Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 13

message: Can it be removed? Ardenn 23:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not yet, once Anti-Freemasonry is dealt with we will have to decide if it should be merged or not.  Seraphim 23:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not.  The Anti-Masonry Article is growing and becoming stronger.  As it does it becomes even more sure that stands on it's own, and should not be merged here. Blueboar 23:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now it's just being brought into line so it's an NPOV article on it's own.  Then we have to discuss if the content there needs to be brought over here. Seraphim 00:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not going to win that strictly based on article size.  They're both over length, so merging them will only make it twice as bad. MSJapan 01:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge tag

message: Basil, If you look above on this page, you will see a LOT of discussion about your reverts the last time you were here.  You were blocked for these repeated reverts the last time around.  Now, as soon as the block is lifted, you jump right back in and pick up where you left off - making the exact same changes you were blocked for previously.  This is a good way to get yourself banned permanently.  Please stop. Blueboar 13:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rathbone, again 

message: I do not feel that Freemasonry is a secret society, considering that it has large buildings with the square and compass on the front, its membership is public record, etc. it is hardly secret.  I have removed the link to that article.  I also do not think we should have the link to Mormonism and Freemasonry.  While Joseph Smith may have been influenced by, or borrowed from Freemasonry, there is no verifiable direct link between the two, dispite what that article may say. Blueboar 23:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm. Yeah, Smith was killed by pissed off Masons. Most of the signs and signals used in modern LDS (Mormon) temples are direct copies of Masonic exchanges. Oh, and every dedicated adult mormon wears a square and compass on their body *every day* of their lives. His (Smith) last words were, by some accounts, "IS THERE NO HELP FOR THE WIDOW'S SON!" So... yeah. They're heavily related. I won't rv your edit, but I do hope you'll study the connections a tad more. Ronabop 04:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the only way to verify the first and second claims is to ask a Mormon, and I'm pretty sure they aren't telling as I've never had a Mormon comment to me regarding any parallels, and that includes Masons and non-Masons alike.  As for the other points, I just read a few articles on Smith, actually, and Smith was *not* killed by "pissed-off Masons", he was shot by a mob of regular angry people, and what his last words are are complete conjecture, though the claim can be verified.  I don't as yet see a verifiable fact in your statement other than the last, though, which isn't necessarily a fact.  It could simply be a misconception. MSJapan 06:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If they are connections, I'm sure you can provide handy references so the reast of us can learn the connections too (I'm not saying there arn't connections, I'm just saying I'm not aware of them). WegianWarrior 05:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: heh heh... wouldn't that be what an article titled Mormonism and Freemasonry should be about? Grye 10:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't want to bother you (as a former mormon) with WP:NOR, but I can tell you that the connections are plentiful. Some quick googling, with no filtering (as to context) so as to not bias research (some think the connections are more meaningful than others): .... or just start with . Ronabop 04:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  links 

message: * Here's several external links that give the official story of Freemasonry's use of the forget me not as a symbol.
The external link article SarekOfVulcan cited above is the private rant of an ant-Masonic individual. Skull 'n' Femurs 09:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who, in the article you are citing, is an anti Mason?  The compiler of the site?  This is highly unlikely, as Paul Bessel is an officer of the Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia, a GL in amity with UGLE.  The other writers?  Funny, looks like they are all Masons.--Vidkun 14:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then he should keep his private musings to himself, should he not? Or are you saying this is the official position of his Grand Lodge? Tell UGLE, not me. Skull 'n' Femurs 16:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alain Berheim is one of the most respected members of Quator Corranati, he was also a member of a German Grand Lodge in the early post war era, as well as being arrested by the Gestapo in Paris because he was a Jew. The Pietre Stones sites is quite prestigious within the Masonic 'E' community. You wanted 'more light' bud, you got it.Basil Rathbone 05:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forget Me Not is back, and its the ''correct'' story 

message: The History of Freemasonry article is puny.  Surely the history section is better in that article?  Could discussion on strengthening and structuring the History of Freemasonry article be conducted over there and the idea for keeping the history in this article over here? JASpencer 23:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI - I have been planning a major rewrite of the history article for some time now... but I keep getting side tracked to other Freemasonry related articles due to some of the recent POV additions etc.  I intend to expand what is there to include brief discussion of some of the other Origin theories, and to add the rest of history after 1717 (and not just England... also America, Canada, France, India, South America, etc. etc.).  Ambitious yes... but they do say be bold.  I hope to have a first draft posted in a month or so (still checking my citations and facts). Blueboar 00:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeup I agree with Ardenn Seraphim 01:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I have no objections to Ardenn's concept.  While this article definitely does need a history section to outline the basic history of the fraternity, it could be made shorter... perhaps some of the details could be shifted over to (or, alternatively, simply copied on) the history page. On the other hand... I will be incoporating all this into the material I am working on anyway. Blueboar 02:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed History Merger

message: I think the external link section could use cleaning up. Ardenn 04:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. I feel that this section should follow a general guideline of only 1 link per site. All of these sites have good internal navigation, and surely users who are interested in this topic at this level of detail are capable of doing their own reading and surfing. Previously many links critical of Freemasonry were deleted by known Masonic editors with the reason given 'not enough room for all links', while overlooking fact that there were many duplicate links to masonic websites, including 5 to a rather obscure masonic site in Germany. Surely a bit of balance in this often rv'd section would go a long ways to turning down the temperature on the Freemasonry related pages.Basil Rathbone 05:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: 1- Entered Apprentice: Cut my throat and tongue.
  
2- Fellow Craft: Cut open my chest, and put my heart and lungs on my left shoulder. 
 
3- Master Mason: Put my bowels out. 
Resource: Duncan's Ritual
The Three Degrees never did this, above! And I should know, as I'm a fan. Darth Dalek 20:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: improperly cited. repair or it will be deleted Grye 06:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He said it's from Duncan's Ritual, which is already listed as a reference elsewhere. Seraphim 07:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Signs of the three Degrees

message: 1- In the First Degree, Apprentice  
 
He swears, with his hand on the Bible, "I (name), in the presence of Almighty God, most solemnly promise and swear that I will always hail, ever conceal, and never reveal any of the arts, parts of points of the hidden mysteries of Freemasonry... binding myself under the penalty than that of having my throat cut across, my tongue torn out, and my body buried in the rough sands of the see..."  
2- The Second Degree, Fellow Craft  
 
He swears on the Bible, in the presence of Almighty God, "under the penalty than of having my breast open... and my heart and lungs thrown over my left shoulder... so help me God". 
 
3- The Third Degree, Master Mason 
 
He swears "under the penalty than that of having my body severed in two, my bowels taken from thence and burn to ashes... so help me God".  
 
Resource: Duncan's Ritual
:improperly cited. repair or it will be deleted Grye 06:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He said it's from Duncan's Ritual with is already used as a reference elsewhere. Seraphim 07:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:CITE.  What's there is improper form. MSJapan 14:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok so that means we have to fix it. Not delete it I guess i'll look it up. Seraphim 17:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The big reason is that it's inaccurate in modern terms - these are old, and they've really got no place in this particular article.  Since this is a general article, jurisdiction specific material is irrelevant.  On top of all that, it was cited incorrectly, which is really the most minor of the problems.MSJapan 17:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Your just wasting the non-masonic editors time. You have absolutely no interest in having any section titled 'Masonic Secrets'. Please give us a list of any material that is critical of Freemasonry you have ever contributed to this page, or any material that is critical of Freemasonry that you have not deleted from this page.Basil Rathbone 15:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oaths of the three Degrees

message: ::Please justify your repeated deletion of the following long standing external and wiki links from this page.Basil Rathbone 11:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored parts deleted by [[User:Grye|Grye]] and [[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]]

