Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 25

message: The lore that freemasons began only in the 1600s or 1700s is bull.
Earlier lodges back to Egypt (and across Mid East and ancient Greece and Rome & earlier, etc) are spelled out in detail in 33rd degree mason Ledbetter's book-about masonic rites down thru 1000s of years; esp as today's masons no longer remember at all what masonic rites are or DO.
(one easy example is what the "G" is in the middle of compas and rule
-where is it? what does it mean?
-answer-advanced step in the many steps to deification.)
/s/willy-34th degree mason-.i.e.the Kang —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.192.7.106 (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean C.W. Leadbeater, and that's his speculative interpretation.  As an occultist, he has particular views on Masonry, and his main view (shared with many of his era) is that despite a total lack of proof, Masonry dates back a lot longer than everyone else thinks.  If he and his group were right, why has no one Masonic scholar furthered this in 80 years? MSJapan 01:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Lodges

message: Talk page is getting long again. Would someone archive... (I forget how).
Blueboar 14:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider it done - basicly, it's a cut 'n paste job =) WegianWarrior 14:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks... It's setting up the archive page in the first place that I need to refresh my memory on.  Just too lazy to do it today. :>)  Blueboar 14:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  long talk page 

message: With just a quick glance over the article, I believe it could be a GA. Consider looking over the GA criteria, and make any appropriate changes before nominating. Good luck and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 01:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be a size issue; the GA guidelines suggest for articles longer than 25 KB, to use the FAC guidelines instead.  Maybe we should submit this to peer review for FAC purposes. MSJapan 01:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also just took a look at the peer review from almost a year ago, and we've done what was mentioned (which was very little).  I'll keep copyediting, and then we can submit this. MSJapan 01:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyedit done.  I knocked about 3 KB off the page, as well.  Are there any more pictures we should add? MSJapan 02:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't think of any offhand.  I'd say submit it as is.  Whilst I still feel that when I first came to the page it was at it's finest and most concise, I believe now it is more wikipediacratic and sanitised to the wiki standards.  :)  Jachin 03:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA possibility

message: Can we stick the Freemasons (band) disambig on the Freemasons page proper, rather than on Freemasonry?  It just looks messy and cheap.  Jachin 08:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to do that, but the disambig guidelines led me to believe that this was the way to do it.  I'll have to get a few more opinions. MSJapan 16:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Freemasons redirect.

message: There is a Poll being conducted as to whether Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verification should be merged into the new Wikipedia:Attribution policy.  I am not going to tell you how to vote... please look at the referenced policy pages, read the community discussion page and decide for yourselves.  However, I do urge you to cast a vote.  I think it is important. Blueboar 16:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For those of you who care about policy 

message: Masonic editors have been aware for well over a year that most of the information in this section is entirely false. The repeated citations of Freemasons for Dummies is against Wikipedia Guidelines as this comic book style screed contains no bibliography, references, or notes. The claim of 80,000 Freemasons dieing in the Second World War or that Freemasonry was a part of the Holocaust is pure masonic propaganda. The claims for the Blue Forget Me Not are a farce. German Freemasonry supported the Nazi's, that is the historical fact.Seisakusho 19:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not, and we've discussed this before.  You believe that Masonic congratulations to Hitler on his election in 1933 imply collusion later on, because you seem to think that everyone knew what was going to happen years later, which is ridiculous.  In any case, goodbye Lightbringer. MSJapan 19:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that the decision to not include references is an editorial choice by the editors of the "for Dummies" series.  However, they are known for choosing experts in their fields to author their books, and they stand behind what is put in them.  Feel free to disagree with what it says, but you can not remove it based on it being "unreliable".  FM for Dummies is most definitely a reliable source by Wikipedia rules.  Blueboar 19:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust Section 

message: I decided to go ahead an nominate the article for FA - I felt it more than met the criteria for GA, and Ga has a huge backlog and is for articles not good enough for FA.  The comment box is directly above the controversial issues box at the top of the talk page. MSJapan 04:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's now at the top of the page.  Please leave comments by clicking on "leave comments". MSJapan 04:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC nomination 

message: I should be grateful if editors from here would look at F.&A.M. and give a view as to whether it is worth a standalone article; I find it hard to see how it will ever be more than a stub. Also, if a merge, which is the best article, please? Bridgeplayer 03:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly not; it's a designation based on which GL granted the original charter before UGLE was formed.  At this point in time, it's a moot point.  Even states with an AF&AM GL might have some F&AM Lodges.  Someone should just redirect that and drop a sentence in someplace. MSJapan 03:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No, not at all. If anything, it should be, & yes it should be, addressed in an article. If it ever grew enough to split, split it then. I would have deleted it, but someone else already had & the creator restored it. Oh, & same with his other article, A.F.&A.M. Grye 04:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These should indeed be merged and redirected to this article.  They are essentially dicdefs. Blueboar 14:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI I have proposed a merge at the relevant pages.  If no one posts an objection within a few days, I would say we should go ahead and merge/redirect. Blueboar 16:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: IMO merging them into Masonic Lodge might be a better idea, this main article is huge already. Bryan Derksen 16:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[F.&A.M.]] and [[A.F.&A.M.]] articles 

message: With most of the links in the See also section being linked to in the article, and every one of them existing in the "Freemasonry" footer, why this section? Grye 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we can certainly toss the current list, then.  Is there anything we could add instead? MSJapan 21:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section redundant 

