Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 21

message: I have reverted some of Imacomp's changes to the Anti-Masonry section. In particular, I have eliminated the reference to Islam in the opening, moving it back to its own section, clearly a more logical place for it. Also, the erroneous implication that a link between Anti-Masonry and Anti-Semitism is unique to Islam has been eliminated, by restoring my own text.
I have also shortened the Holocaust section slightly, removing "The majority of those who suffered during the Holocaust were Jews and Poles" and "The United Kingdom Government established Holocaust Memorial Day to recognise all groups who were targets of the Nazi regime, and counter Holocaust denial." because they don't seem to me to be relevant. I haven't restored the other material he deleted from this section, as I think we should keep it fairly short. Ben Standeven 03:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I posted on the History page of the article,  "15:27, 29 June 2006 Imacomp  (See archive. No consensus was reached to change this edit, so put back.)". Thus for the same reason the Ben Standeven edit is reverted because of lack of a consensus. Imacomp 08:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bye the bye - I've spent a few hours of uproductive work here on Wiki today, defending myself - again. :( Imacomp 18:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you going to discuss these edits or not? Ben Standeven 22:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well they are not "edits" on my part, as they were reverted to the last time consensus was reached. It is up to the editor proposing a change to the article and to initiate a new discussion before making a new edit - and give a reasonable time for others to reach a consensus. An example of how not to act was just done on the page - hence I will revert it back. (minor changes do not change to meaning of subject, etc., and do not need the full procedure outlined). This outline is what Wiki cooperation is - although little practiced here - by anyone. Imacomp 10:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, actually, the idea behind Wikipedia is that anyone can edit things on their own, not just in tandem with other editors. Ben Standeven 23:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Wikipedia does not require consensus to be reached before edits are made.  Edits are made and people comprimise to reach consensus.  Seraphim 03:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining my revert of Imacomp Edits

message: *04:03, 1 July 2006 SeraphimXI (Talk | contribs) (→Holocaust - murdered -> perished (don't start this again)) No consonsus to change edit to "perished", hence reverted with the next edit, below.
*04:06, 1 July 2006 SeraphimXI (Talk | contribs) (→Holocaust - rm "universally", it's a weasle word and untrue, not everyone who wears a forget me not is wearing it for masons) No consonsus to change edit, hence reverted.
The above were reverted with one edit. Imacomp 10:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Number 1, the wording "perished" is compromize wording since both murdered and executed can be considered incorrect, if you keep insisting on re-adding the incorrect wording of "murdered" I will keep removing it, so should the other editors of the article.  Number 2, "universally worn as a Masonic emblem" does not mean that any mason who wears a forget me not is wearing it for that reason, it means that anyone who wears a forget-me-not everywhere in the world wears it to remember the masons, which is simply not true.  If you want to change the wording to something like "freemasons globally recognize" or something like that it would be ok. Seraphim 03:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggested changes are BS, for the reasons I stated. Re: "I will keep removing it, so should the other editors of the article... Seraphim</font> 03:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your adding false POV information back to the article over and over, and have made it clear that you want the word there because of the emotion it carries.  Murdered is the wrong word, which you are suggesting, my first suggestion "executed" was also shown to be false, the current word "perished" simply means that they died, which is 100% accurate, and it was suggested by a few members as a compromise wording, and was on the article for well over a week.  Please stop reverting to your false pov edit.  If you continue I will escalate your RFC to the arbcom and we can get you banned from editing freemasonry related articles.  Your not willing to compromise, and you have shown quite clearly that you do not care if the article is encyclopedic or not, and a lack of understanding on wikipedia policy and what consensus is.  The point of the RFC was to get you to stop this type of behavior. I'm asking again, please stop. Seraphim 21:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: They seemed entirely reasonable to me.  I'm not sure what your issue is, unless it's with Seraphim herself!ALR 20:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits ''not'' following Wiki policy 

message: Again, here is the proposed section; this time it is at the same level it would be in the article. Ben Standeven 23:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again(?) implies that all the changes have failed before. This is a bundle of changes, covering several contentious issues, and seems far too radical. Imacomp 20:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you're intentionally misrepresenting what has been said, since it's clear that this is a repeat of process.  Somewhat disingenuous of you to phrase things in that way isn't it?ALR 20:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Revision of Opposition section 

