Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 2

message: No this isn't biased 'Lodges
Contrary to popular belief, Freemasons meet as a Lodge and not in a lodge. (This is similar to the distinction made by Christians who meet as a church, with the actual building officially considered no more than a meeting place.)'  According to who?  If its to Catholics.. Not all Christians are Catholics... Clarify or remove, I think this is useless. --Milan20 15:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change 

message: *Freemasonry
*Freemasonry Revival
*Freemasonry and the Occult
Here are some links that have been blacklisted from the Freemasonry page. I wonder why that is? These links may have different views from the Pro-Freemasonry page, but there are a lot of pages that give both pro and con links. Why should this one be different? My grandfather was a mason, what are you people affraid of? Pitchka 17:46, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
:: They are afriad of people viewing the entry for freemasonry and either fidning out secrets they dont want public, or finding a viewpoint that does nto put them ina  always possitive light. Hence why so many 'masons' hang around and do there best to censore the entry and claim that people trying to help make it better and more accurate are 'vandalizing' it if they find soemthing they don't agree with. At least that is what I am seeing. Belgarath TS 23:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As Sam said, we need to keep things balanced. While I don't think that means we need to have tons of articles against Freemasonry, having one article against freemasonry versus thirteen articles biased toward it seems far out of balance. DDerby 09:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, a few of the articles should be responses other than Christian critiques of Free-masonry. There are economic/political criticisms of Free-masonry as well. DDerby 19:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Just a note that Wikipedia isn't a directory. --Spinboy 17:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: No, it isn't the perfect place, Clarknova; it's being merged with this article. DDerby 19:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted external links on Freemasonry 

message: Sorry if I am wasting your time with this question, but I am a little confused.  The other day I was walking along and seen one of my brothers, I introduced myself and told him I was new to the brotherhood and town.  I asked him where I could find a home and he asked me, if I was international or prince hall.  I told him prince hall and he sort of made a face.  My question is what is the difference between prince hall and international?
:No honest question is a waste of time, Brother. Prince Hall and 'International' (or 'Blue Lodge') Masonry is a reflection of a sad schism in American (only) Masonry. 
:Very simply in the Bad Old Days, Blue Lodges would not (generally) admit Black men as Brothers. As a result, Blacks formed 'Prince Hall' Lodges. (All this is outlined in the article.)  There is a Prince Hall Grand Lodge in each American state, and a (formerly) White-only Blue Lodge. The two groups did not recognize each other, and the Brothers could not visit the other Lodges.
:Only now are we getting our stuff together. Many states are recognizing each other. This means there is only traditional differences between a PH or BL Mason in many states. We are all Brothers. 
:So the difference is going away, but the two groups will almost certainly never merge. We are all proud of our Masonic heritage and darn few Masters want to combine Lodges and loose their gavels.
:I hope this helps.
[[PaulinSaudi 14:16, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, very un-Masonic. A sad chapter in our (American) history. Still, it is wrong to characterize our relationship as one of antipathy. Certainly that was true at one point, but mostly it was amtter of each ignoring the other. [[PaulinSaudi 02:03, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entry level mason 

message: :Richard M. Stallman is also a well known Freemason, whose dogma of Free Software comes from principles put forth in the 16th century Free Press movement in France.
I don't know if this should be included at all, and if it should, it certainly shouldn't be in the Ritual and Symbols section. Should there be a list of notable freemasons this information should go in? Angela. 06:32, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
He isn't a Mason. He's an avowed atheist . He can't be a Mason in any of the US juristictions. See Anti-Masonry#Many_Freemasons_Discriminate_Against_Atheists.
24.5.54.209
::Who says he can not claim something publicly to hide his true affiliations? Why not just check? Belgarath TS 10:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from the "Ritual and Symbols" section

message: After some exhaustive work I have gone through and got Freemasonry as well as the related Masonry Organizations categorized to make them flow much better and show relation to one another.  Hope all enjoy the work -- I think it was all spurred when I saw Freemasonry on the same list as the Ku Klux Klan, that did it for me.
Wgfinley 06:57, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization 