message: * Secret Society
:Please justify your reasons for repeatedly deleting this link.Basil Rathbone 11:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm only speaking for myself, off course, but I see Freemasonry not as a 'secret society', but as a 'society with secrets'. With a secret society one would not, almost by definition, be able to find out who are members, nor where and when they meet. While I cannot speak for all Grand Lodges (regular or irregular), at least in Norway and the rest of Scandinavia (and I'm assuming the same is correct in the rest of the western world), neither the list of members nor the place and time of the meetings are secret (the meetings are in fact often announced in the local papers in Norway). Logicaly, despite the accusations made by conspiracy theorists and anti-masons, Freemasonry cannot be claimed to be a secret society. Therefore it's pointless (and misleading) to include it. WegianWarrior 13:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Encyclopedia Brittanica says Freemasonry is a Secret society, why should we accept, or even care, what your opinions are on this subject? What are your qualifications to contradict this established NPOV resource, other than the extreme POV bias against any information which could be remotely considered unflattering or critical towards Freemasonry? Is there really any point at all for you or other Masonic Editors to continue to make contributions to the Freemasonry pages?Basil Rathbone 15:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: *Freemasonrywatch.org
:Please justify your reasons for repeatedly deleting this link.Basil Rathbone 11:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Arb-com considers FMW to be a dubious source, and asks alternate sources to be used for the bits of FMW that is reliable. In other words, it keeps being removed because it's not a good source. WegianWarrior 14:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't. FWM is a large, well-known site that is critical of Masonry. Of course Masons refuse to accept any website, or writing that is critical of Masonry as being legitimate, just like it refuses to allow any criticism of Freemasonry on these pages. Masonic Editors are incapable of discharging their responsiblities and should not be allowed to edit any pages related to Freemasonry due to their extreme pov, and their continual violations of Wikipedia rules and spirit. The simple fact is you and other Masonic editors apoplectically hate the Freemasonry Watch website, and any reference to, or from it. You can't stand it. You despise it. Why is that exactly? Non-masonic editors on the other hand, such as myself, have no problem having links to Masonic websites, no matter how extreme their rhetoric towards the critics of Masonry. Why is that exactly. Who is willing to accept opposing viewpoints in this article and who is not?Basil Rathbone 15:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a matter of fact, Arbcom did decide it was not reputable here.  So, we don't use it. MSJapan 17:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually MSJapan that's just the comment section scroll further down to the Proposed Remedy number 2.  I also just noticed part 5 of their decision "5) Lightbringer, MSJapan, Spinboy are limited to one revert per day per article in articles related to Freemasonry. DreamGuy, SarekOfVulcan, XDev, and Grazon are also strongly warned to limit their reverts as well. All parties are instructed to use talk pages rather than edit war at all."  It's kinda funny that you choose to make sure number 2 is enforced but you ignore number 5. Seraphim 17:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both of you are wrong. The only decisions made by Arbcom are at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lightbringer. MSJapan is not currently under any sort of restriction, and that cite was not determine the cite was not reputable, and as such it needs to be evaluated. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah your right. My bad :p I guess it should be noted then for record that ArbCom did not make any ruling about the addition of links to freemasonrywatch.  Seraphim 23:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: NOTE: The section below has since been completely re-edited on the main page.Darth Dalek 20:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like this section, I think it has been completely discredited by research, and that by and large the more credible Masonic websites have dropped it from their repetoire. I invite your commentary.Basil Rathbone 11:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I've heard.  I will, however, ask some of those researchers who know. MSJapan 14:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you start with Alain Bernheim 33rd Degree, Quator Corranati? Oh wait I forgot you don't think he is a legitimate source to quote from because he has shown his anti-masonry 'agenda' for exposing the Forget me not Flower Legend and the relationship between Regular German Freemasonry and the Nazi's. The moral of the story? There is no legitimate criticism of Freemasonry. All criticism of Freemasonry is 'Anti-Masonic', and all who 'disseminate' views that are critical of Masonry are Anti-Masons. Welcome all to Masonology 101.Basil Rathbone 15:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that QC is a UGLE Craft Lodge, therefore no member as a UGLE Mason is higher than a third degree.  Wilst there may be a conflicting view with respect to the assertion as cited it is more appropriate to include that in the discussion rather than excise the section completely.  Put in he debate if you have an issue.ALR 16:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Forget Me Not Section

message: I removed the disclaimer at the top of the article per Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't fit the policy.  Not only does it not duplicate an existing template, that was a referenced official statement that it is important to keep in mind.  While this is a general article, there is no standardization within Freemasonry as a whole, and what one person says may or may not apply. MSJapan 16:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It duplicates the General Disclaimer, specifically "None of the authors, contributors, sponsors, administrators, sysops, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages." If you want a statement that Freemasonry cannot be spoken for by anyone, please put that in the article, not in a disclaimer template. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Additionally, it violates WP:ASR. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What i'm pointing out is that it wasn't a template.  However, the statement was slightly misused, so I have fixed it such that it follows its original intent. MSJapan 16:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point out where it states 'please note' is not encyclopedic, other than in your own mind. MSJapan 16:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please note is an instruction to the reader. We do not instruct the reader, we inform them. WP:ENC. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the statement is valid and cited and relevant otherwise, so I'll just remove "please note"?  If that was the only problem, you could have easily removed "please note" instead of rving. MSJapan 16:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Review the diff. . Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it's just written wrong, because where it is now has nothing to do with the content of the paragraph that it is tacked onto. MSJapan 17:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  {sofixit}. But not as a disclaimer template. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disclaimer 

message: I noticed the template, and the discussion was from two years ago.  i think it is safely closed, so I've removed the tag. MSJapan 17:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which I have reinserted, because it is a renom. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll point out here as well.  Why?  The template for featured clearly identifies the featured article as a previous version of current.  Where's the issue? MSJapan 17:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The template that says "it was once featured" is . Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, former fa is for after removal.  I checked.  As it hasn't been removed yet, it's not the right one.  Read the top of this page, and read what the words in the FA box say, and explain to me why it is an issue to leave it as is. MSJapan 17:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article no longer "one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community." I highly suggest that you do not attempt to engage inWikipedia:Wikilawyering here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me quote "which means that it or a previous version".  Let me also note that the term wikilawyering is also described as a pejorative, which can be construed as a personal attack.  Highly suggest comes across as an attempt to coerce.--Vidkun 17:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This page lists articles that used to be Featured Articles, but were demoted because they no longer met the Featured Article standard. Featured articles can only be demoted through a consensus derived through discussion at the Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates page. The removal discussions for the former featured articles listed below can be found in the featured article removal candidates archive. Of course, the articles listed here do not have to stay here: Be Bold in updating and improving these pages, and help bring them back to Featured Article status. See below for some examples of re-premoted articles. This page has not yet been demoted, therefore the former template doesn't apply. --Vidkun 18:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you believe that I have engaged in personal attacks, I suggest that you follow the steps listed in WP:DR. I believe that this article is no longer of the standards to be "featured," so I proposed it for removal. This was opposed, above, because the "featured" template refers to a previous version, and thus, even if the current version is not quality, it's fine as a featured article. This argument is Wikilawyering - the template says a previous version because not all article are monitored at all times - not because featured status is a right that the article owns for all times. I am happy to help work the article back to featured (and have already taken the first step - by removing a blatently policy violating template, and converting the references to the most new format). However, do not Wikilawyer to try to "win," because you will "lose." This is not cooercive - it's a fact. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like you have an issue with the way the template for featured article is worded.  Maybe you should suggest it be changed, to simply say a version (with link to the FEATURED version) of this article is considered a featured article.  Works for me, and states accurately what the situation is, with little chance for someone who is not savvy to wiki policies (such as someone just coming to look here for the first time) to misinterpret the statement.--Vidkun 18:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. I will not argue this policy with you here go to the right place. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "No disclaimer templates.
Please review Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  To add a new reference superscript, put the tag THE NOTE YOU WANT HERE on the article page. There is no need for anyone to ever have to edit the notes again, and they will automatically sort. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We editors want to write in English, as far as posible, without going to coding school. Also we need to edit refs already there. Also I've spent alot of unpaid time in research on this section. Skull 'n' Femurs 21:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to insist that you review WP:CIVIL, and follow it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You make it sound like he is doing something bad. He just updated the references in the article to fit the new way to add references on wikipedia. Seraphim 22:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding more info to my comment cause i was a bit unclear.  If you go to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php you can see that recently the wikimedia platform was updated to include a ref tag, this was added to make adding references to articles much easier, and to replace the old reference way where one reference gets a new listing every time it's mentioned in the article, which adds unnecessary length, and creates more work for the editors.  It is an automated way to do things, and is the new proper way to do it. After you're done with your "major" edit, if Hipocrite doesn't put them back up I will, since it's the proper way to do it.  You said "We editors want to write in English, as far as posible, without going to coding school. Also we need to edit refs already there." what is scaring you off is the ref tag.  It's actually much easier then the code your already using, and it makes it so there is no need to "edit refs already there". Seraphim 22:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article Removal

