Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 16

message: RFC link is here MSJapan 04:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, and that is precisely how they are conducted.  Where do you think I got the template? MSJapan 04:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies - the template was vandalized by -Ril- in mind February - I expect no one noticed. That is not the prefered format for RFCs, which take place on article talk pages. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, until somebody goes and fixes it, I'm going to use that format because that's what it says to do.  It's pretty well-done for vandalism, and clearly took a lot of effort.  I would imagine somebody would have noticed before now and changed it back if it was an issue, seeing as how it's an infrastructure page. MSJapan 04:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you INSIST, but I must ask that you review the previous RFCs - you will find no one has EVER used that incredibly bad-idea broken format. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll bring it to an admin's attention, then, although I don't see that this was reverted as part of vandalism rvs on that page at all - there are <10 edits in the last two months to the page.  Maybe it changed and nobody noticed?  It's a good way to get rid of frivolous RFCs, because now you need to be able to articulate an argument to support your position. MSJapan 05:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was a change to the template - note that none of the rfcs since the template change (except for yours) used the new format. I have brought it up in the appropriate locations. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, most people don't even look at that small template, since the way article RFCs are done (adding a link to the relevant article talk page) hasn't changed for ages. Only two RFCs ever used this different format (the creation of which was not a lot of effort — it's almost a straight copy of the way user RFCs are done), one being this one, and the other having been made by a notoriously quirky user (and thus his use of a different format was probably ascribed to his quirkiness). --cesarb 18:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the use of this format makes the RFC invalid?  If so, we can always redo it properly.  If not, then I don't see much point of belaboring the issue. Blueboar 19:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's just wikilawyering, it distracts from the lack of substance in H's argument.ALR 19:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it doesn't make it invalid. It's kind of hard to make invalid what's nothing more than an informal request for outside help. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Besides, it has alredy been redone correctly (changed into the usual format, with a note pointing to the misplaced page). --cesarb 19:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Given what's going on it's fairly easy to see why a discussion on the topic that comment is requested on is easier off the article page.  The discussion can focus on the point at issue and it's up to the various protagonists to actually articulate their position in a reasoned manner.  Attempting to have the discussion here, at the same time as continuing to work on editing the rest of the article results in a confused and poorly articluated arguments which depend on hyperbole and sensationalisation to succeed.  From that perspective it means that Hipocrite et al are favoured by having the discussion here, whereas a more rational argument would tend to support those editors who don't see the material as being value adding in this article.  As much as anything else an observation of the various discursive techniques is interesting; evasion and misrepresentation across a wide range of pages, personal, talk and edit comment boxes versus a tightly presented discussion.  Anyway, the inclusion of the material in Wikipedia isn't so much an issue to me, since they're not the secrets of Masonry anyway, they can go live somewhere else as far as I'm concerned.ALR 23:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really an issue someone simply didn't understand how to file an rfc. It's been fixed now. Seraphim 23:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the RFC page it's internally inconsistent, and the approach that Hipocrite et al have an issue with is more in line with the rest of the dispute management process, so it makes sense to do things in that way.  I didn't say it was an issue, more an interesting manifestation of information manipulation.  I think I mentioned before that I'm doing a Masters degree in Information Management, so I'm more amused by the blatant attempts at attempting to undermine a sensible process.  Although looking around it appears that undermining established processes is a bit of a hobby for some users who'd rather do that than contribute substantive material.  It's inevitable in any social networking space that people find their confort zones, and wikipedia is no different.ALR 23:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  "I'm doing a Masters degree in Information Management, so I'm more amused by the blatant attempts at attempting to undermine a sensible process." And your Dyslexic as well ALR . Well done. Imacomp 17:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a note, we got a 7-3 in favor of not including the material in-depth (Keystrokes' vote I discounted, as he was blocked).  70% is considered to be consensus as far as WP policy goes.  I haven't heard anything further on this since the 11th, and no other votes came in despite Hipocrite's posting the material in the proper place.  So, shall we close it and consider it settled? MSJapan 20:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems fair to me, although I'm sure there'll be a Wikilawyer along in a moment to disagree ;) ALR 20:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Reptilian Watch? ROTFL! :D Are you serious? --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC link 

