Talk:Taxil hoax

message: I copied the following two comments from the Talk:Freemasonry page as they are highly relevant here:
:However, if the paragraph is the same one that was there before, the one negating a provable fact with a conspiracy theory by saying - (to paraphrase) "Some claim that Taxil, who wrote material discrediting the Masons, was in fact an invention of the Masons" is once again not a question of POV, but rather verifiability and believability.  
:Just because some people believe it doesn't make it true, such as the world being flat, or the Moon being made out of green cheese.  There is factual evidence disproving those statements, and anything in the same vein is really not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry.  IIRC there is a Wiki policy on "relative weight" that should clear this up.  Even if that policy doesn't convince you 100%, the fact that Wikipedia is not democratic and is edited by consensus does cover it.
:Is it too much to ask to quit all the nonsense until ArbCom deals with this and either work on the article or do nothing? MSJapan 20:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarefy, the relavant policy is found at WP:NPOV#Giving "equal validity". It is also usefull to look at the policy on WP:NPOV#Undue_Weight. Actually, all of the Category:Wikipedia official policy is interesting reading, and I recomend everyone to look throught it. WegianWarrior 21:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments copied from [[Talk:Freemasonry]]

message: What is fatal threshold? The fictitious eyewitness statement is simply wrong, because it can't be proven, with independent non-masonic influenced sources, that the eyewitness accounts where fictitious. Thus "Unverifie eyewitness verifications of their alleged participation in satanism" would give grounds to both sides, would maintain a neutral POV and would solve the problem regarding lack of independent non-biased sources regarding the veracity of the eye witness statments. Masons, or the author of the work, claiming them to be fictitious are not reliable sources as the author may have done so out of deciet or duress. He is of questionable moral character because he was already known to have wrote joke works on the pope thus the veracity of anything he states is open to question. Consensus not reached on the definitive use of the word "fictitious". Also dream guy verifiable include "when reliable sources disagree, their conflict should be presented from a neutral point of view, giving each side its due weight." and "Even when information is cited to reliable sources, it must be presented in accordance with the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV). All articles must adhere to NPOV,  fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources , in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are  not neutral . Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSpaceBetween2 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack Of NPOV

message: the list of titles of leos writings interested me. is there a website i could read some of those writings?
umm this needs more of a tgop summary  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.133.71 (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I believe it would be better, to explain A C de la Rive's association with Taxil better, where it mentions what he wrote. A C de la Rive was a staunch anti-Mason that worked under Leo Taxil, who was the manager at an anti-Masonic magazine, French Christian Antimasonry. A C de la Rive was a friend of Taxil. Here is where Taxil told him of Diana Vaughn, and probably where A C de la Rive got the ideas for what he wrote, since not only does the footnote say that is the source, but A C de la Rive says that everything that had been written, by him, was from Taxil's hoax. Taxil had quit the magazine, around January of 1896, and A C de la Rive took over as manager. Later, when the hoax came out, in April 1897, A C de la Rive wrote, in the April 1897 issue of Freemasonry Unmasked, that "With frightening cynicism, the miserable person we shall not name here, [Taxil], declared before an assembly, especially convened for him, that for twelve years he had prepared and carried out, to the end, the most extraordinary and most sacrilegious of hoaxes. We have always been careful to publish special articles concerning Palladism and Diana Vaughan. We are now giving in this issue a complete list of these articles, which can now be considered as not having existed." I think that quote should at least be listed with the explanation. The source is: Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry? by De Hoyos and Morris, and the French Wikipedia article on A C de la Rive. It is also described in chapter 4, of the book titled: Rene Guenon and the Future of the West, 1987, by by Robin Waterfield.--Craxd (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote an entire article on AC de la Rive, which is now published. I would like to ask some of the better known Freemason editors on here, to clean it up of the mistakes, and keep an eye on this article too.--Craxd1 (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abel Clarin de la Rive 

message: I added the section from the National Magazine, about the quotes from Leo Taxil, before he died. I added a link to the magazines record at external links. If any want to clean this up, please feel free to.--Craxd (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a Wikipedia reviewer, changing these articles at his whim, and they are all on Freemasonry. I advise you to watch this article. If they keep it up, I myself will report them to Wikipedia, and see about having these pages locked. I just had to revert this article, which he has tampered with, regarding the quote from Leo Taxil in National Magazine.--Craxd1 (talk) 10:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A later interview with Taxil 

message: I added a link to the new Wikipedia article on Abel Clarin de la Rive. I just finished writing the article, completely sourced. It explains AC de la Rive's direct involvement with Taxil, and the entire truth about what happened.--Craxd1 (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Luciferian quote 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Taxil hoax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070509073926/http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/tv_guide/full_details/World_history/programme_3234.php to http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/tv_guide/full_details/World_history/programme_3234.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060815093041/http://www.srmason-sj.org/web/SRpublications/DeHoyos.htm to http://www.srmason-sj.org/web/SRpublications/DeHoyos.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section "Taxil and Freemasonry" and its sub-section "Palladists" are a confused mess of redundant information. In the first, it's said "Taxil wrote another book called Le Diable au XIXe siècle (The Devil in the Nineteenth Century), which introduced a new character, Diana Vaughan". First of all, what does "new character" mean? New compared to what? Then the sub-section introduces again a "1892 French book Le Diable au XIXe siècle (The Devil in the 19th Century", 1892)". Now the article starts referring to Taxil as Jogand-Pagès, which is just confusing. Later it references "A supposed Diana Vaughan", which was already introduced before. And now her name links back to the article itself. It feels like these parts are the result of different texts having been patched together. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs polishing