message: A "new" re-written edit is in WIP, so please let me finish. Thanks. Skull 'n' Femurs 21:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't destroy the references section and I will. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Who is fuzzypeg? Seraphim 23:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Stopped fixing as above to avoid an edit war. Skull 'n' Femurs 23:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice re-write S'n'F.  Thanks Blueboar 01:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism, persecution, and prosecution 

message: I put this copy Here Skull 'n' Femurs 23:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:CIVIL 

message: It's actually much much much easier and less time consuming to do it this way. Here is a little explanation on how to do it.  To add a reference if you were familiar with the old  method, where you would have put  put  then type what you would have put in this section followed by   example.  If you added  to a paragraph, and the cite in the notes section was "# The Grande Loge Nationale Francaise (GLNF), accessed February 6, 2006." all you have to do now is put "The Grande Loge Nationale Francaise (GLNF), accessed February 6, 2006." into the article where you had the  and you will get the same results. Look in the article or ask any questions here if your still confused.  Seraphim 23:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The References / Notes 

message: How about archive 12 for this very long page? Skull 'n' Femurs 02:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No argument from me. Blueboar 02:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, alot of the discussions are still ongoing. Once all the "issues" are settled, and the tags come off it will be time to archive.  If you have problems editing such a long page, just use the headers at the top to jump to the section, and then hit edit.  Archiving this right now would not work since you are not suppossed to reply to an archived page. Seraphim 02:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided i'll agree to archive some of the page if we discuss and reach conscensus on which sections to be archived, since some of them are concluded. "Regardless of which method you choose, you should leave current, ongoing discussions on the existing talk page." I just want to make sure some sections aren't archived that shouldn't be (for example my section that's the top one #1 is not concluded, i'm just waiting to move on it untill the newer discussions about a more contravercial version are concluded) Seraphim 02:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Well I do not know how to anyway. Doh! I'm such an old dog, wuff wuff. ;) Skull 'n' Femurs 02:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive 12 Request

message: *This article has existed for quite some time(2003?), & has been a featured article for quite some time. Why, suddenly, do some users think it's so NPOV, controlled by Freemasons, etc? has it suddenly become a target of Conspiracy theorists? Has it changed so so much in a negative way? & it is, actually, fairly well cited, if one actually reads the Notes, See Also section, The External links,  the Catagory:Freemasonry articles (& if one really wants to do their homework, Catagory:Freemasons), & especially if one goes through the 12 archived talk pages</U>. This article didn't  get  to be featured by being bad, poorly cited, etc. There's a  lot  of hard work by a lot of people here. They often dispute eachother, & nearly as often come to terms & learn to compromise. So, what's the point again? What valid arguement is being presented? Grye 09:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, OK, Lightbringer's 9at least part of) what's going on... 68.70.100.39 08:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what's '''really''' going on?!? 

message: I think there should be a spoiler warning of some sort in the article for stuff folks might not wanna read if they're considering joining masonry. That's allowed per rules. Ardenn 04:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any information that would fall under a spoiler tag should not be included in the article. With that said, critisism of a group is not a spoiler. Seraphim 04:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoilers

message: I really feal that this is an inappropriate link... this article does not discuss any tie between the two orgnizations at all.  Since there is debate as to the extent of the ties between the Church of Later Day Saints and Freemasonry, I think we should (at minimum) discuss this issue before adding a link to Mormonism and Freemasonry] to this page.  Comments please. Blueboar 04:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Mormonism and Freemasonry page could use a few more inline reference links, however the references at the bottom of the article show that there is a relationship between the two.  It should be included as a link  Seraphim 04:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the solution, & I've got plenty to focus on, but as far as I know, there's a rather heavy, significant link to Moronsim & Freemasonry that can't be denied. It is an historically problematic link that isn't going to be easy to cite & verify etc etc, but it is there. If someone can actually do it, cited & all, then that'd actually be a pretty impressive... But does need to be watched closely, in wikipedia's interest. Again, that's not a "Yeah or nay", just an aside. Grye 08:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then if there is a link between the 2 we need to link to the page discussing that link :) Let the people who are editing that article deal with that article's problems :p Seraphim 08:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  link to Mormonism and Freemasonry 

message: I do not believe the two should be merged, the one would undoubtedly cast an unpartial view on the institution.
Not that I believe that all forms of dissent should be done away with, I think discussion and views should be expressed where they are now in the discussion forum. Anti-Masonry is a view and an opinion I count two wiki sites alone dealing with Anti-Masonry the first Mostly banter about Conspiracy Theories which is marred by conjecture, the second a legitimate page about the American Masonic party and the Morgan affair.07:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe it or not, you just summarized why we would have to merge them, if we find that to be the case :p. It is inherently POV to move all "anti" stuff to one page, and all "pro" stuff to another page (i'm not saying that this is the situation we are in right now with the freemasonry pages).  Right now the merger talk is pretty much on hold, untill we get all the POV tags off of Anti-Freemasonry, at that point we will decide the fate of that article :) Seraphim 08:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging anti-Masonry with the Freemasonry site? 

message: No ritual is cited in the article. Skull 'n' Femurs 12:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The standard of Wikipedia is VERIFIABILITY, not TRUTH. If someone published something about the secrets in the past, it is appropriate to say who published it and what they published. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Citation deleted as not correct anyway. Starting a revert war over this makes you in the wrong. Skull 'n' Femurs 13:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, the book was published when it was published. If it's not accurate, then provide a source saying it's not accurate. Please REVIEW what I have written before blindly reverting - you are on the verge of violating the 3rr. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  The burden of proof is on the side of the citing person not the editor saying it is wrong/copyrighted, as per how Wiki works. You keep adding a citation that is wrong, and the reference is a general one, but that in context only applies to regular Freemasonry, not European Contintental style Freemasonry. I've no idea how many rituals currently circulate, have you? If only Duncan is cited, the point is lost, since the point is to show all regular Freemasons are obligated not to politically plot, etc. This is not one of the "secrets". "Please REVIEW what I have written before blindly reverting - you are on the verge of violating the 3rr." Same back at you, and that is what you are trying for. Skull 'n' Femurs 13:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Citations can be copywritten. The article can be WRONG - as in factually innacurate, as long as it is VERIFIABLE. Please review WP:V. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Section re-edited. Have a look. Gone back to my life for a time. Skull 'n' Femurs 13:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So Hipocrite, what you are saying is that Wiki is verifiable crap, and that is the way you like it? Skull 'n' Femurs 13:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is correct. Please stop reverting any mention of the cite that you don't like. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  You have reverted the citation of Duncan's 6 times now. Is there a specific reason this book cannot be mentioned? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've gotten to the heart of the real issue.  See below. MSJapan 14:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes.  It cannot be verified that what is in the book is what the book purports to be.  There is no proof that what is in that book are the actual rituals, and there is no way to support the claim that they are.  If you absolutely feel that book must be mentioned, then the impossibility of proving its contents should be cited.  For example, if you have a text that says "the secret word of the 100th degree is bubblegum" how can you prove that it is indeed bubblegum?--Vidkun 14:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please review WP:V. The book is published by a reputable publisher. If it says something, it is appropriate to say it says something. If there is a another reputable source that says it's full of crap, that other reputable source can also be mentioned. This is the fundamental tennant of WP:NPOV. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Sorry I did not know Wiki was a religion or cult of crapola. Sorry I thought this bit was Wikipedia, not Crapolapedia. Skull 'n' Femurs 14:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is it cannot be proven or disproven.  The falsifiability of the source referred to does not exist.  Prove to me that the invisible pink unicorn is neither invisible, nor pink.--Vidkun 14:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can't take a side in the dispute over the accuracy or truthiness of Duncans, if such a dispute exists. We can only report on it -> IE: "Duncans, which claims to be a ritual book from the 1800s, has a bunch of masonic rituals. (SOME OTHER SOURCE) claims that Duncans' is garbage." This is where NPOV policy shines - we don't have to figure out who is right, just say there's a fight! Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ritual not cited 

