Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obligations in Freemasonry
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
— User:Vidkun, 17:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:EL (Wikipedia:External links)