Talk:William Morgan (anti-Mason)

message: This article is neither neutral nor factually accurate. Imacomp 16:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fact or fiction, considering the story's role in the American Anti-Masonic movement, including the genesis of the United States' first national third party, "Morgan's little myth" most certainly is notable. 69.214.75.208 17:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed neutrality and factual accuracy 

message: There are a number of inconsistencies in Finney's work which render it in violation of WP:RS.  For example, it includes the confession of one Henry Valance, who was not a Mason, and was never implicated in the original incident, according to the GL of Vermont page.  There were many confessions which were shown to be false, and this is likely one of them.  Second of all, Finney says Morgan was an "estimable man", when other sources (as cited also by GL VT) say he was very much "dissolute and shiftless".  So, I believe that Finney's work, while notable, fails WP:RS, as the facts of the matter were then and are now still very unclear. MSJapan 18:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand WP:RS. Specifically, if a source is NOTABLE, it should be mentioned. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notable how?  Had you heard of it before?  Because I certainly haven't, and I don't know of anyone else who has, actually.  So, it still fails WP:RS.  The relevant material:
Evaluating sources
Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly, or about their viewpoints.
Obviously yes, both by the original author and the reposter.
Were they actually there? Be careful to distinguish between descriptions of events by eyewitnesses and by commentators. The former are primary sources; the latter secondary. Both can be reliable.
No, Finney was not there, and Valance seems to have no connection; his presence at Niagara is not verifiable.  Finney is furthermore reprinting something he was not present for (which I forgot about myself, actually).
Find out what other people say about your sources.
No real mention of it anywhere save on one anti-Masonic site.
Have they reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know.
No.
Are the publications available for other editors to check? We provide sources for our readers, so they must be accessible in principle, although not necessarily online.
Yes.
Also "Partisan websites" further down the page is relevant - Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist political or religious websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source.
We're not talking about opinion here, and it's not used in primary source, nor is it even mentioned in the article to any great degree.
So, I must admit I am very hard-pressed to understand quite where the misunderstanding is mine.  WP:RS says nothing about notability of sources, and that's not the issue. MSJapan 21:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Apparently, you'd rather rv without perusing the discussion, Hipocrite.  Is the problem that it's "wikilawyering" unless you do it?  If you're going ot ignore the discussion, then, I've got an even better and simpler reason to remove Finney's work: it's already directly linked to within the article in the relevant section. MSJapan 03:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it's edit warring when someone reverts without comment - that would be this. I'll review your comment now that it's clear that you feel the item should be excluded from external links due to it's inclusion in the article main-body as opposed to your old, discarded argument that it failed WP:RS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Is it your statement that inclusion in the body of the text precludes something from being included as an external link in all cases? Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's not a discarded argument at all; it's still totally valid, but if you're going to ignore said argument and do whatever you want anyway, it's not going to do much good to continue to point out exactly where you're wrong, now is it? MSJapan 04:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So how is St Morgan's little myth getting on? I think a nice brass plate over one of the Masonic Hall's urinals would be a fitting tribute. It could become quite a shrine. Imacomp 07:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finney's work 