message: (copied from User talk:MSJapan)
I've protected this article to stop edit warring.  User:Keystrokes has been delisted from AIV, as they don't seem to be making obvious vandalism, and commented on the protection on 3RR Reports.  I'm going to recuse myself from determining the possible 3RR breach on this article though, and will revist the protection in a few days if antoher admin has not lifted it.  Thanks, xaosflux Talk/CVU 16:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Addtionally, I'm sure that some will argue that I've protected The Wrong Version, but I have no personal interest in this article, just in stopping the edit war. -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 16:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag says the current version isn't necessarily endorsed, so I see no reason why it would be an issue at all.  I'm sure my "followers" (as noted below by Keystrokes), would agree.  MSJapan 16:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing will change until JASpencer gets up the druthers and files motion with Wikipedia Admin to have MSJapanand his fellow travellers permanently banned.Keystrokes 17:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Banned for what exactly?  JASpencer 17:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You figure it out genius.Keystrokes 17:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please tell me. JASpencer 17:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Having blocked Keystrokes, I shall remove the semi too, and see if thats OK William M. Connolley 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you, as an Admin, feel you have to ask the Freemason Editors if the actions you just took 'are o.k.'?Healthy eating 19:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about Freemason editors, it's about sockpuppets and new editors coming to only this article. If those editors worked on other articles and contributed to the community, it might prove good faith, and then they get in enough edits to get around semi-protection. Ardenn 19:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  You have misinterpreted me William M. Connolley 19:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It has been protected since the 11th of march. I suggest that you remove the protection for a while to see what happens. It looks bad when articles are protected for a week. Lapinmies 13:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does look bad... but it is needed.  Over the last few months, this article has been repeatedly attacked by the same POV pushing vandal using multiple sock pupet names.  This vandal has been barred by arbitration from editing all articles related to Freemasony, but since new accounts are so easy to create, he keeps returning.  The second we lift the lock, he simply starts to attack the article all over again.  With the semi-lock in place, he is limited to this talk page long enough that we can usually catch him before he can vandalize the article.  I suspect that the semi-lock will be on here for quite a while longer.  If you have a something to add... contact one of the editors who are not locked out and we will be happy to add it for you. Blueboar 14:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has now been over a week. Semi-protection policy states:"Semi-protection should only be considered if it is the only option left available to solve the problem of vandalism of the page. In other words, just like full protection, it is a last resort, not a pre-emptive measure. Remember to lift the semi-protection after a brief period.". I think a week is a brief period. Lapinmies 10:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I will have to disagree.  Under normal circumstances a semi-block would indeed have been lifted by now... but this is not a normal circumstance. We have tried lifting the block... only to have the vandal return and attack the page. I expect that the semi-block will have to stay on for a lot longer.  Sorry.  Again, if you have something you would like to contribute, post it pn the talk page or to one of the editors who is not blocked and we will be happy to include it for you. Blueboar 13:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have anything to add and I could add it myself if I wanted. Semi-protection is bad faith against every new user.  Lapinmies 23:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If wikipedia could work out a way to keep the vandal from making new socks, I would have no problems.  As it is, new editors can still post on the talk page and make their suggestions. Blueboar 00:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks more like a content dispute than vandalism. Articles are supposed to evolve and not be locked. Lapinmies 00:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trouble is that the master of socks in question is banned indefinetly by ArbCom to edit any article or talk page related to freemasonry. So at the moment a new user is determined to be a sock of this banned user, he is in violation of the ArbCom, and therefore a vandal. Personaly I would have loved to be able to lift the semi-prot on this article, but the times it has been done it's only been a matter of hours or days at the most before the army of socks return. WegianWarrior 07:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: "US Roman Catholic contextual view" added as a usefull insight into a certain mindset, in a NPoV straight Cited quote. Note RCs say P2 is irregular. This contextual defn. is up-to-date and far more of use than the Roman Catholic "CE".
Imacomp 12:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be apposite as a reference, I don't think it needs it's own section.ALR 18:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it fits in an existing section, that would be good.  Also, it should probably be incorporated into the Catholicism and Freemasonry article, because it represents a marginal shift in a positive direction. MSJapan 01:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section 

message: The topic was getting a bit long and difficult to scroll down... so I am continuing it here.
Seraphim, I think you have misunderstood the commercials for the GLMA... Even in a one day class, the candidates sit and watch the ritual.  The "no studying" part is a waver of having to memorize and recite questions and answers about that ritual before advancing to the next degree.  It is sort of like attending a college class, but not sitting down and taking the exams. The material is presented, there is just no way to be sure that the student fully understands it.  Nevertheless, the System of morality, the allegory and the symbolism ARE indeed presented to the candidate.  So, again... which phrase of the statement do you consider not to be factual? Blueboar 20:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, the one day class is not a mandatory way of joining.  In fact, it is a very controversial, and possibly not long for this world, bandage to slap on the wound of losing members though death and other forms of attrition.  The GL still has many Lodges who do standard one night per degree rituals, and some which are moving towards requiring more than one month between degrees.  But, yes, the candidates still see the ritual.  Looks like I am going to have ANOTHER sit down with a GL officer about how stupidly worded the commericals are, if they can be interpretted the way Seraphim has.--Vidkun 20:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So... just to hammer the point home, when Seraphim says "it needs to be made clear that it's not a blanket statement that covers all freemasonry" she is incorrect.  Instead, it needs to be made clear that it IS a blanket statment that covers all of Freemasonry.  Freemasonry is a system of morality.  It is veiled in allegory.  It is illustrated by symbols.  This statement applies to ALL forms and branches of Freemasonry.  In short the statement is fact.  Now, I am perfectly happy to leave the wording as... "Freemasons often refer to the fraternity as...." for that is a true statement.  But so was "Fremasonry is ...."  The insistance on the change was overly petty. Blueboar 21:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's that bad - it's a case of having an idea in mind before seeing the evidence, and making the evidence fit the idea.  There is no real plausible way to jump from "no memorization is required" (or whatever it is) to "we don't use ritual in One Day Classes" unless one has it set in one's head that that is what it means.  However, having seen DeMolay and Rainbow material, I think it is more than fair to say that all these related systems teach morals in some way shape or form.  A system that doesn't probably isn't really considered Masonry. MSJapan 21:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of ritual - part 2 