message: First of all, that's a misleading title - what that section used to be was a summary of the old Anti-Freemasonry page.  Second of all, that section is by no means a case study.  I would suggest you choose a more appropriate and less leading title.  The 1799 material should be in a history section, or somewhere else, as it makes no sense where it is now - the section doesn't read properly.  The ritual wasn't antiquated when it was originally published, and I fail to see what relevance it has to the situation with Pitt - Pitt was the British Prime Minister in 1799, and Duncan's Monitor wasn't published until the late 1800s in the US.
Masonic charity has nothing to do with religious opposition (as a matter of fact, that is one of the things that the Catholics felt was good about Masonry), the 1980s date for ritual change is wrong if it's not cited, as I believe it was actually the 1970s, but one would have to ask UGLE about it.  Also, why is the forget-me-not section now called "In Remembrance" and part of the Politics and Crime section?
In short, I need a really good reason as to why that whole thing should not be reverted, because it makes no sense whatsoever now in terms of either readability or organization.  The titles have almost nothing to do with the content, and make very little sense themselves. MSJapan 13:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I placed the reference to Duncan's in the rituals section and it was removed. I welcome you to reinsert it there as a symbol of WP:AGF. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to, but only because it's not relevant in the context, as I have stated above.  You're tying Pitt in 1799 in England to Duncan in the US in 1866 (I think), and that doesn't make any sense.  My putting it back in there is not AGF, it's acceding to POV, because there is no factual need to even mention ritual there, as it's got nothing to do with anything in that section. MSJapan 14:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The section I added it to was titled "Ritual and symbolism." Please review . Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You did now.  You also changed the diff reference.  The other one clearly shows it in politics and crime, and shows it as your edit.  Speaking of violating AGF....MSJapan 14:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I changed the diff from one that referenced a grammer fix I made (which was also reverted) to the Duncan cite - review . I added it to that section BEFORE I comment above - review  14:07, 9 February 2006 and  13:41, 9 February 2006 -> 28 minutes earlier. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Note: I corrected the difflink less than 1 minute after posting my initial comment. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Ooooooooooooooooooooo you are sooooooooooooooooo cooooooooooooooooooool (not). Skull 'n' Femurs 14:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case Studies in Politics and Crime 

message: I filed an RFC regarding the constant removal of the Duncan's Cite. The RFC reads as follows: "Link to a cite being constantly removed based on the statement that it is not-accurate. Newer cites are not available as they are secrets. Should the older cite remain in article untill a reputable source says it is not-accurate (and then such disagreement described in text), or should the older cite be removed based on the say-so of those privy to the newer cites?" This section is for outside comment on the RFC. Please do not respond here if you are an "insider" to this discussion - there is a section for insider comments below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me quote what I think is a major issue for verifiability: contain older descriptions of masonic rituals.  My opinion is that this is not something that can be proved or disproved.  A better wording would be "contain alleged older descriptions of masonic rituals".--Vidkun 14:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does that justify removing the source? The above change would be fine with me - please make it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry I did not know Wiki was a religion or cult of crapola. Sorry I thought this bit was Wikipedia, not Crapolapedia. Skull 'n' Femurs 14:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Let me cite myself and say "CRAPOLA". I think I'll add a def,n of it in the Wikionary. Skull 'n' Femurs 14:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The other issue, Hip, is that at the time of publication, Duncan's was the equivalent of a self published book, without verifiability of its sources.  Just because something is published doesn't make it verifiable.  I realize that we are looking at verifiability here, ie. did someone publish this book, and does it say x y z, and not that the claims of x y z are correct, per sé.  I think my best way to deal with it is the inclusion of the word alleged although someone might say it is a weasel word and POV to do so.  I simply disagree on that, though.--Vidkun 14:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am waiting for you to make that edit. Using "alleged" to show that a book "Allegdges" to be something is fine, if it's disputed. I'm certain you can show me a reputable source for such a dispute. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  To say "alleged" is totally POV. That is the kind of thing you do. Get a non-wiki Dictionary and look it up. Skull 'n' Femurs 14:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what, SnF, you are saying that Duncan's is a valid source?--Vidkun 14:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No I said "To say "alleged" is totally POV. That is the kind of thing you do. Get a non-wiki Dictionary and look it up."  Skull 'n' Femurs 15:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC Responce 

message: Can I join, and please tell me your secrets. Please. (PS in UK "RFC" is a Rugby Football Club -  so what is this jargen for, here?) Skull 'n' Femurs 14:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me quote what I think is a major issue for verifiability: contain older descriptions of masonic rituals.  My opinion is that this is not something that can be proved or disproved.  A better wording would be "contain alleged older descriptions of masonic rituals".--Vidkun 14:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does that justify removing the source? The above change would be fine with me - please make it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry I did not know Wiki was a religion or cult of crapola. Sorry I thought this bit was Wikipedia, not Crapolapedia. Skull 'n' Femurs 14:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Let me cite myself and say "CRAPOLA". I think I'll add a def,n of it in the Wikionary. Skull 'n' Femurs 14:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The other issue, Hip, is that at the time of publication, Duncan's was the equivalent of a self published book, without verifiability of its sources.  Just because something is published doesn't make it verifiable.  I realize that we are looking at verifiability here, ie. did someone publish this book, and does it say x y z, and not that the claims of x y z are correct, per sé.  I think my best way to deal with it is the inclusion of the word alleged although someone might say it is a weasel word and POV to do so.  I simply disagree on that, though.--Vidkun 14:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am waiting for you to make that edit. Using "alleged" to show that a book "Allegdges" to be something is fine, if it's disputed. I'm certain you can show me a reputable source for such a dispute. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  To say "alleged" is totally POV. That is the kind of thing you do. Get a non-wiki Dictionary and look it up. Skull 'n' Femurs 14:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what, SnF, you are saying that Duncan's is a valid source?--Vidkun 14:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No I said "To say "alleged" is totally POV. That is the kind of thing you do. Get a non-wiki Dictionary and look it up."  Skull 'n' Femurs 15:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insider comments on RFC 

message: Using bolds and italics to emphaise a point is not-encyclopedic.  After I get an all-clear from a number of editor here, I will fix this. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree, for the bolds only.  The italics, from my quick scrub of the article, are used to indicate words which have different internal meanings within Freemasonry, than they might in general English language use.--Vidkun 14:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that real-quotes i.e. "regular" would work better, but italics there are fine if that's how consensus here wants. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Going through it again, it's only italics being used for emphasis at times. The bolds are all subhead-repeats, which is MOS ok. Review upcoming edit. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems good, as far as I can tell.  It has a few pieces that were highlighted to me by comparing the diffs, that need to be reworded, specifically the Golden dawn thing, but none of that was part of your edit.  Thanks!--Vidkun 15:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anyway Hipocrite you like "Crapola" in Wiki, and I can cite were you say so. Skull 'n' Femurs 14:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Oh NO help - I'm Sh##ing Myself. Skull 'n' Femurs 14:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing ''emphasis'' from this '''important''' article. 