message: * Of course; I wouldn't have suggested them otherwise... Ben Standeven 07:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: * Imacomp 20:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: Please explain why you feel that "murdered" is a better word then "perished".  Because of the debatable legality of the nazi killings it was decided that neither the word "murdered" which implies illegal killing, or the word "executed" (that I originally suggested) which implies legal killings, were appropriate.  The compromise word "perished" was inserted since it states that the people were killed without mentioning the legality of the situation, which is 100% accurate.
Either explain why "murdered" is the correct word, or point out how "perished" is the incorrect word.  Reverting because somehow you feel that the change wasn't discussed or it isn't "consensus" is not a valid reason, if every change to an article required consensus all the contravercial pages on wikipedia would be blank.
I don't feel like getting into a revert war today, even though I would have the last revert, it's pointless, and just clogs up the page's history. Seraphim 22:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a threat, it's a warning, which is Standard Operating Proceedure on wikipedia, you can't escalate a dispute without proof that attempts were made to solve the dispute.  And I meant to sign it, I looks like I put 5 tilde's instead of 4 by accident, i'll go fix it. Seraphim 22:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I already fixed it.  Like I said on your talk page, I did "try signing" I just hit the ~ key one too many times by mistake. Seraphim 22:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well do not create new sections and move my talk into them either. Imacomp 22:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Refactoring talk pages is 100% valid and ok to do, if you want proof go look at the recent RFC against TonySideway.  Part of the rules for talk pages on WP:TALK is to "Use coherent formatting". Discussion about a warning that I put on your talk page really belongs on your talk page, it does not belong on this talk page, never mind in a section intended for discussion on a particular subject.  If you wish to change the section header be my guest, however unless you can show how me posting a warning on your talk page in any way answers the questions posed in the section, be my guest.  Also I didn't move your text, I simply inserted a section break.  If you want i'll even create it as a subsection.  However cluttering up talk pages is simply not allowed.  Talk pages must be coherent. Seraphim 22:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seraphim See my Formal Warning, given on your talk page. Long talks of Wiki-lawyering after edits do not help. Imacomp 22:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ALR See my Formal Warning, given on your talk page. Wiki-lawyering edits, without talk here, do not help. Re: "22:13, 2 July 2006 ALR (Talk | contribs) (Tend to agree with Seraphim. No bad faith on her part......) " is a "tag team" edit in the revert war started by SeraphimXI, but I'm not going to "3RR". Imacomp 22:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you have issues with my conduct feel free to raise an RFC in accordance with accepted Wikipedia protocol.  I would suggest that an RFC, or indeed personal talk pages, are the appropriate place for a meaningful and contextualised discussion of conduct, this is an article talk page for discussion of the Freemasonry article.ALR 23:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is the warning that you deleted from your talk? All intermediate steps will be followed if I indeed go down that path. I'm talking here so as not to be deleted. Imacomp 23:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "murdered" vs "perished" 

message: "23:06, 2 July 2006 BlueValour" was not given any discussion. Edit in bad faith. (Note i'm not going for a technical 3RR edit either). Another day of unproductivity, started in good faith - and kept that way by me. Imacomp 23:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edits do not need to be discussed prior to making them. Please review the 3rd infobox at the top of this page discussing how to edit a contravercial page.  Seraphim 23:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please asume good faith. Thanks. Imacomp 23:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No talk for this edit, below (single issue)

message: I think that this is a very controversial statement and the reference provides one point of view but does not stand this up as a fact. I am looking at some alternative wording to provide balance. BlueValour 00:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a bit strong.  It can definatly be softened, I like the wording "commonly tied to", however all of the Muslim Anti-Masonry websites/documents i've ever seen do directly tie together Muslim Anti-Masonry and Anti-Semitism/Zionism.  If you can find any Muslim Anti-Masonry stuff that doesn't base it's anti-masonic approach on some sort of Jewish conspiracy i'd be very very interested in reading it. Seraphim 00:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a source that, like most others, includes some anti-jewish sentiments, but seems to have a broader critique. BlueValour 00:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah like I said, there is always some sort of tie between the comment about freemasonry and an anti-semitic ideal. Seraphim 00:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The whole article is very controversial. It was posted in good faith into the article, and cited with adademic works to back it up. Always asume good faith. And it says in the Islamic world, not all Muslims - as there are Muslim Freemasons. Also ataching an edit (that I reverted) even in good faith, that Muslims say Freemasons worship Satan, offends all Freemasons - including the Muslim ones. I assume this was done in good faith, as an error. I also see a good faith edit was added, but talk was only added after - without letting debate. Please allow debate, in good faith.Imacomp 00:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that content is offencive does not mean it cannot be included in wikipedia.  Merely stating that a group has a particular belief is 100% ok, as long as the article does not try to push that belief's POV. In this case, if the article says that some muslim groups feel that freemasons worship satan, and it's backed up by a few references that clearly show that muslim groups do make the claim that freemasons worship satan, stating that some muslim groups feel that freemasons worship satan is a 100% verifiable statement, and there is no reason to remove it from the article. Remember, wikipedia strives for verifiability, not truth. It's not our job to correct groups, it's our job to state what the groups say. Seraphim 00:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are good points. I have used your phrase 'is commonly tied to'. BlueValour 00:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Although edited in good faith, I must report that - as at my time code at the end here - the "current" article edit is highly offensive to a Muslim Freemason who knows me. (He telephoned). He is to make a formal complaint through UGLE, and will also alert others. He cannot edit here, as he would be "new". He is not asuming the good faith of your Wiki editing. I'm reporting this here, in good faith, as I consulted with him on "my" edit. I am now unwilling to continue editing here. Thanks, and yours in good faith.  Imacomp 00:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He can make any complaints through UGLE that he wants. I don't see how that is relevant to this page or wikipedia. If UGLE wanted to they could call up the wikipedia office and try to get a WP:OFFICE injunction on the page, that would be unprecedented however and highly unlikely to happen. Seraphim 00:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not sure what part of the revised wording has caused upset but I have re-edited to make it as objective as possible. If there are still concerns then it would be helpful if Imacomp could share them so that they can be addressed. BlueValour 01:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My own main concern here is the erroneous implication that only Anti-Freemasonry is only connected to Anti-Semitism in the Islamic world; the sources clearly state that this relationship is universal.Ben Standeven 07:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the Islamic world, Muslim Anti-Masonry is intimately related to Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism. 