message: Morgan's little myth, here, needs the fact tags to be replaced by some cited facts. If the tags are just removed, or reverted, this will say alot about the crediblility of the subject.Imacomp 12:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some things do follow from common knowledge, such as Morgan's wife's name and that he lived in Batavia.  I've got a recent article on him from Philalethes Magazine that I just need to find, so I can add citations for the majority of the material sometime tomorrow.  some will probably come out as unverifiable (being a brewer, for example - if it's true, that may have had a lot to do with his membership denial, as working on the liquor industry used to prohibit one from joining a lodge). MSJapan 23:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well since all tags were removed I've put them all back. I know what you mean MSJapan, but I cannot find a general "Crap" tag - and just blanking would just get me blocked. Imacomp 00:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually I rv. to 23:47, 12 March 2006 MSJapan. Imacomp 00:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: and back to above again, as JJay is vandalising.Imacomp 00:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Both me and JJay @ 3RR now. Ill stop. Imacomp 00:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: A "discussed compromise"- where was this discussed? You tagged every line in the article including items that do not need citations such as the year of Morgan's disappearance. Your comments on this page, where you refer to the article as "crap", or "dusty, deluded ramblings", where you say how you would like to "blank" the contents show that your only interest is in disruption. If there is something specific in this article that you object to you should state it clearly on this page. If you are opposed to this article then nominate it for deletion. However, I would suggest you find a more constructive way to contribute here. -- JJay 00:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Discussed by MS Japan above, hence I rv'ed to his edit. "I would suggest you find a more constructive way to contribute here." Imacomp 01:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, Imacomp was right, to a degree - even the bio material had ot have come from different sources (this is the first I've heard about his kids or brewing, and I've read a fair bit of many different types of research on Morgan), so I think it is fair to tag every line that states an uncited fact that cannot be taken as read (for example, Morgan living in Batavia is a given from every source you could find, so it's irrefutable fact, but other things definitely differ from what would be considered common knowledge, like his kids, especially since his widow married Joseph Smith, and I've never heard kids mentioned wrt Lucinda).  If it turns out that multiple facts are from the same source, or if certain facts are from WP:RS violating sources, things can be changed accordingly. MSJapan 03:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I'm sure. I'm also sure that "anti-mason" and the rest of your name calling have no place here. Save your hysteria for the school yard. If you want to start challenging specific parts of the article please do. So far all I've seen is that you know how to add fact tags and revert. -- JJay 18:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Rv- sources not there - You have added nothing, so provide cited facts or find something else to do. Imacomp 20:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "What exactly is your problem?" Back at you. "There are also many more valid sources that I could add." Then add them at the fact tags. "You have added nothing, so provide cited facts or find something else to do." Each tag requires a cited ref. How else can this be said? "What exactly are you looking for here?". Imacomp 23:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Round we go to the start, as MS Japan wrote: There are a number of inconsistencies in Finney's work which render it in violation of WP:RS. So I'll remove the ref. Imacomp 23:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This is way out of line. You tag the article. Then fact tag every line. But then refuse valid references and remove them. I'm adding that reference again. If you take it out again this goes to arbitration. -- JJay 23:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Go ahead, and take MS Japan,  as well as me. But, if you edit here, so will I if "needed". Imacomp 23:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No you are looking for an edit war, and you started it. All my edits have been discussed, as have MS Japans.Imacomp 00:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no idea what you are talking about since I don't have a blog/bio. Not that reality seems to matter here. -- JJay 00:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Mis-posted talk User:Gabbe blog seen, but substantive remark stands. Imacomp 00:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: substantive remark stands: Right, which one would that be? The one about you looking after yourself on earth? When you get done with that, why don't you explain the removal of the reference I added to the article. You keep saying you have "discussed" it. I would like to know where, since the book is not mentioned here. -- JJay 01:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So Few Facts 

message: I think citations can be added no problem.  Most, if not all of the info comes from the two sources cited.  However, I believe that we must also link to the confessions page on bcy.ca here, because it offers a very good case for the confession Finney reprinted to have been a fanciful tale, and mentions that Whitney also told his story.  However, I do not think we need to cite line by line; One per paragraph would work just as well, given that the material is only from two sources.  I also think that we need to add some of the character material; it is relevant to the situation, because Morgan was not an upstanding citizen wronged by a group of people suddenly and for no reason - he was a man of ill repute who willfully antagonized the community over a relatively long period of time.  I think the addition of this information (also from the sources already used and therefore considered trustworthy) and the relevant citations will put an end to the dispute, because I can see from reading the sources that this article is definitely POV.  Warring about it, however, will not solve the problem. MSJapan 02:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source I added was neither Finney nor Whitney. There was no reason given for the repeated removal of that source. I also have many more sources to add. -- JJay 02:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you simply need to add sources with the material, not afterwards.  I've redone the first few paragraphs, added fact tags where applicable, and cited other parts where I could find it in the two articles already listed.  Feel free to put back whatever info I took out that you have citations for, but just be sure to cite it when you do it, otherwise I will not be able to support your edits. MSJapan 02:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You have no right to remove a valid source from an article. That's why we have bibliographies or a reference section. The book I added confirms the brewery information that was previously discussed here for example. -- JJay 11:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, there was no citation for any books save Finney in the reference listing.  so what exactly did I remove? I got the brewery information out of the GL Vermont piece, which was already cited.  So what's the problem again?  And where's the citation? MSJapan 15:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You can see the reference in the edit history. It was removed four times by another editor here that you seem to suppport. Given that no reason whatsoever has been given for removing that reference- which seems particularly strange considering that this was done by someone who claims to want references added to the article- I will be again adding that reference along with others this weekend. I see no compelling reason for why this article can not have a copious bibliography that might be of use to readers interested in further exploring the Morgan case. -- JJay 18:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not going to make any solid statements until I see the actual citation, but keep WP:RS and WP:POINTin mind, especially if it's "William Morgan, Christian Martyr" you have in mind as a "source".  MSJapan 23:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know what is up with you guys.  The source I added is in the edit history. Your friend removed it 4 times. I have no idea what you are talking about with this Christian Martyr remark either. There is also no need to provide links to wikipedia pages that I know extremely well. However, I am rather curious what WP:Point has to do with adding a source to this article. Maybe you can explain that -- JJay 00:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because if said source is questionable, and you keep readding it, you are trying to make a point.  Speaking of questionable sources, I see you have a Daily News article from Batavia in 1882, but you seem to be trying to cite it as the New York Times. MSJapan 15:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't play games or cite "questionable" sources. I hope that is clear. The footnote I just added refers to both the Times and Daily News articles, which covered the same event. There is nothing questionable about that since I read the Times article first. Personally, I would rather have multiple footnotes for each line in the text. -- JJay 16:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solving the problems.... 