message: User: Mwalbert recently added a link to the Grand Lodge of Tennessee to the "External Links" section of the article on Freemasonry.  I have removed it, and thought I should give a more detailed reason why.  Long ago, those of us who work on this article reached a consensus that we should not link to individual Grand Lodges or individual lodges.  If you think about it, there are over a hundred Grand Lodges in the world... if we linked to each of them the "External Links" section would become very very large and unwieldy.  We have Masons from all over the world editing this article, and we all have pride in our respective Grand Lodges.  As much as we might like to provide a link to their websites, we have to draw the line somewhere.  We chose to draw it at the top.  Blueboar 16:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also links 

message: The 'Masonic Landmarks' link in this p links to 'landmarks' it needs to be changed to link to ' 'Masonic Landmarks' as seen farther into the article. 67.187.252.255 03:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  second paragraph 

message: I thought this page was semiprotected - meaning as you all know that it shouldn't be possible for IPs to edit. Yet still I notice this in the history. Anyone has any idea what's up? WegianWarrior 06:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that the page was tagged, but not actually protected... or wasn't when the edit was made. Some admins forget to post a notification or untag the article when protection is turned off. Blueboar 12:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it used to be semi protected and it expired on monday I believe.  I will remove the tag.  If vandalism gets bad again, let me know.
"18:54, 16 April 2007 Chrislk02 (Talk | contribs | block) protected Freemasonry (excessive recent vandalism [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 18:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected or not? 

message: Blueboar is right, the only quote from that link that says it is from a scholar is the following:
Coming to the question in point, the prominent Muslim scholar Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a Senior Lecturer and Islamic Scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, answers:
"As far as I know, Freemasonry is a secret organization whose beliefs and practices are totally kept confidential except from those who are initiated into it. They have levels of secrets which are not divulged to those who are at lower levels. A Muslim should never fall prey or give allegiance to something which cannot be scrutinized by the firm criteria of the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Whoever joins Freemasonry is like a person who writes a blank check; by doing so he agrees to give allegiance blindly to an authority to comply with their wishes no matter what they are.
No Muslim can surrender his will unconditionally to anyone but Allah. If anyone has done so, he is guilty of the most blatant violation namely shirk (associating partners with Allah). Allah says: “Do they have partners beside Allah who shall prescribe for them rituals that Allah has not sanctioned.” (Ash-Shura: 21)"
The rest (including the actual quoted claim, that Masons want to destroy Al-Aqsa Mosque and build a third temple) doesn't even have an author's name, let alone credentials as a scholar.  And even if there was, I'm not sure one view=scholars. Lexicon (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree w/ you and that's why i supported the Andrew Prescott reference. I also refered to quoting and using a  citation template which includes the author. Because of the position he is handling, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty should be more notable as a reference than the Islamonline one. But would that mean that we focus on Sheikh Ahmad Kutty instead of what the anonymous answerer say? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this should all be sourced out to an "Anti-Masonry in Islam and the Muslim world" article.  As it is, including specific facts instead of a general overview, it's leaving it open for addition of more and more, as FayssalF is adding.  I also think the Christian anti-Masonry section needs to be pared down quite a bit as well.  In fact, it would probably be good to cut out the subsections entirely and just have paragraphs for Catholicism, general (or Protestant) Christianity, and Islam.  The sub-articles can deal with the issues in closer detail. Lexicon (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but it is still too short to deserve a separate article for now i believe. Same is said about Christianity. I'll try to add more by today or tomorrow and see. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent addition of views of "Muslim scholars"

message: Right before I mentioned that we need more images (and we got on about the apron thing), I said this: "Maybe this article should be put through the good article process to help on its way back to featured article status", but received no response.  Any comments? Lexicon (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I'll just go ahead and do it myself.  "Philosophy and religion" an acceptable category to everyone?  It's either that or miscellaneous.  I think it fits in the philosophy part. Lexicon (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I FACed it, and got very little constructive response, so try GA first. MSJapan 19:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am hesitant about the cat... it's the "and religion" part that bothers me.  Will this just bring in the POV pushers?  Also... we should get input from the folks at the History Cat... since the history of the craft is a large segment of our article. Blueboar 19:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Crap, I already listed it (I guess you could change it if you think it should be elsewhere).  I understand that the "religion" part is bothersome, but, really, what can you do about it?  I don't think it's really a history article, even though it has quite a lot of history. Lexicon (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem... we have fended off POV pushers in the past and can do so again.  We have tried to deal with the issue of categorization before.  Really this article does not fall under any of the established categories.   Blueboar 01:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article 

message: It's interesting to note that Alexandar Crowley's Unicursal Hexagram depicted a five leafed 'rose' as he called it, clearly identical to the Masonic forget-me-not.  Given that he died a year before it's alleged inception, is it possible that the German lodges were showing some thelemic ties at that point in time?  Or just happenchance that the unicursive hexagram that already strikingly resembles the square and compasses (when bilaterally equal and not disproportioned to the compass like many of our images have it here) came to be adorned with a symbol which later turned into a symbol of Freemasonry?
I was reading through the thelemic and occult articles as I ever so often do to correct any what-came-first errors you quite often see, in fact, most occult orders based purely on FM ritual fail to even list FM even as a potential influence anywhere in their articles.  However whenever making additions or pointing things out I try to ensure that I have references and the dates match up, in this instance the obvious square and compass stylised with a forget me not in the center is most definitely a Crowley thing.  Talk about a shock.  :P  Jachin 04:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, any connections are purely coincidental. Blueboar 13:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unicursal Hexigram