Deletion of Obligations in Freemasonry

Comment: The fact that the article's content was removed with a reason that was a complete lie, and then immediatly put up for deletion once the content was gutted, should be a red flag to any administrator watching this page.  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Obligations_in_Freemasonry&diff=101943410&oldid=100998915 This edit on the talk page that justifies the removal of all that material as a "copy vio" is a blatant lie, it's hard to  when an editor does something so obvious as this.  It's copy pasted content from a Public Domain book, it's avaliable for all to easially see by going to a website, the text is there letter for letter and puncuation for puncuation, yet somehow the editor decided that they don't match up.  The editor who removed the material then put up a prod with a reason "The article was intended as a crude "exposure", and without the copyvio that entailed, the article does not say very much, nor is there much to be said that is not already included
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: neither objection is spurious.  Sacred texts as a website should not be used because of the ongoing copyright issues on various other items.  I'm well aware that Duncan's is public domain, however,  has commentary about not linking to sites which reproduce copyrighted material.  ST ''themselves'' say they can't get copyright clearances on some of the stuff they reproduce, thus disqualifying them as a source for wikipedia.  And as for the second, you can show that one Masonic author claims the PHA Missouri uses Duncan's.  Can you prove that any other one does?  If not, why not title the article "Obligations of Freemasonry from Duncan's exposé, as used by PHA MO"?  why aren't you trying to include the material from "Three Distinct Knocks" or "Jachin and Boaz", which would easily show that, among the exposés there is disagreement on what the obligations are
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:External links (WP:EL)

Comment: per Blueboar and others and '''redirect''' to main Freemasonry article - without the alleged (and I've yet to see any proof it is accurate, or was/is used by any masonic body) obligations, nothing here that isn't covered allready in main article. As to the wisdom of including alleged obligations without any proof to it's accuracy... I feel that goes against , but others milage may vary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)