message: Who thinks the Simpsons reference devalues this article? --Auximines 23:03, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not I. It's relevant to the subject, presented factually and fairly, and it's tucked safely away in the "cultural references" section where it won't contaminate the rest of the article with its pop culturalness. Perhaps it will look less out-of-place if people added more references, I'm sure there must be plenty out there. Bryan 00:30, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither do I. Too bad the Stonecutter's Song isn't public domain yet... -- SarekOfVulcan 03:59, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simpsons 

message: This is a very interesting page, allthought sadly lackin on the branch of freemasonery I'm a part of... the Swedish Rite. I will (probaly) see if I can't get time to get the article on it started during this week, but it would be nice if someone could do something about it on this page as well... WegianWarrior 10:40, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swedish Rite 

message: I moved "Landmarks" to this page from Grand Lodge where its inclusion just didn't make much sense; it seems like an obvious section to have here.  There is overlapping content under Ritual and Symbols and in other sections that might work well to remove from those locations and consolidate into the new section.
I also rearranged the sections into (what seems to me to be) a more logical order.  I reworked sentences that obviously needed to be adjusted to address the new order, but I'm sure I have missed many.
Although I'm not crazy about having Org Structure be the first major heading, the thing is, the description of Grand Lodges and jurisdictions is necessary to understand most of the rest of the article, particularly Membership and Landmarks, as well as understanding the recognition issues surrounding atheists and agnostics.  Things make a lot more sense if it comes first.  (History could go first, followed by Criticism, followed by Org Structure etc., but I thought it'd be nice to focus on what Masonry is rather than what it was.)  If we wanted to condense the Org Structure section further and merge its content into Grand Lodge, that'd be fine too; that article needs a bit of work.  The main facts this article needs are that Grand Lodges mutually decide issues of recognition and that no supreme entity exists to regularize all practice or resolve disagreements.
I made the Women and Prince Hall sections into sub-sections under Membership, which seemed like a reasonable place for them.
I see we're getting length warnings on this article, so if we are looking to condense more, we could move the bulk of the History section over to History of Freemasonry, an article in need of help one way or another (the "summary" here is currently much better than the "main article" over there).
Hope these changes meet with approval.  —Bsktcase 03:38, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorg 

message: I've never been involved with Freemasonry myself, but I thought it involved elements of public service, charitable donations, and other good works.  Yet there's no mention of anything like that in this article (in constrast to, say the entries for the Shriners and the Order of the Eastern Star).  This page makes it seem you guys have no goals beyond obscurantism and infighting ,which I'm almost sure would be a very unfair conclusion.
And, while I'm complaining, can someone please define 'degree', and add a link on Degree_(disambiguation)?
84.9.16.158 01:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Charitable Activities?

message: Are U.S. Freemasons typically tolerant of homosexuality?
:There's no one answer to that question.  It's always going to depend on the Lodge and its members.  Perhaps region and demographic would serve as a useful guide, but since ballots for membership must be unanimous and are always secret, there's no way to know which Lodges would admit openly gay petitioners and which wouldn't; and of those Lodges that might reject such a candidate, there's no way to know why or even by what margin.  That also doesn't say anything about whether an openly gay member would, in turn, be treated respectfully by members of his own or other Lodges.  (Exactly the same can be said for ethnic and religious minorities, except that global Freemasonry has a history and tradition of acceptance which is lacking for homosexuality; there would, at least, be a Masonic foundation to condemn systematic rejection of candidates based on ethnicity or religion, which isn't nearly as clear for sexual orientation.)  I don't know that there's anything intelligent we could add to this article on this subject, though. —Bsktcase 01:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diversity 