message: Changing an entire link, actually deleting it, is not a minor edit.  In addition, while Freemasonry, worldwide may not be a service organization, the link was to a page for both fraternal organizations and service organizations.--Vidkun 15:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The amount of reverting being done here is shocking. Why are the emphasis removals being undone? Please discuss on talk. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes your reverts are "shocking". Skull 'n' Femurs 15:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The following edit ->  appears to replace an informative cited version of the article with one that has no cites. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How "shocking" is that, etc? Blagh blagh. Skull 'n' Femurs 15:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please cite "Crapola" Hipocrite when editing using it. Thanks Skull 'n' Femurs 15:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cease the personal attacks.--Vidkun 15:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Same to you Bro. I'm only asking for Crapola to be cited. Skull 'n' Femurs 15:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: In the spirit of comity, I will pledge not to re-do any of the edits that SnB undid, in the hopes that when he returns from his block he will be willing to go back to the most-recent good version -  I think - on his own. Removing the bad-emphasis marks took a good 10 minutes of work, and was a really positive change. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading ''minor'' to describe edit summary 

message: Please edit these as needed at User:Hipocrite/Freemasonry, where I have marked them up already. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That being the case, I have removed the material from here, as all it does it take up space.  Much of it is a repost from an earlier section. MSJapan 18:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh huh, nice try. Oh and I do believe your removal of my post from this discussion page constitues as vandalism.Basil Rathbone 18:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please, can we have this discussion on the page I put on my user space? It's too big for here. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please? NO. THIS IS THE DISCUSSION PAGE FOR FREEMASONRY AND THIS IS WHERE THE DISCUSSION WILL TAKE PLACE, NOT BURIED SOMEWHERE.Basil Rathbone 18:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please stop. The page I set up is much more conducive to fixing the article than pasting chunks to the talk page is. Please. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is just vandalism what you are doing, you have no right to delete material from discussion page, no right at all, it is pure vandalism. You are not the moderator of this discussion page. DO NOT delete my material any more from this page!Basil Rathbone 18:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm your biggest supporter on this page, and I'm deleting it. Does this tell you something? Please go to my userified copy and find the cites, then we'll get it included. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point is that BR is not interested in actually contributing, merely disrupting as demonstrated by the several blockages in the last few days and refusal to actually rationally discuss his suggested additions.  If one were being cynical then BRs behaviour might charitably be described as Trolling.ALR 18:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The block of opposing editors are hardly blameless here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whilst I'll acknowledge that at least one editor countering BRs vandalism has handled himself in a manner which I would consider to be unacceptable, the all encompassing nature of your last seems to imply that you are including me in that response.  That could easily be considered as a personal attack, which I consider somewhat unreasonable bearing in mind you have yet to respond to a number of direct responses to your entries this afternoon.ALR 19:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:NOT a debating society. I don't have to respond to anything. I explictly include you in the list of problematic editos for this little bullbait. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As Vidkun has pointed out, there are no REPUTABLE sources for the assertions, and you'll note that BR has elswhere in a recent addition made clear his/ her POV.ALR 20:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Incidentally a contribution in the talk page is not an edit, if you review my edits to the article page I think you'll find that notwithstanding reversions of vandalism, all of my contributions have been as positive as possible in the interests of improving the article.  BTW I've made a suggestion in your sandbox for an improvement.ALR 20:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  He posted a large list of sources published by major publishers that I have requested from my local library. I will read them and cite what can be cited when I get around to it. Bullbaiting editors who are likley to explode is a bad action, regardless of any positive work you may have put in on the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This is the discussion page, this is where it will be discussed, not elsewhere. I repeat you CAN NOT delete material from the discussion page. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? So far you haven't helped in the slightest. You have got the most twisted version of this page to date locked in permanetly. Big help you. Just stay out of it.Basil Rathbone 18:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, you did that. Follow my 4 rules and you will prosper here. Violate them and you will just get nothing done. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry the authority we follow on this page are entitled Wikipedia rules and not Hipocrites '4 rules'. Who are you supposed to be again? Wikipedia needs to permanetly ban a dozen Masonic editors from going anywhere near any pages related to Freemasonry based on reams and reams of evidence of their violation of said rules and spirit. That is the help that is needed here, not what you have 'offered' so far. This isn't a feel good, why can't we just get along gang parlee, I want some enforcement, and now.Basil Rathbone 19:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Basil, if you think you are being unfairly treated then put it to arbitration.  Blueboar 19:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Additions to Freemasonry Page

message: Ok he's a crazy, how do we get him banned/blocked? Seraphim 20:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I want JAHBULON mentioned on this page and the reason the Masons don't want JAHBULON mentioned is that the revelation of this particular word has been particularly damaging to Freemasonry. Furthermore the revelation of the oaths of the Royal Arch have been particularly damaging to Freemasonry as they include the phrase 'MURDER AND TREASON NOT EXCEPTED'. Royal Arch controls Anglo Freemasonry. It is just not some silly little side degree. THAT is why I will not agree to have it shunted off to some side page, a side page incidently where Masons will not tolerate it existance either, believe me! The most important thing you can learn about Freemasonry is how incidious it is. It comes from the Devil and it leads to the Devil. Freemasonry is not just Satanic, it is Satanism. Basil Rathbone 20:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If you dont' believe Satan exists Seraphim then I don't know what to say. Many many Churchmen, serious men have researched this subject, and they have all come to the same conclusion. Trying to counteract the influence of Freemasonry and slow down it's propaganda isn't a game, and it ain't much fun either, trust me. God, Satan, War. High Crimes. Freemasonry IS Satanism. I thought you had 'read quite a bit about it'. Well you need to read some more then. That is the problem these days, that is why Masonry gets it's recruits. Read the Bible, start going to Church, ask your Priest.Basil Rathbone 20:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Freemasonry isn't Satanic, it is Satanism" ~ Basil 

message: Removing information contributed by many users on an articles talk page is completly unacceptable.  It is vandalism in the highest degree.  Talk page content needs to be archived, and because all the content on this page is still active it cannot be currently archived, the page size does not matter, especially when that's not the reason your giving for doing the blanking.  I will continue to revert any vandalism to this page. Seraphim 20:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you give me a detailed list of sections you want kept on the main page, please, or just move all the sections you don't want into the archive. The page takes about 45 seconds to load on my geezer machine, and has devolved into useless back and forth. Archiving will solve both of these problems. I have had success in archiving to a blank page leading to positive momentum in other problem articles of this sort, and believe if you tried it here, it would be helpful. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already did that earlier when someone just decided to archive the entire first 1/2 of the talk page, I left the sections that are archivable there and moved the still active sections back here.  Every single section here now, is still active, and will be recieving more replies to it in the future.  The only section you can problary move back to the archive 12 is the section on copyright, with basil being a proven crazy that section is no longer relevant since I won't be defending his additions from allogations of copyright infringment anymore.  We need to get rid of basil, that is a fact.  The way to do that is to follow Dispute Resolution, inorder to do that we need a talk page that shows that we have tried to reason with him, and to show his inherent bias.  I created a section called ""Freemasonry isn't satanistic, it IS satanism" ~ basil" where i'm listing some evidence as to why basil has to be removed from wikipedia.  Blanking the page is not going to help anything at all. Seraphim 21:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assumed the person that did the archiving earlier removed all the out of date sections, I just looked and that is not the case.  I'll look it over and post a list of what I believe needs to be removed. Seraphim 21:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok all above the featured article removal section can be moved to archive 12 except "Mason Secrets?" I still intend to use that section once things calm down, "POV warning and Merget tags" and "Merge tag" must stay on the talk page since the tags are still on the article and are still in discussion (it's on hold while the pov issues with Anti-Freemasonry are delt with) Everything other then those 3 sections I'll support archiving, even though I believe that they might become highly referenced in the near future. Seraphim 21:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanking / "Clean Slate" 