message: This is "my" edit:
Both 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica and Catholic 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia agree that Freemasonry, according to the official English, Scottish, American, etc., Craft rituals, is most generally defined: A peculiar (some say particular or beautiful) system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols. (ref) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09771a.htm 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia.(1911 Encyclopædia Britannica agrees)(/ref) The continued use of this definition is illustrated in the example of the 1991 printing of  the English Emulation  Ritual (ref)Emulation Ritual  pub 1991, London(/ref) 
As such Freemasonry uses ritual to convey the principles of "Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth" - otherwise related, as in France: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity".(ref) Freemasons for Dummies, by Christopher Hodapp, Wiley Publishing Inc., Indianapolis, 2005, p.783, sec. "Masons marked for life" (/ref).
The above edit should put this issue to bed for any reasonable editor(s)? (Although I do not like quotes from rituals in use, I've left the ref.). Imacomp 21:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a very verbose way of saying Freemasonry is......  by all means add them as references.ALR 21:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also not as concise or succinct as the other statement, but if it'll solve the issue, we might as well use it. MSJapan 22:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The snag with verbose content is it that it's vulnerable to the accusation that it's hiding something, particularly with the current insistence on wiki-lawyering.  Brevity helps avoid that suggestion.ALR 22:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  That is an almost direct quote, and covers  all the bases. It is not realy my work, just "my" edit. Nit picking at me for doing the work is of no use (and I use this to all editors), since the work stands on its own, and should be left as such. Read both the 1911 EB and 1913 CE articles on the web, for a check. For "very verbose" read Accademic - as in encyclopaediae (ias) Imacomp 22:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  "The snag with verbose content". Well tell them to build a time machine and tell it to the editors of the "sources", because as I said if you trace the section back it is an almost, wikified cited ref to 1913 Catholic ecnyclopedia in particular (as the 1911 EB is less "encyclopedic" there). "Endex". Imacomp 22:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Principles and activities

message: Anyway what about the "new" editor cliping out citations and refs? Should they be put back? Imacomp 22:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really understand, you're saying that you actually prefer a dozen references to the same thing web address labeled as 12 separate references? The only difference I made was that references to the same thing were labeled as one and the same recuring reference. I never removed any information or reference as such from the article. —Gabbe 23:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thats how they all like it, except for those who say not here. Silence is read as keep status quo here. Imacomp 23:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That makes no sense. It was a purely stylistic edit, no information was removed from the article, I don't see how there could be anything controversial with my edit. —Gabbe 23:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Sorry, not my idea (head butting). See your/my talk page, as of now. Imacomp 00:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  22:12, 15 March 2006 Gabbe m (readd duplication reduction by me)

message: I feel the following proposed additions to the Freemasonry page have not been adequately discussed. I feel they would be an excellent and informative well referenced addition to the page.40 Days of Lent 12:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: These "proposed changes" have been discussed to DEATH...  (See archives ... multiple archives).  Posting this material again (I think this is the 4th time) is nothing but vandalism by a sock puppet of a POV agenda bashing user who has been banned from editing any article related to Freemasonry.  Just ignore until he is blocked and then we can delete the vandalism. Blueboar 15:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll second that suggestion Blueboar. WegianWarrior 15:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Concur, maybe if we ignore him he'll go away.  Admittedly that's never worked on af :) ALR 18:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I don't think he will just go away.  My point was to leave this here as evidence of his MO. I have already asked for a user check... hopefully it will show his sockness.  Of course, he will be right back again under a new sock ... and he will probably just revert the page and bring this all back (or post it again under a new sock name).  But each time he does, it will be more and more clear to the admins that he is interested in nothing but vandalism hidden in "content dispute" trappings. Blueboar 19:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Additions to Freemasonry Page

message: The name of the Mormon church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints", not "The Church of Latter-Day Saints".  Also, how about citing a source where it says that the first five presidents of the church were masons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.127.124.141 (talk • contribs) 
:Corrected as to the name of the Church... added fact tag for presidents.  (Note to editors: Do we need do citations on the Cultural references? If so... do we cite all of them or just those which in our opinion might be potential controversial? Or do we cite if requested (as here), but otherwise not.) Blueboar 20:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it was the first five presidents of the Church, but rather Joseph Smith, his brother, and a few of the other original founders of the Church.  If they were all presidents, then there's no problem, but it's fairly easy to find info on Joseph Smith, Jr., Hyrum Smith's, and Brigham Young's Masonic membership, and the others I'm sure I've got a citation for in a recent Philalethes, but I keep forgetting to get the thing. MSJapan 23:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mormons 