message: I have edited the following paragraph on the presumption that what remains is fact. Is it? I have no idea. Also, I do not understand the last sentence of the paragraph. Does it mean anything? Are young men less likely to get advancement in the movement because older men are blocking the way? Or are few professions offering preferential job opportunities to Freemasons so that it is not so worth while becoming a member? I am also not clear why any lack of opportunity allows "more focus". Is the statement about Freenmasonry in South America and (continrental) Europe factually correct?Thincat 14:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The great irony about modern Freemasonry as it is in the United States, the UK and other Anglo jurisdictions is that despite the protests of conspiracy theorists who make the accusation that it is an occult society which rules the world, it is losing members faster than it can get new petitioners. In the United States, the average age of members is around 45. This is probably due to the lack of opportunities within the order which would attract more young men, allowing for more focus on the philosophical and esoteric side of Freemasonry as is available in jurisdictions in South America and Europe, where the number of masons is generally on the rise.
It's important material, but my goodness, this section was extremely speculative and POV.  I have rewritten much of it.  The question of why U.S./U.K. membership might be declining is vast and there aren't any answers that aren't wild guesses or just personal opinions/likes/dislikes.  (Some Brethren particularly enjoy the philosophy and esoterica; others prefer the philanthropic work; others just want fellowship and fun.  There's never been agreement on which one[s] of those are the "right" way to be a Mason.)  The issue of one-day conferrals just struck me as a personal screed.  I don't like them either, but I don't think that discussion belongs on wikipedia, particularly not all the high-minded statements about how this is the worst break from tradition in Masonic history, etc.  Likewise, the issues of advertising and recruitment were presented POV.  I have whittled this down to what I think is a reasonable summary of the changes, the fact that they are breaks from tradition, and the basic arguments for and against.  The intro paragraph indicts U.K. as well, but the follow-on paragraphs focus solely on the U.S., which is all I know.  If similar debates are occurring in the U.K. then perhaps clarification would help; if not, then U.K. should be left out of the opening paragraph rather than lumped in. —Bsktcase 20:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: The mere fact that anyone serving in any Goverment Post,Armed Srevice, would violate one oath (country) to act on another oath (mason) to help "A Brother" makes me wary of that person in general. 68.44.153.204 21:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that's a very circumstantial gripe, 68.44.153.204.  All Freemasons swear to obey the laws of the country they are in.  Allegations of cronyism are loose at best, considering betterment as a person is the aim, betterment of career or income is definately frowned upon and something I have never seen occur.  Jachin 03:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary Challenges 

message: Being an "outsider" to freemasonry, I am curious to know how, when and why freemasonry has become associated with world conspiracies. Can anyone provide insight into this subject?
: This concept would probably take as much time to outline as the history of exoteric Freemasonry itself.  The works of people like Abbe Barruel and Nesta Webster obviously have had some influence, but at a recent Masonic Spring Workshop I was shown a poster from before the public emergence of the "Moderns" (I believe it was 16th-century) which implied that "Freed-Masons" were up to something sinister.  I don't know of any work offhand that traces the origins of anti-Masonic hate, maybe some of my brethren here do?  I suspect, however, that you'd find the origins of this kind of thinking as difficult to trace as those of anti-Semitism.  Alex Kennedy
: Freemasonry is, in general, a family of charitable organizations that not only require dues but also regularly petition members for donations to their chosen causes.  The dues and initiation fees are prohibitive to those with an income below that of the lower middle class and the donations and activites require what some would consider serious financial commitment.  Therefore Masons tend to be persons (and often community leaders) of means.  The disproportionate number of Masons in high social positions can give the impression that Masons are actually in charge of the organs of government and commerce.  One has but to look at the roster of U.S. presidents who have been Masons to have their suspicions circumstantially confirmed.  
: Comraderie between Masons often leads to favorable buisness associations as well.  This can only deepen extant class issues. — Clarknova 01:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, the dues and initiation fees vary wildly between jurisdictions. While I've often had income that dipped below lower-middle, I haven't felt in ME, RI, or WA that the fees were "prohibitive". --SarekOfVulcan 20:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freemasonry & World Conspiracy 