message: I would just like to point everyone to User_talk:David_Gerard where this admin has said that User:Darth_Dalek is User:Skull_'n'_Femurs.  This has also been stated and blanked on User_talk:Darth_Dalek.  Sockpuppetry is a tactic that has been used time and time again by Anti-masonic vandals and has been pointed out on this page.  I believe "what is good for the goose, is good for the gander," so this user's sockpuppetry should also be pointed out.  I'd like to think that as a mason User:Darth_Dalek or User:Skull_'n'_Femurs, wouldn't lower himself to their tactics.  Now you can feel free to attack me as you wish, but remember that useful masonic lesson that we will ever whisper good counsel in the ear of a brother, and in the most tender manner remind him of his faults, and endeavor to aid in his reformation.  The best and only way to defeat lies is with truth, not deception and more lies.  Let's keep that in mind when we try to dispell the lies of anti-masons.  Chtirrell 02:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If he continues editing on this page and doesn't get banned hopefully arbcom will step in and give him the same restrictions as lightbringer.  He actually accused David Gerard of being Lightbringer... Seraphim 04:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: How is he anti-masonic??? All of his vandalism has been towards anti-masonic information, oh i'm sorry in his words "Anti-Masonic Crapola" also he is a mason, he has had some discussions on talk pages with other masons about mason stuff. Seraphim 04:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User:Darth Dalek is User:Skull 'n' Femurs

message: U.S. Masonic Grand Lodges have traditionally discriminated against Black men from joining Freemasonry. Today in the U.S. Grand Lodges south of the 'Mason-Dixon' Line can not count a single Black person among it's membership. In the North and West a similar situation existed up until the 1980's. Even with the removal of an outright ban of Black membership in Northern and Western Grand Lodges the membership remains almost completely 'white'. The pseudo religious occult arguement given by Freemasons for this discrimination against Black's is that 'they are not men free born and are thus unable to discharge their Masonic duties'.
 
Prince Hall Freemasonry, which Black men do join, is considered by the vast majority of U.S. Grand Lodges to be 'irregular' and 'clandestine' Masonry. In the U.S. and Canada the majority of membership in the Ku Klux Klan consisted of white Masons of 'Regular' Grand Lodges. In most towns the membership in the local Ku Klux Klan Klavern and the membership in the local white Masonic was overlapping.
If you had signed the above (with your real name) and if this was on a UK server - the UK CID Police would now be at your door. Darth Dalek 19:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of Negroes in American Freemasonry 

message: The Secret society of Freemasonry employs demands it's members keep secret both the membership of other Freemasons and any information learned other Freemasons. Masons must obtain the permission of other Masons before revealing membership or any information about other Masons.  
 
Additionally Freemasons are required to prefer other Freemasons in hiring, promotions, and business. 
To ensure these rules of internal discipline and secrecy are maintained Freemasonry requires it's members to undertake a number of oaths, and employ a number of secret recognitions signs and words to ensure non-masons do not become aware of Masonic activity or preferement in their immediate surroundings.  
  
====Signs of the three Degrees====  
  
1- Entered Apprentice: Cut my throat and tongue. 
 
2- Fellow Craft: Cut open my chest, and put my heart and lungs on my left shoulder.  
 
3- Master Mason: Put my bowels out.
The image shown is alleged by the uploader to be his/her original research.--Vidkun 22:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Clarification- The uploader claims to be the author of the book it is contained in Seraphim 22:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The publisher he listed Holy Spirit Press does not know of the book he claims to have written.(you can call them and ask (925) 833-8122) Seraphim 22:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Further clarification WP:NOR#Why_do_we_exclude_original_research.3F, WP:NOR#What_is_excluded.3F, Wikipedia:No_original_research#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication.3F.--Vidkun 22:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: First off the 3rd part about the royal arch secrets are relevant to the royal arch page, not the general freemasonry page, that's going to get shot down right away.    Also the contents of the secrets due to their nature are extremely difficult to verify, since a mason is bound to not reveal them.  What is verifiable is their existance, using documents that are accepted as sources in the article already I proved that secret recognitions,oaths,and rituals exist.  That is what should be mentioned.  Wikipedia is not suppossed to be a completly comprehensive source.  We need to mention that the secrets exist and what they are, but not the contents of them, that is something that would be included in the wikibooks project.  As an example, I work on videogame pages alot, explaining a general overview of a character's move list is fine in a main article, for example on the super mario 64 page it describes how mario can do a variety of jumps, double jumps, triple jumps, and wall jumps. That is the level of content we need, what is moved to the sm64 wikibook is the details of those moves, where you explain, to jump press the a button, to double jump press the a button then wait for mario to touch the ground and hit a again.  Mentioning that the secrets exist is fine and verifiable.  What your trying to include is outside the scope of this article, and is more disruptive then anything, your putting some editors into a defensive lockdown mode that is preventing any real work from getting accomplished. If you want, make a seperate page about masonic secret exposures, however the contents of the secrets do not belong here. (also if we include the "oaths" why don't we include the full text of all the rituals? you have to draw a line somewhere) Seraphim 19:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all you previously stated you knew nothing at all about Freemasonry, so why are you now saying Royal Arch has nothing to do with Freemasonry? In most of the world the Royal Arch is most definetely part of Freemasonry, it is considered the completion of the first three degrees. Secondly all degree work, all higher degrees is relevent to this page because it is these higher degree freemason that control Freemasonry. We are not going to play the game of the Masons who try and deny the significance of the Higher Degree work. You can not discuss Freemasonry without including this vital information, nothing can be understood about how the Masonic belief system works without it. Please leave the research and content side of this to me, the Mason will just get you going around in circles. I know all their games, all their lies, all their tricks - and they have a great many, believe me.Basil Rathbone 19:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew nothing about freemasonry when I started dealing with this, i've done alot of research now.  Even if the royal arch is part of freemasonry, there is already a page specifically about the royal arch, that is where it belongs.  Anyway that was only the first line of my comment. Did you read the rest of it? Seraphim 20:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I want JAHBULON mentioned on this page and the reason the Masons don't want JAHBULON mentioned is that the revelation of this particular word has been particularly damaging to Freemasonry. Furthermore the revelation of the oaths of the Royal Arch have been particularly damaging to Freemasonry as they include the phrase 'MURDER AND TREASON NOT EXCEPTED'. Royal Arch controls Anglo Freemasonry. It is just not some silly little side degree. THAT is why I will not agree to have it shunted off to some side page, a side page incidently where Masons will not tolerate it existance either, believe me!
The most important thing you can learn about Freemasonry is how incidious it is. It comes from the Devil and it leads to the Devil. Freemasonry is not just Satanic, it is Satanism. Basil Rathbone 20:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Acknoledging ones bias is certainly better than pretending to be NPOV and actually POV pushing. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you dont' believe Satan exists Seraphim then I don't know what to say. Many many Churchmen, serious men have researched this subject, and they have all come to the same conclusion. Trying to counteract the influence of Freemasonry and slow down it's propaganda isn't a game, and it ain't much fun either, trust me. God, Satan, War. High Crimes. Freemasonry IS Satanism. I thought you had 'read quite a bit about it'. Well you need to read some more then. That is the problem these days, that is why Masonry gets it's recruits. Read the Bible, start going to Church, ask your Priest.Basil Rathbone 20:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Masonic Secrets

message: 1- Entered Apprentice: Cut my throat and tongue. 
 
2- Fellow Craft: Cut open my chest, and put my heart and lungs on my left shoulder.  
 
