:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

See directly above, "If the criteria is factual accuracy then there shouldn't be any entries on Freemasonry on Wikipedia as the entire history and teachings of this group is a farcical fabrication. Factuality in Freemasonry? Please give me a break!Thunderbird15 11:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)" As this is a personal attack directed at each individual Freemason, I think an admin should block thunderbird for 24hrs muliplied by the number of current editors here who say they are Freemasons. Would someone like to do the reporting, (as I've lost count)? Imacomp 15:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reported him for personal attacks to user:Jpgordon and made a checkuser request as a LB sock. Hopefully it helps. Chtirrell 15:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Imacomp 15:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Textbook case of how a Revert War is conducted, using “Tag Teams”

From Freemasonry History page:

17:59, 28 June 2006 MSJapan (Talk | contribs) (rv to ALR. SOP on this page requires discussion of changes, and the discussion is not over.)

17:40, 28 June 2006 999 (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 61032491 dated 2006-06-28 15:39:24 by SeraphimXI using popups)

17:37, 28 June 2006 ALR (Talk | contribs) (N o they don't,. This has already been discussed to death.)

15:39, 28 June 2006 SeraphimXI (Talk | contribs) (rv - the critical links must stay)

14:35, 28 June 2006 WegianWarrior (Talk | contribs) (rv - my 3rd revert today.)

13:28, 28 June 2006 Thunderbird15 (Talk | contribs) (rv to me read and understand. This is an encyclopedia not a masonic propaganda website.

13:28, 28 June 2006 Thunderbird15 (Talk | contribs) (rv to me read and understand. This is an encyclopedia not a masonic propaganda website. The websites are critical of Masonry.)

12:55, 28 June 2006 WegianWarrior (Talk | contribs) (rv to me - read and _understand_ discussion on talkpage.)

12:17, 28 June 2006 Thunderbird15 (Talk | contribs) (No "discussion" took place, just a tirade against the websites which criticize Masonry.)

12:12, 28 June 2006 WegianWarrior (Talk | contribs) (rv to Tagishsimon - refer to discussion on talkpage why these links are unsuited.)

11:04, 28 June 2006 Thunderbird15 (Talk | contribs) (→External links - restored links that are critical of Masonry that were repeatedly deleted in an unjustified and biased way using misleading edit summaries)

05:46, 28 June 2006 Tagishsimon (Talk | contribs) (→External links - *The Mysteries of Free Masonry, by William Morgan, from Project Gutenberg)

Here endeth the lesson? Imacomp 21:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The case of a Personal Attack on ALL Freemason Editors

NOTE Talk copied to here: Imacomp 17:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[See above] "If the criteria is factual accuracy then there shouldn't be any entries on Freemasonry on Wikipedia as the entire history and teachings of this group is a farcical fabrication. Factuality in Freemasonry? Please give me a break!Thunderbird15 11:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)" As this is a personal attack directed at each individual Freemason, I think an admin should block thunderbird for 24hrs muliplied by the number of current editors here who say they are Freemasons. Would someone like to do the reporting, (as I've lost count)? Imacomp 15:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reported him for personal attacks to user:Jpgordon and made a checkuser request as a LB sock. Hopefully it helps. Chtirrell 15:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Imacomp 15:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

End of copied talk Imacomp 17:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

So what real actions have been taken by any Admin? Imacomp 17:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing... as far as I can find, as at posting this. :( Imacomp 17:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thunderbird15 @ Checkuser request “This is a complete and total abuse! I have made no inflamatory remarks about other editors, this is another lie by these gentlemen! I accused these Mason members of making false and misleading edit summaries, which they certainly did! They accused me of posting links by new age gurus and accusations the masons controlled the weather, when I did nothing of the sort, I posted links to christian websites that contain articles critical of their fraternity. Now I am being accused of being some banned user? What is going on here? Are the inmates running the asylum now. No wonder the freemasonry articles are so biased!Thunderbird15 14:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)” Imacomp 20:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My take, I say permo-block him - even if he is not Lightbringer - just on what is under his name. Imacomp 20:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You do realise that attacking Freemasonry is not personally attacking Freemasons, which is what is required for a claim of a personal attack, right? I can say "the United States of America sucks" all I want (and I often do say similar things--in more flowery terms, of course), but that does not mean that I am personally attacking each and every American. OzLawyer 22:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A Wiki-lawyer quotes some Wiki-law on the subject (I think @ the checkuser request for Thunderbird15?) so he says you are incorrect. Look it up, as I'm not a Wiki-lawyer. Imacomp 23:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Found. Here is the quote, copied from[5] “There is possibly another user:lightbringer sock on the freemasonry page under the name user:Thunderbird15. I have requested a checkuser on him, so you can check out Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Thunderbird15 for the full reasoning. This user has also made personal attacks against members of the masonic fraternity, i.e. "If the criteria is factual accuracy then there shouldn't be any entries on Freemasonry on Wikipedia as the entire history and teachings of this group is a farcical fabrication. Factuality in Freemasonry? Please give me a break!" [My Bold text-]which breaks NPA under "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme."[End my Bold text] I know you've dealt with user:lightbringer in the past, so I figured I'd go to you. Thanks Chtirrell 15:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)” Imacomp 23:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think someone's affiliations were used to dismiss a person's views. The organization itself was "attacked." If the comment was more along the lines of "Masons lie, you're a Mason. Make the connection." then I could see that argument being made. That wasn't the comment, though. OzLawyer 00:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It is however implied. He's making the point that there are no "facts" in masonry to a bunch of masons. Thus stating that all masons say are lies, which user:lightbringer and his army of socks has stated time and time again. BTW, user:Thunderbird15 is a confirmed sock of user:lightbringer and is therefore banned from editting on wikipedia. Check here for more details Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Thunderbird15.