message: In a series of vandalism to the disambiguation page at William Morgan, the following version (with no wikification) was posted. Maybe there's something the editors here would value. This version was contributed by User:216.160.128.231. I'd have proposed a merge if the disambig page didn't need to be restored.
;begin copy
The case of William Morgan (1774-1826?) is an interesting example of the often fierce socio-political struggle between Masonic and anti-Masonic groups during the nineteenth century in America.
Morgan was an ex-Mason living in Batavia, New York who wrote a short pamphlet in 1826 entitled Morgan's Freemasonry Exposed and Explained in which he endeavored to provide a "clear and correct view of the manner of conferring the different degrees, as practiced in all lodges throughout the globe; together with the means to be used by such as are not Masons to gain admission therein."
This pamphlet was seen by many Freemasons as a threat to the secret activities of their organization and was the start of a controversy lasting decades. Shortly after the publication of the pamphlet, Morgan's body was reportedly discovered in a local river; this added to the growing anti-Masonic sentiment when a group of Freemasons were accused of Morgan's abduction and murder. The case was never satisfactorily settled, but more than twenty years later, in 1848, Henry L. Valance gave a deathbed confession of his involvement in the alleged crime.
In 1882, thirty-four years after Valance's confession and fifty-six years after the original incident, anti-Masonic activists were still using the Morgan case for political gain. The National Christian Association, a well-known anti-Masonic group, honored Morgan by erecting a statue of him in Batavia and invited Thurlow Weed, a retired politician and newspaper-owner, to write an article about Morgan. Weed responded with The Facts Stated, which he described as an attempt to "...vindicate the violated laws of my country, and next, to arrest the great power and dangerous influences of 'secret societies.'"
Cover of Henry L. Valance: Confession of the Murder of William Morgan (1869), titlepage of William Morgan: Morgan's Freemasonry Exposed and Explained (1882), and cover of Thurlow Weed: The Facts Stated: Hon. Thurlow Weed on the Morgan Abduction (1882)
;end copy
--Scott Davis Talk 09:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds familiar, as in I think I've seen it online someplace before.  However, I don't think this is markedly different in content from what we have already, and we can't use it anyway due to lack of citation.  Funnily enough, this is really quite POV - it ignores Morgan as a person totally, as well as Miller (the publisher)'s motivations.  Thurlow Weed was also just a bit more than "a retired politician and newspaper owner", and somehow the entire Anti-Masonic Party disappeared.  This is what generally annoys me about Morgan - there was a lot more going on than Masonic detractors are willing to claim, because the people on Morgan's side  weren't necessarily upstanding and innocent individuals either. MSJapan 17:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Er...William Morgan was never a Mason, so "Morgan was an ex-Mason living in Batavia, New York" is already a bad start. Bricology (talk) 07:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another version 

message: *  illuminati_%28disambiguation%29 
*  Federal_Triangle 
*  Albert_Pike 
Thank You,
 hopiakuta  Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 04:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a [[ freemason]], Dave Hume?? [[ history International ]] [[ freemasons_%28disambiguation%29 ]] 

message: In the text of this article, Morgan's book is identified as Illustrations of Masonry, and a link is provided to the text of the book in question (although personally I would go with this copy as I feel the source is more neutral - minor nitpick.)
However, the External Links section contains a link to The Mysteries of Free Masonry, also identified as written by Morgan (by both Wiki and Gutenberg) - yet this is not explained in the article.
The two do not seem to be identical (specifically, Illustrations covers up to Master Mason, while Mysteries also covers a number of other degrees.) The title page of the latter book would seem to indicate Mysteries contains the text of Illustrations plus details of other rituals as recorded by a George R. Crafts.
Unfortunately this isn't an area I have much knowledge of, and a bit of searching the interwebs has thus far turned up empty. If anyone could help expand on this it would be much appreciated. ElijahOmega (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The external links section points to the Gutenberg publication of a modern revision of Morgan's work by George R. Crafts. For purpose of this article, I don't think the Crafts work is very relevant, because Morgan obviously had no involvement in Crafts' additions. As to which url to cite, that's also a little bit complicated by the fact that there are so many editions. The present link (and the one you suggest) are to one of the illustrated 1827 reprints, which is prettier, but I'm not sure whether or not Morgan had any direct involvement in the illustrations. Maybe he did, I just don't know. Google Books has an 1827 Rochester edition (evidently printed by Thurlow Weed), but that edition does not have the illustrations. I'm not aware of any online scan of the original 1826 Batavia edition, and I assume the 1826 edition does not have the illustrations. COGDEN 23:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morgan's Book