3- Master Mason: Put my bowels out.
The image shown is alleged by the uploader to be his/her original research.--Vidkun 22:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Clarification- The uploader claims to be the author of the book it is contained in Seraphim 22:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The publisher he listed Holy Spirit Press does not know of the book he claims to have written.(you can call them and ask (925) 833-8122) Seraphim 22:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Further clarification WP:NOR#Why_do_we_exclude_original_research.3F, WP:NOR#What_is_excluded.3F, Wikipedia:No_original_research#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication.3F.--Vidkun 22:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Signs of the three Degrees

message: 1- In the First Degree, Apprentice  
 
He swears, with his hand on the Bible, "I (name), in the presence of Almighty God, most solemnly promise and swear that I will always hail, ever conceal, and never reveal any of the arts, parts of points of the hidden mysteries of Freemasonry... binding myself under the penalty than that of having my throat cut across, my tongue torn out, and my body buried in the rough sands of the see..."  
  
2- The Second Degree, Fellow Craft  
 
He swears on the Bible, in the presence of Almighty God, "under the penalty than of having my breast open... and my heart and lungs thrown over my left shoulder... so help me God".  
 
3- The Third Degree, Master Mason  
 
He swears "under the penalty than that of having my body severed in two, my bowels taken from thence and burn to ashes... so help me God".
Total crapola, as per usual. Why not just make this stuff up while on heavy medication? Skull 'n' Femurs 02:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oaths of the three Degrees

message: *This section is about the York_Rite and belongs on the York_Rite page. It is not part of freemasonry as a whole. Seraphim 00:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fourth Degree or Royal Arch Degree

message: *Illustrations of Masonry, Capt. William Morgan, Batavia NY, 1827
*The Character, Claims, and Practical Workings of Freemasonry, Rev. C.G. Finney, Western Tract and Book Soc., 1869 
*Letters of Freemasonry, Pres. John Quincy Adams, T.R. Marvin Press, 1847
 
*Christianity and American Freemasonry, William J. Whalen, Ignatius Press 1958, 1987, 1998 
*Inside the Brotherhood, Martin Short, Harper Collins, 1990
*Catholic Encyclopedia
*Behind the Lodge Door, Paul A. Fisher, Tan Books, 1991
  
*Darkness Visible, Walton Hannah, Saint Austin Press, 1998
*The Brotherhood, Stephen Knight, Harper Collins, 1985
*Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution, Stephen Knight, Granada, 1976
:First off the 3rd part about the royal arch secrets are relevant to the royal arch page, not the general freemasonry page, that's going to get shot down right away.    Also the contents of the secrets due to their nature are extremely difficult to verify, since a mason is bound to not reveal them.  What is verifiable is their existance, using documents that are accepted as sources in the article already I proved that secret recognitions,oaths,and rituals exist.  That is what should be mentioned.  Wikipedia is not suppossed to be a completly comprehensive source.  We need to mention that the secrets exist and what they are, but not the contents of them, that is something that would be included in the wikibooks project.  As an example, I work on videogame pages alot, explaining a general overview of a character's move list is fine in a main article, for example on the super mario 64 page it describes how mario can do a variety of jumps, double jumps, triple jumps, and wall jumps. That is the level of content we need, what is moved to the sm64 wikibook is the details of those moves, where you explain, to jump press the a button, to double jump press the a button then wait for mario to touch the ground and hit a again.  Mentioning that the secrets exist is fine and verifiable.  What your trying to include is outside the scope of this article, and is more disruptive then anything, your putting some editors into a defensive lockdown mode that is preventing any real work from getting accomplished. If you want, make a seperate page about masonic secret exposures, however the contents of the secrets do not belong here. (also if we include the "oaths" why don't we include the full text of all the rituals? you have to draw a line somewhere) Seraphim 19:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all you previously stated you knew nothing at all about Freemasonry, so why are you now saying Royal Arch has nothing to do with Freemasonry? In most of the world the Royal Arch is most definetely part of Freemasonry, it is considered the completion of the first three degrees. Secondly all degree work, all higher degrees is relevent to this page because it is these higher degree freemason that control Freemasonry. We are not going to play the game of the Masons who try and deny the significance of the Higher Degree work. You can not discuss Freemasonry without including this vital information, nothing can be understood about how the Masonic belief system works without it. Please leave the research and content side of this to me, the Mason will just get you going around in circles. I know all their games, all their lies, all their tricks - and they have a great many, believe me.Basil Rathbone 19:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew nothing about freemasonry when I started dealing with this, i've done alot of research now.  Even if the royal arch is part of freemasonry, there is already a page specifically about the royal arch, that is where it belongs.  Anyway that was only the first line of my comment. Did you read the rest of it? Seraphim 20:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I want JAHBULON mentioned on this page and the reason the Masons don't want JAHBULON mentioned is that the revelation of this particular word has been particularly damaging to Freemasonry. Furthermore the revelation of the oaths of the Royal Arch have been particularly damaging to Freemasonry as they include the phrase 'MURDER AND TREASON NOT EXCEPTED'. Royal Arch controls Anglo Freemasonry. It is just not some silly little side degree. THAT is why I will not agree to have it shunted off to some side page, a side page incidently where Masons will not tolerate it existance either, believe me!
The most important thing you can learn about Freemasonry is how incidious it is. It comes from the Devil and it leads to the Devil. Freemasonry is not just Satanic, it is Satanism. Basil Rathbone 20:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Acknoledging ones bias is certainly better than pretending to be NPOV and actually POV pushing. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you dont' believe Satan exists Seraphim then I don't know what to say. Many many Churchmen, serious men have researched this subject, and they have all come to the same conclusion. Trying to counteract the influence of Freemasonry and slow down it's propaganda isn't a game, and it ain't much fun either, trust me. God, Satan, War. High Crimes. Freemasonry IS Satanism. I thought you had 'read quite a bit about it'. Well you need to read some more then. That is the problem these days, that is why Masonry gets it's recruits. Read the Bible, start going to Church, ask your Priest.Basil Rathbone 20:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Can't believe I didn't check this one when it first came to my attention. "Basil Rathbone" is a sockpuppet of Lightbringer, who is indefinitely banned from posting about Freemasonry by the Arbitration Committee. If the telltale edit style shows up again, please drop me a note on my talk page - David Gerard 23:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that, it would seem that the page could be unprotected? William M. Connolley 23:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, yes. Yes, it can. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case, can we please either delete Lightbringer/Rathbone's rants here on the Talk Page, or move them to the archive page.  I am finding it very difficlut to navigate and find the discussions we need to move this article forward. Blueboar 23:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm for it, make an archive 13 with all of his stuff in it. Just make sure you don't archive the sections "Mason Secrets?", "POV warning and Merger tags" and "Merge tag" all are still relevant (now that basil is down once the page settles i'll be working on the "Mason Secrets?" writeup that it was suggested I do. Seraphim 00:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seraphim, I would propose that we archive the whole page, and start over with a fresh look at all outstanding issues.  I suggest this, not to burry any current discussions or coments, but to clean things up so we can focus on what the various editors feel needs to change.  I have totaly lost track of who is saying what and where, and it would be nice to have things consolidated onto a new page.  I don't insist on it, just suggest it. Blueboar 00:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that's fine I guess.  This page is a mess.  However on the new page the first section made needs to be "NPOV and Merger tags". Seraphim 02:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Basil Rathbone]] is [[User:Lightbringer]]

message: Please don't delete sections in the scratchpad. No one is going to insert something that has a fact tag in the article in good faith, so just leave it as uncited and not ripe for inclusion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all bad info, Basil was a banned user. Seraphim 00:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A full page of Crapola. All the POV you can eat Darth Dalek 22:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scratchpad ettiquite 