message: A long time ago, I read an old encyclopaedia which said that the initiation ceremony of exposing the knee, breast, blindfolding and noosing were in memory of a member of the fraternity who was tried as a heretic and went to his death without revealing the secrets of freemasonry. I cannot access that encyclopaedia now, and I wonder if anyone here knows what this man'd name was and when he died?81.129.79.68 00:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologise it has been three months or so since you posted this and no one has addressed the issue you raised.  I too recall reading such, whilst there are alternate meanings given to each of the things you raised, many places will also cite it as reference to being tried as a heretic, or in some instances mentioned as reference to the treatment of Jacques de Molay, the last Grand Master of the Knights Templar.  Which of these is true, I personally could not say, it's open to too much grounds for speculation; very much a chicken or the egg scenario.  If any more educated brethren can address this issue, please speak up.  Jachin 12:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: The merge notice has been up for a long time, without me spottting much in the way of merging going on... so I decided to be bold and do it myself. Could need a second pair of eyes to look it over and make sure it 'flows' well... english isn't my native tounge =) WegianWarrior 06:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging with [[Anti-Masonry]]

message: I am extremely interested in the Freemasons, and this article has only irked my curiosity. So interested in fact I am on the verge of deciding to attempting to join. A few things are bothering me though, has there ever been cases of Members wishing to leave the brotherhood. It seems like the kind of thing that one is in for life, but with its relatively secretive nature one cannot properly gauge if one wish's to agree with the standing of the organization. Although it seems to me that the Masons are very open and would not present such a situation it still sits at the back of mind...what exactly happens to someone who no longer wishes to be a mason?
:Are they ousted? Are they permitted to leave quietly under the provision they keep the secrets? Or is there some sort of Trial period, where no real important secrets are revealed but enough so that one can decide if they wish to continue participation? 
Iorek 17:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Men who fall away from the Craft stop paying their annual dues. Not much to say about it, it is unfortunate, but is fairly common. People move, they drift  away, they get busy, have children. New men come in, some old one leave. [[Paul, in Saudi 02:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all what i expected, thank you very much. Iorek 17:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To some degree what you said about 'no real important secrets' being revealed is also true.  Depending on what country you are in of course.  In America one can partake one degree per lunar month.  In other countries it is one degree per year, which is much more logical as the experience should be enjoyed and not taken lightly. 211.31.9.5 15:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query to Masons here on Wiki? 

message: Please add references to this article, see also Wikipedia:Verifiability. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Otherwise this article will likely be de-featured pending a FARC nomination. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for references 

message: Under the section The two great schisms of Freemasonry (1753 and 1877) we have the text
Most Lodges conduct their Work in accordance with .. the York Rite (which is popular in the United States; not to be confused with York Rite),
 
I'm guessing this must be a error. Can someone clarify?
* York Rite, and Scottish Rite, are appendant bodies to Freemasonry. They grant "higher" degrees than the 3 degrees of Blue Lodge. York Rite includes a subdivision called the Knights Templar. Being a full York Rite or Scottish Rite member used to be a requirement to join the Shriners. --SarekOfVulcan 22:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification (wording?) 

message: After reading the article, I am still at a loss to understand why people join the Masons. 
If I have an interest in stamp collecting I join a stamp club. Then I can trade stamps and share knowledge with other collectors. If I like to play basketball, I will form a basketball club, because it's boring to play by myself. In contrast, it is hard to identify what draws Masons together. The article does mention very vague shared religious beliefs, but the need for association based on beliefs would seem to be served by the established religions, which benefit from greater focus and have their own aura of social prestige.   
In short, while I grasp the role of an organised social outlet, wouldn't it be more logical for people to seek contact within a group sharing a common interest or affiliation? 
I get the picture of a group of older men with nothing much in common (except perhaps the wish to avoid the Mrs?) getting together one evening a week for the fun of practicing their secret handshakes.
Can anyone clarify?
http://www.seanscreenplays.com/BeteNoireCD/Articles1/HIDDEN%
20POWER.htm
--Philopedia 17:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification (intent?) 

