Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 23

message: This is an archived talkpage. Please discuss on the active talkpage. WegianWarrior 19:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

message: We seem to be going in circles on whether to include or exclude the UGLE and GLS websites in the external links.  As a compromise, I have shifted them to the Bibliography section. Blueboar 16:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, one of the inclusion reverts would have been by me.  I was under the belief that we discussed this matter neigh on nine or more months back and it was on consensus that of the GL's we'd refrain from listing them but retain UGLE and GLS for reference purposes.  If that has since been revised then it goes to show my negligence to keep up with talk pages of late.  Either way, again, my apologies. Jachin 06:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jachin, your memory is correct. We did discuss this and agree to keep UGLE and GLS (in the context of cutting several links to other GLs).  However, those who claim that linking to these sites in the external links would be redundant (since we already link to them several times in the article footnotes) do have a point.  This is why I figured we should move them to the Bibliography.  If people disagree, I am very flexible on the issue. Blueboar 12:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blueboar - I think that sounds reasonable (putting them in the Bibliography), unless there's a specific citation from one of the sites. Bdevoe 17:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I wouldn't look in a bib section for an external link to a governing or administrative body of an association of any form.  Jachin 22:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I reverted these because they violate WP formatting policies.  External links is always External links, and I don't know what that other stuff was.  This is a general article on Freemasonry, and to start adding very country-specific info skews the article away from its purpose, which is a general introduction ot Freemasonry in general. MSJapan 16:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's necessary to draw attention to what you describe as horribly botched edits in the summary box, or create a sub heading on talk pages regarding one editor's contributions. See: Wikipedia:Civility.  Online content is online content - not On Line.  If you follow the Wiki style book to the letter, the sub-head should be On line...  and perhaps someone who knows nothing about freemasonry would like to know where they can find more information on masonic charities. Escaper7 17:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Escaper, you seem very defensive about your edits.  Relax a bit.  Please understand that just as you are free to add material, others are free to delete it if they disagree.  Many of the editors who work on the various Freemasonry pages have been doing so for quite a long time.  Over the years, they have reached a certain consensus on the direction that this article is going to take, what types of material should and should not be added, and how to set things up.  One of the things we have all agreed on is that, in general, changes should be discussed before editing.  This does not mean you should not participate, but it does mean that when you add things without discussing them first it is more likely that someone will undo it as going against that concensus.  Blueboar 17:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine. I've had articles I've started merged, deleted, edited, vandalised; like everyone else, but good faith is easily lost when edits, not intended as vandalism, are subjected to un-civil remarks in the edit summary.  This is supposed to be a talk page about an article, not about one editor's contribution/s.  Incidentally, one of the key sections of the discussion above, was from a reader who said they were none the wiser having read this article. Escaper7 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that some people come here looking for the answer to very specific questions, which can not be answered in a general overview article.  I don't think we should try to explain everything that could possibly be asked by every reader.  To some extent that is what sub-articles are for.  To use the current issue, the idea is that this article simply says: "Masons are charitable"... and we leave the exact nature of how we put that charity into practice (ie the individual Charities that a given GL may run) to be mentioned in other articles (say the article on the individual GL).  If that is not good enough, and you think we need it, start a sub-article on "Masonic Charities". Blueboar 17:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Escaper7's edits 

message: I am not happy with the introduction to this section. It is far too long and not up to Wiki standards. I have replaced it with the introduction from the Anti-Masonry page which I feel is far better, at least until something approaching readablity is achieved on these two paragraphs.Literaryagent 16:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see that this might not work as an introduction to the section... but the material is notable and should be included in some form.  As a first step, I have placed it back under the sub-section heading of "Political".  If you have a better idea for where to place it, or can come better wording that says the same thing but in more succinct language, I am open to suggestions. Blueboar 19:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, how does this intro tell the reader about Freemasonry, given the following items:  Freemasonry is datable to at least 1717, and speculatively earlier.  Where is the information on Masonry's philosophical principles?  I can't believe that you honestly think that your changes create a decent introduction for anyone besides a person with a preconceived notion of a Satanist Masonic New World Order.  I'm not AGF on this at all, especially since policy on this page is to discuss major edits before making them. MSJapan 19:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand MSJapan's reluctance to AGF, given this editor's previous two edit summaries.  Calling references "biased Masonic fantasy history writing" and "biased pro-masonic works" does not engender good faith.  That said, we have often said that we are not completely happy with the entire section... some work on it is indeed needed (if not for the reasons User:Literaryagent gives).   I will sand box the section and see if I can work up something a bit more acceptable. Blueboar 20:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Not too shabby!  Thanks. This is a good clean up of the section as it stood.  I still want to see if I can come up with an acceptable version that incorporates a complete overhaul, but that is another project for another day. Blueboar 20:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's OK, thanks. I notice that both Arabic and Japanese articles are very POV critical on this subject - yet are highly regarded. Generic Character 21:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, first of all, the word "supposedly" doesn't appear in the first two paragraphs, and I have no idea, therefore, as to what it is in those paragraphs you object to.  The word "supposedly" does appear in the political opposition section, but it is perfectly legitimate there, as it is a factual statement - it is a fact that the statement is made, and it is also a fact that there is no actual proof of Masonic suppression of liberal democracy whatsoever.  As for your other question, not only are the obligations one of the private aspects of Freemasonry, a lack of standardization within Freemasonry makes it impossible to come up with something that everyone everywhere will find to be accurate. MSJapan 10:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition to Freemasonry Introduction