message: The defence that "I was only following orders" was thrown out at the War Crimes Trials after WWII. So get your facts right please (again). Freemasons were MURDERED. And no I'm not going to look up the trial transcripts for you either. Imacomp 00:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to do some research on Nuremberg, the people they tried were not the low level soldiers that were running the death camps, if anything they were the people who were giving the execution orders, the "I was only following orders" defense was thrown out when it was used by high ranking officials that were actually directly following hitler's orders and were designing and coming up with the plans for the genocide.  Nobody that was tried at Nuremberg and convicted was actually the person flipping the "On" switch.  I suggest you look up what Murder and Execution mean and then also look up the difference between Mass murder and Genocide.  "Executing a person in accordance with a legally imposed sentence of death" is not murder, it is carrying out an execution.  Calling it murder trivializes what happened, it makes it seem like some bad guy just went around shooting people.  They were executed by an oppresive and corrupt goverment.  If you want to argue this go do it on the Holocaust page, i'm merely following their lead, they do not refer to the genocidal killings as murder. Seraphim 00:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm just stating facts.  They were ordered executions.  An ordered execution is not by anyone's defination a murder.  This is why the commandment actually states "Thou shall not Murder" instead of the mistranslation "Thou shall not Kill". If it was simply "Thou shall not Kill" every person in the crusades would have been damming themselves to hell.  There is a difference between someone going crazy and just shooting people which is a mass murder, and a corrupt dictator ordering mass executions of people.  Saying they were "murdered" doesn't present the correct context, they were Executed. Edit: I just realized you changed the text on the holocaust page to follow your ideals. I have a proposal, go to that page and everywhere you see "executed" or "killed" change it to "murdered" see how long it lasts. Seraphim 01:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I am NOT just following orders. Imacomp 01:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Seraphim 01:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Exactly. Imacomp 01:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think with this one I'm tending towards Seraphims perspective, although tbh I don't feel that the section adds any value to the article whatsoever in its current form.  It's worth drawing a distinction between attempted genocide based on ideas of racial or religious philosophy and the purely political threat that Masonry, and other fraternal organisations, presented to the National Socialist government.  Masons were political prisoners because they were constituted a sizable body of individuals who were a potential threat to the dominance of the nazi party.  Perosnally Ii'd get rid of the section it is too lengthy and uses overly emotive language to strengthen its purported value.ALR 07:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a related note, I think some of the political subsections should be combined; otherwise there seems to be equal importance ascribed to every one of them, and that's not entirely accurate. MSJapan 17:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Imacomp was 24hr 3rr blocked for re-inserting a paragraph about hitler to Catholicism and Freemasonry. He won't be back for about 12 hrs. Seraphim 21:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't mean it won't get reverted as soon as he gets back though.  :(  ALR 21:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: de:Benutzer:Webmaster@sgovd.org ("liberal" freemason) - Germany 84.61.5.97 03:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Danke. MSJapan 04:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's worth drawing a distinction between attempted genocide based on ideas of racial or religious philosophy and the purely political threat that Masonry, and other fraternal organisations, presented to the National Socialist government.  Masons were political prisoners because they were constituted a sizable body of individuals who were a potential threat to the dominance of the nazi party.
I disagree strongly with the above, namely on the grounds that Freemasonry has always and will always been seen as a 'flavour' of religion.  In Islamic countries Freemasons are persecuted because they are seen as Judaeo-Christian based, which it is.  However in WWII Germany the difference between a Freemason and a Jew was irrelivant, they were both seen with the same lenses, this can be corroborated by any German Freemason over the age of seventy/eighty who lived through the period.
Also, it could be argued that if Freemasons were political prisoners due to the political threat, likewise were the Jews as the predominant reasoning for the 'final solution' was due to crippling financial constraints that were put on Germany by the banks at the time (which, interestingly, were run by Jews and Freemasons alike, funny that).  That being said, I think the lines are reasonably blurred enough that if we apply execution we do so across the board.
I personally believe that any killing carried out in war in a legal manner per the authorising officer (whether this is debated, judged, tried and found wanting AFTER the fact by a biased body (ie: winners write history)) is irrelivant to the fact that in each sides eyes their actions are justified.  If actions aren't justified a human being will not carry them out, regardless of the amount of brainwashing (CIA/Cuba scenario gives us evidence of this, another example would be Pol Pot's executions of own soldiers for not carrying out irrational kill-orders).
Thus, in summary, I believe that execution is an apt word as murder brings forth some personal aspect as well as implies that every trigger man on the Axis side in WWII who executed a Jew or a Freemason was of mental wanting to the degree that they would fit the profile of a murderer and not merely a soldier carrying out orders.  Or at least that is a flipside that is worthy of representation that has been overlooked in Seraphim's argument. Jachin 02:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: So you agree with my conclusion that the wording should be executed rather than murdered, but you take issue with two lines of my argument to reach that conclusion?  Fine.  Although it's not only my position if you review the discussion again.  Just as a point of interest, why pick me out specifically?ALR 06:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They were MURDERED (STOP). Live with it, or start an edit war.  Imacomp 16:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Ardenn 16:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not censored. Ardenn 18:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Holocaust

message: User: Fossick is reinserting the material in the article as previously tried by User: Lightbringer and User: Basil Rathbone.  I'll wait until he finishes before I respond to it, the content has been previously discussed, at length, in a number of archives and demonstrated to be inapproriate for an article on contemporary Freemasonry.ALR 07:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the liberty to report this suspected sock to the Admins - if anyone has any more evidence, feel free to add it. WegianWarrior 07:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Also asked for a checkuser on him, just to make sure we are in fact dealing with whom I suspect. WegianWarrior 07:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was quick - he's blocked indefinitly, according to the summary for blanking section on self at WP:AN. WegianWarrior 08:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here we go again 

message: I have recently come across a wikipedia article on Lewis Masonic publishing co. (I suspect it is a vanity Article placed by someone at the firm... but that is besides the point)  In the intro, The article states: "Lewis Masonic, founded in 1886, the largest and longest standing masonic publisher in the world. Lewis Masonic is a brand known to every English Freemason as Lewis produces the ritual books used by all UGLE lodges and chapters." I know there are several rituals used in England... are they ALL published by Lewis Masonic?  Blueboar 16:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would doubt that, but look and see what's on Amazon UK.  There's 47 or so rituals in use, though, and they're not all on Amazon.  Maybe ALR could save us a lot of trouble and call them up and ask if they publish everything?  Nevertheless, as it stands, the article is really a vanity article about Faulks (who posted the thing in the first place).  It comes down to "Lewis is a little company that Martin Faulks resurrected because of his advertising ability".  The second paragraph is also questionable, as the lewis definition as stated applies only to UGLE and its furnishings.  At least in the US, we consider a lewis to be a second generation Mason, and I've never seen a real one.  I'm probably going to AfD or pare down that article at some point, depending on how factual any of it really is. MSJapan 16:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can drop Martin an email, I got a catalogue through the post a little while ago and will check that if I can find it.  I don't imagine that they'll produce all of them, some won't be viable and I know of some rituals which are just typed sheets.  And from a discussion at GL yesterday apparently they won't be publishing the new version of the Complete Royal Arch ritual, following SGCs changes, as sales aren't high enough to warrant it.  FWIW it does read as a vanity article and I'm not sure they're notable enough in their own right.ALR 16:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Lewis is known as German Lufton or Louton, French Louveteau or Louvetou. There's also a song, written by Goston, included in the Constitution of 1738: May a Lewis be born. 84.61.5.97 21:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought.  Is there any reference ragrding it as furnishing as stated in the article?  Also, since there is an article, we should move the discussion over there, I think. MSJapan 06:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact check 