message: Today, user 82.131.22.158 has been addind a fair bit of content on masonic history in Russia and Estonia... would this perhaps be better suited as seperate articles? I know I could be bold, but since I'm at work right now.. ;) WegianWarrior 12:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia? Estonia? 

message: I've made some changes to the Freemasonry page, and I wanted to explain them, because they might be seen as bad edits otherwise.  All my edits come from my own personal experience as a member of the Craft in the US.
1. Scottish Rite is not a complete system, except unto itself. You need to be a Master Mason before you can do AASR, so the numbering goes from 4 to 32.  Same with York Rite, which interestingly enough, the author did not state was a complete system. 
2. In North america, a Blue Lodge is considered to be the first lodge you joined (the one where you became a Master Mason).  If you join another lodge, that one is not your Blue Lodge.  Thus the term does not apply to all Craft Lodges in general.
3. Templars is not open to Royal Arch members.  KT is in sequence after Cryptic, so you need to do that first; you can't jump directly to that point from Royal Arch.
There were also a few things I wanted to change, but I wanted feedback on first, mainly due to the article coming from a UGLE perspective.
1. What I've read as far as AASR goes says that it was originally designed entirely in France, and only changed later by Pike and others.  Therefore, to say "it was designed predominantly in France" seems not entirely wrong, but not entirely right, either.
2. Grand Lodges vs. Grand Orients -- AFAIK, the latter term also applies only to France, and there, only to the irregular lodges that no other bodes recognize.  Thewrefore, to define them both as equal is incorrect, I think.  Does anyone have any insight on this?
3. Masonic buildings are called "Masonic Temples", rather than just "Temples".  Is this too nitpicky?
4.  In my experience, we use "Lodge" to refer to the building, and we do indeed meet in a Lodge, not "as a Lodge".  Has anyone heard it used otherwise? 
5.  "Lodges of Research and Instruction" are two separate types of specialty lodges, not a combined title, at least in the US.  Once again, does it differ under UGLE or some other jurisdiction?MSJapan
:First off Welcome to the Wiki, be careful! Some find it addictive. Second, you can sign your comments by adding three tildies after your comments. This way we know who we are talking to. 
:The first Landmark of Masonry cites the necessity of Masons meeting in Lodges. Therefore you may call the building as you like, but the men inside are a Lodge when tiled. Paul, in Saudi 03:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some edits made, and some feedback requested 

message: "Lucifer, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable, blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish souls? Doubt it not!" [Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, p. 321, 19th Degree of Grand Pontiff; Red Emphasis added]
: Emphasis 'not' added, actually. :-) And quoting out of context is really easy. :-) Let me try quoting in context, from that same book.
::"Everyone is free to reject and dissent from whatsoever herein may seem to him to be untrue or unsound. It is only required of him that he shall weigh what is taught, and give it a fair hearing and unprejudiced judgment."
:--SarekOfVulcan 23:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An important thing to note is the book in question (Morals and Dogma) relates (at least in this passage) to Scottish Rite Masonry, not Blue Lodge Masonry (though there are chapters on the first three degrees), and to be fair, a lot of what is in it is not Pike's own thoughts, but rather philosophical cullings from other sources.  It's a much more "useful" book if you are aware of the content of the degrees before reading it.  Of course, if you don't agree with the principles that are taught in Freemasonry, why would you join?  It's entirely of one's own free will whether one joins or not.  By joining, you willingly agree to certain principles, so it is a very firm foundation indeed.--MSJapan 04:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a Satanic Cult? 