message: Towards the end of the cultural references list it is mentioned that the album Holy Wood by Marilyn Manson alludes to Freemasonry in song titles, lyrics, and sounds. The only reference I see is the title of the song King Kill 33, which is named after the essay King-Kill 33: Masonic Symbolism in the Assassination of John F.Kennedy. The rest of the lyrics and song titles don't seem to make any references to Freemasonry at all. As for making references using sounds, what could that possibly be? Any thoughts?
:No idea.  Perhaps it should be cut until we know more info? Blueboar 12:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't cut it but just modify it. I'll revise the wording until someone explains otherwise. --Nsbendel 19:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Very good research. I'll remove it until it can be proven otherwise. --Nsbendel 20:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural References - Marilyn Manson 

message: :I came, I saw, I translated (well, kind of...) ;-) Generic Character 00:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Liberté chérie (Freemasonry)]] ''In English'' 

message: Just came across the proposed guideline: Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises and thought "hey, this relates to the various Freemasonry articles".  It is an off shoot of the WP:BLP guideline that treats active organizations in a similar way to living persons.  While not yet an official guideline, it is a step in the right direction. I thought I should share it with everyone. Blueboar 14:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed guideline that would relate to Freemasonry 

message: * Just a small note: Angelo Soliman. --Liberal Freemason (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyvio, which I found by the last paragraph (that someone fact tagged).  That particular author is involved with the Moorish Orthodox Church somehow, as every article he has submitted has been related to it or lifted from it. MSJapan 18:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. I tagged that paragraph because it was... strange. When I have some time, I'll start a translation from the German article. --Liberal Freemason (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angelo Soliman 

message: I've been away for some time tending to my studies, only to return to find the opening few paragraphs of the FM article filled with drivel and uneccesary quadruple citations and other odd behaviour.  Can someone fill me in as to why we're lowering article quality in essence whilst being overly-citatious?
Furthermore, all I have to say is wtf: --
Dr. Dieter Anton Binder,[8] a historian (and not a Freemason) who is a professor at the University of Graz (Austria) describes Freemasonry as a "confidential" society in contrast to a secret society in his book Die diskrete Gesellschaft.[9]
Who?  Why?  What?  We care because?  This applies to the article how?  Too much discussion about 'secret society' 'society with secrets' for an opening paragraph, needs some hefty trimming.  I'm guessing this has come about by visiting editors wanting to contribute things that -they- personally see as cornerstones and something that needs to be waved.  Furthermore I am sure we have opposing POV anti-mason agenda pushers who're also adding to the disunity, confusion and mess of the article.  :/
I'll go through and nerf out some (obvious) crap over the next few days and reduce citations to a single (the better of the options) citation.  There is no need to list more than one reference for any statement that may be brought into question, if there are multiple, choose the higher quality of the lot and use it.  Jachin 22:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation to Dr. Binder was added to demonstrate that the opinion that Freemasonry is "private" as opposed to "secret" is held by more than just the Masons themselves. That was an issue at one point if you go back through the archives.  As for the quadrupal citations... that is due to several anti-masonic editors attacking every sentence and citation by saying things like... "well that's just UGLE... but in other jurisdictions they <insert accusation here>"  We can probably trim it down. Blueboar 23:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, trimming is essential.  There is no point in sacrificing style to appease POV pushing morons.  Let them attack each sentence as much as they like, it's our (the editors, masons or otherwise) reaction to it which has led to this article degrading from an A grade.  Furthermore, Dr Binder, whom ever the good fellow is, is irrelivant to the Craft and thus should be omitted from the opening paragraph which usually outlines the principle of the rest of the article.  Again, sacrificing style to silence the weenies.  :(  Jachin 01:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Drivel

message: I removed the category "German Freemason" from Friedrich Schiller since there is no proof that he was a Freemason, although was in contact with Freemasons. The Freemason Christian Gottfried Körner asked his friend Schiller to write a poem for the Masonic table dinner of the Lodge „Zu den drei Schwertern“ in Dresden. This was the Ode to Joy.
There's still no proof that Ludwig van Beethoven was a Freemason, but there are rumors that he was a member until he was deaf. In 1955, the Freemason (Humanitas Lodge, Vienna) Richard Nikolaus Graf Coudenhove-Kalergi proposed Beethoven's Ode to Joy as the new European Anthem. --Liberal Freemason (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schiller, Ode of Joy 

message: I came across this article today: Lodge 2... I am not sure about the validity of some of the statements made (it needs citations), but I think it is someone's attempt to write a legit article.  In any case it needs a lot of work.  Blueboar 14:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lodge 2