message: I heard at the 30th degree Freemasons pledge aliegence to lucifer. I won't believe it until I have proof since the source i got this from... is unreiliable. (He exagereates every thing) anywas tell me.
MegaloManiac 18:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct to question this... The truth is that Freemasons do not pledge aliegence to lucifer in any of thier degrees. If you need the facts, look at this page: Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry?. Blueboar 18:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Quite interesting is also the Taxil hoax to that reproach. 84.61.7.55 00:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: :::::I think we could safely assume that it proved that His Brittanic Majesty's Government required for 300 years Freemasons to register with the government under The Secret Societies Act. Of course if you feel it proves something different please feel to add to this discussion thread.Fyodor Dos 08:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Secret society" 

message: I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's anti-Masonic historically, as there was a lot of overlap between Masons and 18th century supposed Rosicrucians, though I think the Societas Rosicrucianis links ot Freemasonry go a long way to support certain types of Rosicrucianism to be compatible with Masonry.  That being said, exactly what Rosicrucianism consists of is not very clear, even from the Rosicrucian article.  So we many need to table this as "under construction" until we get more info. MSJapan 06:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I note you made this comment after you and User:Blueboar deleted it four times. Not withstanding others Editors to continually misspell word so as to disable the Wiki link. Are you planning on providing some references for your assertion, or will you will you take the same approach you are taking for the occult-esoteric, and secret society edits?Fyodor Dos 06:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If you mean, post material right on the talk page so you can ignore it and claim nothing was sourced, yes. I posted the dictionary entries from the online American Heritage Dictionary for occult and esoteric that show they are completely different words from two differnt languages, and you decided it wasn't proof, notwithstanding the fact that the original claim was also not sourced (and therefore wasn't a fact).  You can't accept certain unsourced things as true and other sourced or unsourced claims as false as it suits you.  You've already admitted that you believe certain things about Freemasonry, and clearly you will not listen to anything that does not support your preconceived ideas.  Also, the reason it was continually misspelled is because that was in the edit, period, and to sneak in the "Freemasonry is occult" line under cover of a spelling fix (which the diffs show clearly, BTW) is considered vandalism, no matter what you claim in the edit summary. MSJapan 06:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The dictionary entry? It said esoteric and and occult had the same meaning. You mean that reference? It must be some other reference you are referring to, in between you making four complaints against me, on every Wikipedia Admin topic page that there is! Yes, you are really trying to engage in a discussion here, that is clear! Oh and I am glad you acknowledge the intentional misspelling of Rosicrucian by Masonic editors who are trying to make the link non functional. I have provided 7 references and you have yet to provide a single one. You are just posting filler of unrelated subjects to try and make it seem as if you are providing references! Your complaints about me are false personal attacks, you are causing the problems, not I! Fyodor Dos 07:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Your check user request against me three days ago was denied, you remember that don't you? You know the one where you falsely accused me of being a sock and making accusations and statements of satanism. This is an encyclopedia not a games room.Fyodor Dos 07:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then where are the sources? MSJapan 07:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm a member of SocRos (5th Grade) and can say that it is, as practiced under SocRos in Anglia/ Scotia and California, is entirely compatible with FM.ALR 13:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Compatable, perhaps... but not the same. Blueboar 13:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Entirely agree with that, they aren't the same.  There is a lot of use of symbolism but the members are ancouraged to do their own investigative work, the papers we deliver are up to us with the only constraint being that they do not discuss Politics or Freemasonry.ALR 14:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: One thing to keep in mind is that while individual Masons in the late 17th and early 18th century may have dabbled in Rosicrucian philosophy (Isacc Newton and Elias Ashmole come to mind), it does not mean that the craft as a whole was influenced by it.  Freemasony is no more Rosicrucian than the Royal Society to which these same individuals were members.  And I doubt anyone would call the Royal Society a Rosicrucian inspired cult.Blueboar 13:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What were the goals of the Rosicrucians? The Rosicrucianism page is quite well put together, especially the section detailing Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry, don't you think?Fyodor Dos 08:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is now. webmaster@sgovd.org, 84.61.16.215 19:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rosicrucianism 

message: I've protected the article again, to give yet more time for talking...
BTW, the article is 69k long - how about shortening it a bit?
William M. Connolley 11:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's precisely the problem.  We can't rewrite or summarize because the article keeps getting vandalized and reverted, and those edits are lost. MSJapan 16:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The paragraph History of Freemasonry contains more details than the article History of Freemasonry. --webmaster@sgovd.org, 84.61.7.55 16:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True... I have been trying to draft a major rewrite of that article for months... but keep getting sidetracked by POV agenda pushing here and at a few of the related pages.  Feel free to work on it.  Blueboar 22:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many extremely dry lengthy sections on the page that should be only one or two pararaph summaries underneath a link to the main page covering that topic. Unfortunately a number of editors, who state on there user pages they are members of the Masonic organization, appear to keep reverting attempts to effect that very necessary editing. Then there would be ample space for new sections, such as Rosicrucianism, occult, esoteric, secret societies, etc..Fyodor Dos 08:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find it interesting that despite the opportunity to collaborate in a Rosecrucian section for inclusion in the article you have as yet not provided anything to the extract.  It would be a useful articulation of your concerns should you do so, however equally the lack of any effort to do so does rather undermine your protestations.ALR 09:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of the main problems on this page - duplications of pre-existing sections or pages covering the same subtopic. There is a very good page already on Rosicrucianism with a section on how it is related to Freemasonry. We don't need "our" section on this simply a brief summary of material related to Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry from that page under a link to 'main page rosicrucianism'. We should go through the entire Freemasonry page and do this. I don't wish to "collaborate" on any Rosicrucian section, I just want a paragraph summary pulled from that page under the link. There are other editors working on Rosicrucianism not involved on this page.Fyodor Dos 13:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That really is my point, merely cutting and pasting a section from one article to another merely duplicates information, and disputed information at that.  Should there be a requirement for a discussion of Rosicrucuanism and Craft Freemasonry, and you have yet to provide a convincing argument that there is, then it should be a summary not a duplicate.ALR 13:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected (again) 