message: This may sound kind of silly, but I'm having the same problem reading this entry as I have when trying to read articles about freemasonry.  I don't understand a THING.  The article is extremely well-organized and written fluidly but it seems to be written for an audience of people who already know everything.  I find very little definition of terms, a lot of elaboration on topics using terms and ideas not covered until later in the article, very little attempt made to "dumb it down" for someone who doesn't know the first thing about the group.  I remember when I read a pamphlet called "an introduction to Freemasonry" and barely being able to read past the first page, because of this same problem.
:I'd say quite the contrary.  Prior to my initiation, I read over this page with frustration that it told me absolutely nothing I hadn't already picked up from other sources.  Whilst there are some things best left unsaid, there is still plenty more to say.  211.31.9.5 02:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this too well-written? 

message: I have been told by many in the craft the bible is a important LIGHT in the brotherhood - however i have run across many texts that flatly say the bible is only a sign of a "Holy Book" and carrys no real value in the teachings of the masons 
"No lodge with us should be opened without its (the Bible) presence. Still, it is but a symbol; it represents divine truth in every form…But the shadow must not be mistaken for the substance. There is nothing sacred or holy in the mere book. It is ordinary paper…it is what it typifies that renders it sacred to us. Any other book having the same signification would do just as well…In fact, that book should be used which to the individual in question most fully represents divine truth…We dare assert that neither the Constitution, Regulations, no Ritual of any Grand lodge in the world required a belief in the teachings of the Bible…(we must) frankly acknowledge the Bible to be symbol only. Those Christian Masons who would enforce belief in the teachings of the Bible have simply mistaken the symbol for the thing itself." ("Symbolism of the Three Degrees"); Masonic Service Association, Washington, DC, 1924, pp 44-47)
"Masonry has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible, that it is not founded upon the Bible, for if it were it would not be Masonry, it would be something else". (Digest of Masonic Law", p. 207-209)
I don't know who is telling me the truth and other posts in this page tell me that the truth is 1 of the main goals of freemasons - can anyone help me understand ?
:In Masonry, the Bible is called the Volume of Sacred Law (VSL). I have sat in Lodges that used the Bible, the Pentearch (I spelled that wrong, didn't I?) and the Koran as VsSL. In Singapore I understand they have five books on the altar, all providing equal light. So the Bible is used in mostly-Christian countries, but not in Hindu, Jewish or other communities. So it certainly looks like Masonry is Christian, Jewish, Islamic, whatever, but that is not in fact the case. Paul, in Saudi 15:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bible in Freemasonery 

message: :So your point would be that older people are racists? Could be, I suppose. I have sat in Lodges that were mostly Jewish (and mostly Christian), I have sat in Loges that were mostly Black (however you determine that). 
:Masonry believes in the Brotherhood of all men, under the Fatherhood of God. Sounds pretty old-fashioned now, doesn't it? Yet a couple of centuries ago, this was cutting-edge stuff. The American (and for that matter the Filipino) revolutions were led by Masons. They stood (and do stand) for everybody being equal before God. If these ideas do not sound too strange to you, perhaps it is because of the influence we have had on history. 
:The Prince Hall thing is as embarrassing as all get out to American Masonry. Still, that problem is being addressed and no Lodge in America has a racial qualification. 
:Masonry and what it stands for have been suppressed by by dictators of the left and the right. Doesn't sound too fuddy-duddy to me. Finally, as an ancient and transnational movement, Masonry cannot (by definition) be chauvinistic. Paul, in Saudi 12:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, FDR, having checked your history I now realize that discussion with you about people who died in the 1880s would be non-productive. Paul, in Saudi 14:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics 

message: This article has been nominated for not following the NPOV and Factual Accuracy Standards set by Wikipedia.  I believe that the best way to handle this is to open the topic up for disscussion, have people speak their minds and then place a vote if it adheres or breaks the a) NPOV standard and the b) Factual Accuracy Standard.  I hope that this helps to work things out. Chtirrell 02:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The votes as they stand are 1 for and 7 against this article not meeting NPOV/FAS standards.  I am satisfied that this matter has been settled.  If we do not have any protests within 24 hours I will remove the boiler-plates. Jachin 23:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and Factual Accuracy Debate