message: I've reworked the language to make it a little less clunky and take the britannica reference into reference format.  I looked at the Britannica site but only get the opening paragraph of their article, has someone got access to their current article to see if it's in there, I'm afraid a 1911 encyclopedia doesn't really cut it in terms of reliability for me.ALR 09:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not better, for the reason that no WP article I've ever seen directly in-lines its sources; avoiding that is what the references are for. MSJapan 10:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not culpable for the poor quality of editing in wiki articles. "I'm afraid a 1911 [encyclopaedia (illiterate spelling corrected)] doesn't really cut it in terms of reliability for me." Using “popups” is about the level this stuff is aimed at. Not worth the cyber-space or my time to comment further. Bye. Deltascribe 11:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Illiterate spelling?!  That's awfully rude.  In fact, it looks like a personal attack to me. OzLawyer 17:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's par for the course from Imacomp though, I kind of let it wash over me now, it's a useful exercise in patience :) ALR 18:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  System of morality 

message: Under the section on Membership and Religion, Hinduism is described as a non-monotheistic religion.  This is incorrect.  Please see the Wikipedia articles on monotheism and hinduism.
:While "technically" Hinduism is monotheistic when taken to its logical conclusion, most adherents to that faith don't really think of it that way, and it cannot really be considered monotheistic in the same way as the Trinity in Christianity is still considered monotheistic. OzLawyer 19:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor correction needed 

message: I think a week is long enough to wait; noone proposed any substantive objections except to one change (which I have not made). I notice that one of the cites for the Holocaust section is "THE BLUE FORGET-ME-NOT" - ANOTHER SIDE OF THE STORY, which I thought we had decided not to use. Or am I confused on this point? Ben Standeven 20:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like I am; we only decided not to accept Lightbringer's citing it, a different matter entirely...Ben Standeven 20:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have implemented my proposed changes 

message: I'll try to translate the German introduction - perhaps somebody is interested and adds some of these sentences or ideas.
:Freemasonry is a worldwide humanitarian initiation companionship. It unites humans of all social classes and standards of knowledge and serves to improve intellectual and ethical improvement of their members.
:Outwards, the most important duty of a Freemason is charity and support of education and enlightenment. With the help of ceremonies and rites, Freemasonry imparts a philosophy of life to its members that takes them into responsibility to internalize the five basic ideals of Freemasonry: Freedom, Equality, Fraternity, Tolerance and Humanity. A Freemason makes a promise to guarantee privacy and security of the other members; this includes identification marks (sign, word and grip), rituals and confidential information about someone's identity, statements and ideas. This certainty is the foundation of an exchange of views and ideas.
 
:Freemasonry today is worldwide organized in registered societies, does not hide it's organization structure and provides public relations; so it is cannot be seen as a secret society.
--SGOvD webmaster (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Remember, “Be Bold”. General History was already covered. The deleted History section was too detailed - since a sub-article on it already covers the details. This edit has shortened the main article and is less bogged down with UGLE POV. Mousescribe 23:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some History needs to be included... it is a hot topic in the general population, what with the pseudo-histories and fictional accounts that have come out recently.  I agree that we do not need to go into every detail in depth... that IS what the history article is for... but a quick overview of the main topics should be included. Blueboar 23:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also going to move it back towards the bottom of the article... I think the article flows logically from Organizational Structure to Regularity (which discusses which Organizations are regular) to rituals landmarks and requirements.  Then there is a logical break and we discuss history, current issues, and criticims (historical and current).  Is there a reason for moving the section up front? Blueboar 23:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "Is there a reason for moving the section up front?" Yes, as I was too lazy to move "History" to the position that you have put it. :-) Nighty night Mousescribe 23:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to make it "official", Blueboar, I concur with the edits you have collaborated on, on the History issue (Mousescribe has left the building) :) Mousescribe 00:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice... especially since I am not sure that I concur with my edits!  The section still needs work. Blueboar 13:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had no problems with Mousecribe's edits, nevertheless he's blocked now permanently. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? (Was it over the Imacomp sock accusation or something else?)  Blueboar 15:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because he was a "suspected" (not proved) "sock puppet of User:Imacomp":  --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I figured that would be the reason... thanks. Blueboar 18:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  refers.  He was notified on both accounts and chose not to comment.ALR 00:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History