message: There's a link missing to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion since the claims against freemasonry of the nazis were mainly based on that propaganda-fake against jews and Freemasonry. webmaster@sgovd.org, 84.61.7.55 16:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is an example of a section that should have only a brief summary under the link to the Anti-Freemasonry page where more info is available.Fyodor Dos 08:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case studies in politics and crime 

message: As a general note. I find it funny how I become a target for character assassination by trolls et al. when there's a problem/edit war, but let the page get protected, and the selfsame individuals all of a sudden disappear into the woodwork and won't even mention, much less discuss, the material they so badly want in the article when they have the ability to edit unchecked.  
Now's your opportunity, Fyodor - post, explain, and source what you want in the article here on the talk page so it can be discussed.  You're right, this is an encyclopedia, not a games room.  Therefore, I'm going to treat you like an adult and let you know exactly how it's going to be before we get started: if you cannot or do not source your edits in accordance with Wikipedia policies here and now on the talk page, and you try to force them in later, it will be a clear and objectively provable case of bad-faith editing, which will be pointed out as such in any future 3RR or vandalism complaints against you, should they become necessary.   MSJapan 02:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was asked by User:ALR to provide citations for my edits and I did - seven to be exact. You and your Masonic chums deleted them all four times yesterday, four times the day before, and four times the day before that. Now what was it you wanted again?Fyodor Dos 05:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which doesn't actually answer the question and merely demonstrates the type of behaviour MSJ alludes to.  Notwithstanding that why don't you report them here so that they can be subjected to critical analysis.  fwiw when I did see them I didn't think they actually substantiated your assertiions, but we can open that for debate in a civilised manner.ALR 07:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh huh. There are a dozen copies of the references available by clicking on my user name on the article history page. He won't have much trouble finding them, since he deleted most of them. Of course most of his time these days is spent filing malicious complaints against me on every conceivable Wiki Admin dispute/complaint page. He owes me a big apology for his behaviour.Fyodor Dos 08:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Equally it would be a demonstration of good faith to expose your evidence for debate here, in the interests of clarity and positive development of the article it would be useful to cite each of them to allow a discussion on their utility and legitimacy within the article.ALR 09:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note User:MSJapan filed 5 complaints against me on Wiki Admin Noticeboard pages demanding I be permanently banned. Wiki Admins appear to have ignored and/or denied all his complaints. Since this user has caused so much disruption on this page and across wikipedia in the last few days, a number of his complaints consisting of very uncivil comments and false accusations (such as 'meatpuppet' and accusing me statements related to 'satanism', as well as similar uncivil comments on this page, I think it would only be appropriate for him to make a apology for his conduct. Frankly I don't see him as a being very interested in any of my edits or references. He knows what they are, Merriam Webster, Catholic Encyclopdia, etc., they are perfectly good references, the best really.Fyodor Dos 09:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: He's been blocked, Wegian Waarrior demonstrated a high likelihood of it being LB.ALR 14:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What a surprise! :) Well, we can save this until he returns. Blueboar 14:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to solve the current edit war 

message: I took the liberty to move the discussions that hasn't been commented on the last two weeks to /Archive 15. It brought the size down from 249 kB to 167 kB. WegianWarrior 12:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive 15

message: I have merged the material from the main Freemasonry Article (subsection History) to the History of Freemasonry in an attempt to more fully develop the History of Freemasonry article and to allow the Freemasonry editors to shorten the history section on the main page. Hopefully, this will be a good step to summerize the history and bring down the size of the main article.  I've also spent some time restructuring the History article so it's more cronological.  There are alot of headings that have no materal, just to support the structure, so please feel free to add to as you wish :)  Chtirrell 04:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged Material to the History of Freemasonry article from the main Freemasonry Article

message: Just found this link to an article on the BBC website [] old one that someone had sent to me at the time.ALR 10:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feminine Freemasonry again 

message: This discussion deserves it's own cup of tea. --Avillia 19:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, you're not wrong :) ALR 20:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't we all just get along? 