Stating that alot of masonic history is a myth is not a personal attack, it's a 100% correct and accurate fact. Nobody is able to prove or find a group of freemasons that connect the early english masons with the masons back in solomon's temple. People adknowlege that the stories of hiram and the temple are mainly alegorical myths used to teach lessons, infact some groups of masons actually admit that Hiram problary never existed. Your basically saying that if I, for example, was to say that the old testament of the bible is a collection of myths, that i'm personally attacking all catholics and jews. That's simply not the case. Seraphim 04:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Imacomp and Holocaust,Vs Thunderbird15 and the Nazis

The articles referenced by Thunderbird15 ([6] and [7]) look like they might have something important to take into consideration here. Imacomp, you refer to the archives for talk on this issue with your revert--do you know which archive? OzLawyer 18:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

They have got some useful bearing on the issue, but that section in particular isn't exactly the victim of reasonable debate. I'm not going to track down the dsicussions but I wouldn't suggest they reached consensus.ALR 18:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The "paper" at [8] is BS by a 33° (Horse’s) ass-piring revisionist. I’ve posted many, many, times that “Freemasons” who use grand titles outside the Order(s) should by definition be disregarded as tending to bring the Craft into disrepute - by self promotion of “unauthorised expositions” or plain BS. Bro. Imacomp 21:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC) PS Anyway, the "paper" is copyrighted 1996 to 2006, so no part of it can be reproduced in the article... Imacomp 22:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Being copyrighted means nothing of the sort. As many indirect quotations as you want can safely be made without any fear of trouble, and even select direct quotations can be made. Just use correct referencing. How do you think academia works? OzLawyer 23:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not know that Order, so you tell me... Imacomp 23:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC) 9999° OBC. (If you want to join, just send me £1,000,000.00 by Paypal.) Imacomp

In UK notice that on authorised sites they say Bro. I.M. Imacomp or W.Bro. I.M. Imacomp P.Pr.G.M. (Whiteshire). If writing to him the Address would be I.M. Imacomp, Esq on the envelope, even if he was the Grand Over-ruler of All Things, 9999° of the Order of Big Cheeses. The Craft is run by Craft Freemasons, and when writing on general Freemasonic issues the "High" rank in other Order(s) is no indication, of itself, that they know about what they are writing about, unless they are an authorised spokesman. Cf, that Albert Einstein thought up his theories in Physics because he was clever at physics, not because he was once a Patent clerk. Imacomp 22:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: "on general Freemasonic issues", the preferred adjective is Masonic.

Nuttyskin 15:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I can sum up a bit, without resorting to archive. Bernheim concerns me not because of revisionism, but because the edits being made have nothing to do with what Bernheim actually says, although he is cited. For example, the claim is made that no Jews could join Freemasonry in Germany, yet the statistics show Jews could visit and join certain lodges as early as the late 1800s. The "Old Prussian" lodges were not the end all and be all of Masonry in Germany, nor were they the only regular lodges, so their actions cannot be taken as indicative of the whole.

There is also a claim that Vogel was a Nazi. Not only does Bernheim never say this, the problem is that no one in Germany had a choice when it came to joining "The Party", so it really means nothing without knowing Vogel's ideology or status within the Nazi Party, which we do not. Oskar Schindler joined the Nazi Party, and no one considers him a Nazi by any means.

There was also a counterfactual weasel edit inserted, changing "a handful" [who wear the forget-me-not] to "universally", which is simply not true.

A claim is also made that because Masonic lodges congratulated Hitler on his election in 1933, they were tacitly in agreement with his actions thereafter, which is simply not a conclusion that can be drawn. That's like saying that because both Gore and Kerry congratulated Bush, they agreed with his ideas. Now, I honestly can't say whether or not Vogel indeed did the whole FMN thing as a PR campaign after the fact, but conversely, it cannot be said conclusively that he did. The only way this works is in hindsight, and in history, that's called transposition, which you simply do not do, period. You cannot judge history in the context of modern knowledge, mores, or ideas. That makes me very skeptical of Thunderbird's supposed History degree.

What this really boils down to is that it's fine to have critical sites if they're valid, but when the critiques contradict known truths, they're simply not reliable.

As for titles, I would be surprised if this wasn't something added after the fact by somebody else. I'll try and track down the original source. MSJapan 22:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Paul Bessel has something to say about this as well, but his site isn't loading ATM. Somebody might wantr to look at it later here MSJapan 22:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Was he possessed by the spirit of "St. Capt. Morgan", and do you think we should be told? :) Imacomp 23:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: checkuser case Thunderbird15 “ Confirmed Mackensen (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)” Imacomp 16:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)