message: This whole business about the Royal Arch degree got me digging into my library, such as it is. As is mentioned in the article, and as I'm sure you're all aware, there was a schism between the "Antient" and "Modern" Freemasons in England in the 18th and early 19th Centuries. The main bone of contention was that the Moderns considered the degrees of Freemasonry to be exclusively Entered Apprentice, Fellowcraft (or Fellow Craft; I've seen it spelled both ways) and Master Mason. The Antients wanted to append the Royal Arch degrees to those. This schism was healed in 1813, which in turn directly led to the modern United Grand Lodge of England. So they reached a compromise, sort of. The Act of Union of 1813 states:
:"It is declared and pronounced that pure Ancient Masonry consists of three degrees, and no more; viz: Those of Entered Apprentice, the Fellow Craft and the Master Mason, including the Supreme Order of the Royal Arch."
According to Christopher Hodapp, "the agreement meant that lodges were allowed to form Royal Arch chapters and go on conferring the additional degrees, with the blessing - and without the control - of the Grand Lodge. In many English lodges, you're philisophically not considered to be a true Master Mason until you've received the Royal Arch degree."
Meanwhile, by this time Freemasonry in North America was pretty much on its own, so this wasn't nearly as big a deal there.
In short, in the US and Canada, the Royal Arch degree is part of the separate (and completely optional) York Rite, period. Discussion of it in that context belongs in the York Rite article.
In England, it is a separate degree but is sometimes considered to be a culmination of the Master Mason degree. I think that's appropriate to mention here. 
Source: Freemasonry for Dummies, Christopher Hodapp, Wiley Publishing, 2005. --Faustus37 01:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The history is there, but not the bit about it being a culmination of the Master Mason degree in England today. I was hoping our UK brethren could chime in on that. --Faustus37 01:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've not checked, as of today, but I did post an edit around the start of January on the york rite page. I'm a UGLE Comp, and as of 2004 in England Chapter HRA degree is not within the special Craft relationship. It is now a degree on its own like English mark. So Now in England its EA, FC, MM, then Mark to complete 2nd degree and HRA to complete 3rd, but HRA has lost the special status it had under the 1813 unification of UGLE. This was done since there has been a drop off in joining Chapter, relative to other side orders and degrees. Also the ritual has had some major messing about - as the PM qualification to pass the 3 Principle's chairs has been dropped. Skull 'n' Femurs 02:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. That was what I was looking for. Thanks. --Faustus37 02:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OTOH, that's a lot of information, so perhaps it would be best to make a brief reference to the fact that HRA is what it is in UGLE, and farm the rest out to the HRA article? MSJapan 02:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Grand Chapter of England runs the HRA Chapters, not UGLE. This page is about the Craft.Skull 'n' Femurs 02:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  I should say that we can still show our Chapter breast jewel with our craft regalia. (After all we all like to show off :)  ). In England we cannot show Mark jewels in craft (sob sob) ;) Skull 'n' Femurs 03:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Royal Arch

message: The citation is pretty useless, as it goes against Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_sources, because the page it links to is pushing an agenda.  As we have seen, time and again in this article, the accusations are made by persons trying to establish that Freemasonry, because it does not restrict its membership to Christians, because it isn't dedicated to Christ etc, it is obviously Satanic.--Vidkun 18:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  accusations in the second paragraph 

message: is  is , who is banned by the AC from all Freemasonry-related posting. I've put a note on WP:ANI so admins will know to keep an eye out for him and take care before unblocking - David Gerard 19:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User:PM GL PA is Lightbringer again

message: For small respite from the sockpuppet army querulous newbies instantly attracted to this article - David Gerard 21:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like User:Computerjoe may have reverted it. Ardenn 21:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What does semi-protecting do?--Vidkun 21:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prevents new users and anon users from editing the article. Ardenn 21:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [[User talk:Ardenn|Ardenn] you make false accusation of sockpuppet as well as vandalize my edits, I have filed a complaint against you. I hope someone does a complete rewrite of this page, it is very lopsided in direction of Freemasonry. Many Church's have researched this organization and there are some excellent reports available on line at the moment with full references. This should be basis of this page, not slanted nonsense from Masonic websites!!!Sunday Service 21:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if there's sooo much info on Freemasonry, by Churches, all over the web which you prefer, why not read those instead? Grye 05:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  'All' the so-called investigations by churches (small c for a minority within) have started with the show trial verdict "guilty", and then twisted evidence to fit. The Spanish Inquisition and Nazi spectres still walk the Earth. Darth Dalek 19:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semiprotected

message: People this has to stop.  Please if your going to file a 3rr make sure it is a valid one.  If it's invalid it gives sympathy to the person you are filing it against.  Take for example the most recent one against Sunday_Service
Three revert rule violation on . :
* 1st revert: 
* 2nd revert: 
* 3rd revert: 
* 4th revert: 
* 5th revert: 
Reported by: Ardenn 21:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See 3RR, WP:NPA. Ardenn 22:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See "this isn't just to ardenn I just pointed this one out since it is the most recent". Seraphim 22:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 3RR against vandalism, however, is allowed.  Arbitration has confirmed that agenda pounding, such as what Lighbringer/Rathbone contributes, is a form of vandalism.  Now, that said, I agree that we should not just assume that someone who is new, and has issues with this Article is yet another Lighbringer/Basil puppet... but when they make the same edits, use the same editing style, and react to criticism in the same manner as Lightbringer/Basil, it does make one suspicious. Blueboar 01:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many invalid 3rr reports being filed 

message: Tags need to be open and closed.  Removing the closure starts doing odd things, like in Seraphim's edit, where the contents of some of the Masonic jurisdiction article ended up in the main article here where it made no sense.
I'm not so sure i like this tag format for editing purposes.  There's a lot more trash in the paragraphs now. MSJapan 02:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That one was completly my error.  The dif showed you leaving the final /ref tag, I didn't see that you deleted the /ref tag before that one.  T_T that's what I get for not hitting show preview. Seraphim 02:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper use of ref tags 

message: yaknow, this page would be like 1/4 the length if we just tossed Lightbringer's sections. I'm telling you know, my comments in ref to his are OK to go too. This section included. Grye 05:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya, let's toss 'em. Ardenn 05:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Already have this discussion going under "Blanking/clean slate" Seraphim 06:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you think that a banned user's extensive comments should not be removed? Or? What is your statement in relation to an actual banned user's statements made with a sockpuppet? Because I'm pretty sure it's actual policy to wipe. Grye 06:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I read deeper. I can see some arguement for not deleting, but what about patent nonsense, content-material, like Talk:Freemasonry#Masonic Secrets? & archiving the rest? Grye 06:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The masonic secrets section I talked about is the one all the way at the top of the talk page not the one Lightbringer added, that section is called "Masonic Secrets" mine was "Masonic Secrets?", in that section we had a discussion on what to include in the page, and reached the conclusion that I should write a section based on verifiable facts about the existance of the secrets, not the contents of them.  How you call that patent nonsence is beyond me, since the points I asked to include were taken from reference material already used in this article, and things that were told to me by the masonic editors on this page.  In a few days I will be starting work on that, and will make sure that the version posted to the article is NPOV all based on Fact and is approved by the majority of the editors on this page.  My argument against archiving that section is that I do intend to resume work on it shortly, I stopped while the basil stuff was going on because everyone went on the defencive.  With that said, I did change my mind and agreed to have a complete archive of this page in the section "User:Basil Rathbone is User:Lightbringer", however I noted that there must be sections about the NPOV and Merger tags immediatly placed on the talk page after the archiving is done since the tags cannot be placed on the page without them being discussed on the talk page.  And I will be restarting the masonic secrets? section once I have my section written up.  Seraphim 07:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that legitimate comments designed to improve this Article are mixed in with the garbage Lighbringer/Basil posted makes it very difficult to sort out who said what, about what, and when.  This is why I proposed (see above) just archiving the entire page and starting fresh with a new page.  We could start with a topic called: "Unfinished Business", and clearly list the areas people feel we need to work on.  I don't mind whiping the garbage and rants at the same time we archive.  (I would do all this myself, but I'm not up to that yet in my Wiki-skills.) Blueboar 13:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concur with Bro.Blueboar. Darth Dalek 19:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  page length 

message: I think their should be a section called 'Controvercy' instead of the 'Criticism, persecution, and prosecution'. The Controvery section should also explain to the reader about the popular circulation of consipiracy theories about this organization. What do you guys think? Tutmosis 15:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename of section