message: I observe that the list of affiliated organizations includes the Ancient Arabic Order, Nobles of the Mystic Shrine (requiring high-level Masonic affiliation), but does not include the Mystic Order of the Veiled Prophets of the Enchanted Realm (usually called the Grotto, from the name of its local unit, and requiring only that its members be Master Masons).  I think that might be added; also three orders for girls, the Girls of the Golden Court, the Triangles, and the Order of the Constellation of the Junior Stars.
I think it would also be useful to list the officers of a lodge, and tell how they are chosen and what their respective duties are, as the system is widely replicated, not only by the many Masonic and affiliated organizations but also by many other organizations with no connection to Freemasonry. J S Ayer 21:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Masonic Appendant Bodies and feel free to add the junior organisations in the appropriate place, I haven't added that internal link because the main article has been locked for a while.  The Grotto is listed there, as is the Tall Cedars.  The Officers are listed at Masonic Lodge.  The appendant bodies article mentions non-masonic bodies which model themselves on the craft, but not in any depth so it would be useful to add a little to that section.ALR 21:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Belay my last, I just realised that you have already edited the appendant bodies article.  I should have said that once the page is unprotected again I'm intending on working the section on appendant bodies to summarise the other page.  Shriners, and some of the others, will probably come out as a result of that edit.ALR 21:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible additions 

message: An issue has come up on a related page (talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry) regarding the need to add quotations to all the footnotes and citations. I want to take this to a different level, divorced from any specific citation or footnote or even any specific page. We need to create a consensus policy for the various Freemasonry related articles regarding citations and footnotes.  JASpencer seems to feel that every citation and footnote should contain a quotation.  I disagree.  I feel it is enough to cite a link to where the statement that we make in this article can be found (or where clear support for the statement can be found if we are not actually quoting something). I find all the quotations in the footnotes to be clunky, overly burdensome, and potentially misleading (the potential is there for someone to take a snippet from what is said in a source, quote the snippet here (out of context) to support a statement, when in fact the original in the source does not support what is being said here at all).  So, I want to toss this debate out to all the editors.  Do you think we need all these quotations in the citations?... please explain your view so we can come to some consensus.  Please respond on this at talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry so we can consolidate our replies in one location.  Blueboar 15:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. A footnote is to direct a reader to a source, not to give them the source text. I don't think that any citation needs a quotation. If it needs to be said, then say it in the main part. Imacomp 18:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat: Please respond on this at talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry so we can consolidate our replies in one location. thanks.  Blueboar 20:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  I have. :) (And I'm not just following orders) :) Imacomp 20:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Imacomp.  I suppose what I meant to say was "Please DON'T respond here... respond at talk:Catholicism&Freemasonry instead.  But as they say down under... No worries.  Blueboar 21:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations and Footnotes 

message: Article is now unprotected. I will keep an eye for revert wars, and if these resume, the article will be protected again. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 02:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: I noiced that while regularity is explained, the "consequences" of irregularity were ignored, so I added that.  I also fixed the misspelled "jurisdiction" (which seems to be a recurrent issue).  There was some circular logic around the Landmarks, and while they aren't fixed per se, there are a few standards.  This needs to be noted because GOdF was deemed irregular for violating the VSL landmark (which also needs to be mentioned and cited, BTW), which wouldn't make any sense of the Landmarks weren't fixed.  Also, if somebody feels like looking over the UGLE constitution, can   somebody post a list of the Landmarks so we can incorporate them into the article? MSJapan 04:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While there are a few basic landmarks (such as having a VSL, Belief in God, and No women) that the majority of Grand Lodges hold as Landmarks... the problem is that the Landmarks are not  really fixed, and the decisions on recognition and irregularity often do not make sense ... They often involve insider politics between competing Grand Lodges rather than real Landmark issues.  That said, we should point out that, while each GL can determine what are and are not Landmarks, and that each can determine who to recognize and who to deem irregular, most GLs follow the lead of UGLE decision on these matters and a GL that bucks the trend will find itself shunned by all the others. Blueboar 16:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited Organizational Structure 

message: There are all kinds of things wrong with this section. 1)  First of all, the Grand Lodge formed in 1717 did not call itself or consider itself to be "The Grand Lodge of England." It was simply, the "Grand Lodge." 
2)  It expanded from one degree to two degrees before 1725, and the MM Degree appeared as a third degree about 1725. 
The current article states that "The Antients broke away in 1753, prompted by changes to the Ritual and a wish to have a fourth Holy Royal Arch (HRA) degree within Craft Masonry."  This is simply not true. 
4)  First of all, the "Ancients" ("Antient", spelled with a "t" is simply a variant spelling. Ivor Grantham, in his report appearing in A.Q.C. Vo. LXIV, pp. 76-78 (1953), stated that throughout the 62 years of the life of the Ancients Grand Lodge, its minutes and records use the term "Ancient" exclusively, with the exception of four individual instances in 1764, 1765, 1766, and 1792. The name appeared consistently throughout all editions of Dermott's "Ahiman Rezon" up to the Union of 1813; and the name of the body just prior to the Union was "Most Ancient and Honorable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons, according to the Old Institutions." I don't know why some insist on using the incorrect spelling, "Antient", when even the "Ancients" themselves used the correct spelling far more often than not.
5)  The "Ancients" did not "break away" from anyone. Their Grand Lodge was formed on 17 July 1751, and NOT in 1753 as the article states. And it was formed by five lodges that had never been on the roll of the Moderns Grand Lodge. The unsupported assumption that there had been a split or a "schism" within the Moderns Grand lodge was proven to be wrong by Henry Sadler, Librarian of the U.G.L.E., and his findings were published in the book "Masonic Facts and Fictions," published in 1887. (That's almost 120 years ago, for those who need to catch up on their Masonic reading.) PGNormand 06:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The First Great Schism - 1753 (was not a "schism" -- and it happened in 1751) 

message: I would like to congratulate all the editors for their work on this article, since the last un-protection. I have been very happy to watch some interesting and informative additions and corrections, achieving a very high standard. Well done for getting back on track. :)  Imacomp 23:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pats on the backs all round

message: I’ve noticed an out-o-da-blue comment for "position 2" logged by  Jacobcolbert   at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Freemasonry. Just thought I'd report this one-off interest, out of interest. Imacomp 21:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From the Blue 

message: Large article...the whole History section probably should be moved into a subarticle "History of Freemasonry" and a summary put there in its place (IMO).  Kaisershatner 19:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There already is such an article, and once it's finished, we'll swap in a new summary. MSJapan 16:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article length

message: Just in relation to your reversions of my edits, from edit to previous edit.  If you took a moment to examine the history, you will note that my removal of the 'secrets' section was due to a lack of reference for the speculative statement made.
Furthermore, my removal of non-regular features of requirements of becoming a Freemason, contrary to your quip that 'this article is not just about regular Freemasonry' was due to the fact the heading, three lines above where my edit begins, stipulates: -
:Generally to be a regular Freemason, one must
Rather than reverting, I will leave this discussion open for your response first.  If you can provide a citation for the obiter dictum stated as pseudo-fact, I will gladly leave it in.  Likewise, if you can explain how the article not being about regular Freemasonry yet the section's sub title stipulating regular Freemasonry should impact on the 'creative principal' aspect?
Jachin 10:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for not reverting right off the bat.  We have been having problems with POV vandals recently, and so we prefer to discuss changes before they are made.  I do see your point on the regularity issue.  I had forgotten that the header specificly mentioned "regular".  I withdraw my objections to that change (although perhaps we need to change the header instead of the text?)  As for the lack of references for the statement in the "secrets" section... Please place a  tag on any statements you feel need citations and we will look for them.  Blueboar 14:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Citation for the "secrets" being known since the 1700s (from UGLE website) added. [User?] (added by me a few days ago... sorry.  Blueboar 17:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're preaching to the choir, Blueboar.  The introduction still reads rather unprofessionally, in all honesty I think a revert to six months from today may be in order for that section.  The featured status was destroyed by the anti-masonic zealots insistant on trying to bring NWO / Illuminati conspiracy theory drivel into the main article, so perhaps we should examine closely the old featured status compared to now and note the differences; and there are many! 211.30.80.121 04:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notwithstanding the legitimate point that the introduction needs work, and probably some of it broken out into a supporting section, I'd hesitate to recommend the formerly featured article as a baseline.  When FA was awarded the standards were pretty loose, and whilst the article was reasonably written it had huge gaps in its' coverage of the topic.  I would take the view that the article has suffered from obsessive nit-picking from certain 'editors' and as a result it has become unwieldy and overly defensive in it's nature.ALR 10:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it's quite the contrary, it's become too liberal to the point where there are unsubstantiated lines of drivel as well as random tangents by anti-masons attempting to corroborate their other conspiracy theories and tie them in neatly (well, in their undereducated eyes perhaps) with their other rants.  I'm waiting for the aliens, nwo and kennedy assasination things to sprout up next.  I can honestly say in the time I have served Wiki and specifically this category, I have seen it flatline from a well written and well edited document to something written (well, messed up / edited / tweaked) by a pack of crack smoking monkeys due to too many editors with their own agendas.  It's a shame really, t'was a nice article. Jachin 15:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll play this game.  I've just gone back 6 months, actually a little longer to a version last amended by MSJ although it was in the middle of a lot of Lightbringer edits, [].  I'll accept that the intro is better, mainly because that was prior to a level of obsession with regard to secrets which have led to the current clunky prose.  As I said above much of that potentially needs broken out into a discrete section.  As to the rest of the article, it's full of contestable claims with little defensible jsutification of what it says, I'd hesitate to support moving back to that stage.  As to the point of being liberal, well perhaps, although it would be more useful to actually address where you think there are issues with that, so that they can be examined and dealt with.  Although from that page might I refer you to The position of women within Freemasonry is complex. Traditionally, only men could be made Freemasons. While this has been slowly changing, especially over the past century, there were exceptions to the rule as early as the 18th century. which is deceptive to the point of being a complete mis-representation of the actual situation.  The fact that women cannot become regular freemasons has been discussed at length, that statement might reasonably be interpreted to indicate that they can, or could be some time in the near future.  I'm not convinced that's an improvement of the current version.  There are sections which probably need removed, but they are subject to rather passionate defence.  The history section does need slimmed down and moved out to the appropriate page, and some of the other sections would benefit from slimming down and moving content elsewhere.  Indeed the aliens, nwo, Kennedy stuff is already included at Anti-Masonry.  As to your last point, every editor has their own agenda; those of us who are members of the craft belong to different GLs with different strategic directions(we probably all belong to different sets of appendant bodies as well, which doesn't help), others adhere to organisations which have a declared issue with the craft, yet more have little actual knowledge or understanding but choose to involve themselves in the debate for their own purposes.  I'm not sure it's all that helpful to describe other editors as 'crack smoking monkeys'.  Anyway, I look forward to seeing some more contributions from you to improve the article.ALR 19:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User:Blueboar

message: I've done some housekeeping to the article. No large changes to content. Only moved some stuff about. Imacomp 15:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Housekeeping

message: I have deleted the following line from the "Christian religious opposition" section: "Freemasonry has at times and in certain places been heavily Christianised, while in other times and places been thoroughly anti-clerical."  I know what this line is trying to say... but it has problems.  Being Christianized is not an opposite of being anti-clerical.  One can be Christian and anti-clerical, Christian and pro-clerical (if that is a word), Non-Christian and pro-clerical, Non-Christian and anti-clerical. In regards to Masonry (especially if you include irregular Masonry) both halves of the statement are historically true... but they made no sense linked together the way they were. Blueboar 13:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: I am a Mason who has converted to the Roman Catholic faith.
I made disclosure to my priest during my schooling for conversion and
he said there was no problem. I also know many fellow Catholics who
are Freemasons and no one from the church hassles them.
72.48.120.65 02:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Catholic Mason