Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 25

This is an archived talkpage - please do not edit it, but take discussions to the current talkpage.

new introduction?

Freemasonry is a fraternal organization, founded in the 1700's. It uses an initiatory ritual to teach symbolism and morality, and that ritual is based on the concept of medieval stonemasons, their tools, as well as King Solomon's Temple.

I'm going to just start with one stubline, let's work from there, shall we?--Vidkun 16:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me. I'm glad I was able to help; although as I said, I don't know much about the topic. Steve Dufour 17:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, where you can help is by NOT knowing anything about the subject... you can tell us when we are not explaining something properly. if you are confused, so will be other readers.

Vidkun, A very good beginning. To slightly expand on the stub:

Freemasonry is a world wide fraternal organization, of uncertain origin but officially founded in the 1700's. It uses an initiatory ritual (essentially a series of allegorical tales set during the Building of King Solomon's Temple) to present non-religious moral and ethical lessons which members can interpret and apply to their daily lives as they see fit. These lessons are conveyed through symbolism, with the tools and implements of a medieval stonemason being given symbolic meanings.

From here, I would include a second, very brief paragraph about Organizational Structure, - explaining the words "Lodge", "Grand Lodge", and "Jurisdiction" (leaving "regularity" to be discussed in the actual article). Then in a third paragraph introduce (again briefly) the fact that there is criticism and opposition. Blueboar 17:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Officially founded in the 1700's doesn't take into account the potential that there were other pre-documented cases of lodges or what not. We need to leave that statement more open ended, as to it's age, because we can't be certain. 211.30.71.59 04:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. Rarelibra 05:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My take (we can cite as needed where necessary): Freemasonry is a world-wide fraternal organization, popularly claimed to have been formally organized in England in the 18th century. It uses an initiatory system of a series of allegorical tales set during the building of King Solomon's Temple to present universal and non-denominational moral and ethical lessons, which members may interpret and apply to their daily lives as they see fit. These lessons are conveyed through the symbols of the tools and implements of medieval stonemasons. MSJapan 05:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it... as a writer freind of mine likes to say: it "sings".

Here is a starting draft for the rest of the new intro:

A meeting of Freemasons is called a "Lodge" (a name which is sometimes used to discribe their meeting places as well). Each Lodge is chartered and supervised by a "Grand Lodge" (in some Masonic jurisdictions called a "Grand Orient"). There are hundreds of Grand Lodges throughout the world, with their jurisdiction usually corresponding with national or state boundries. Each Grand Lodge is independant of the others, and there is no over-arching body that rules these independant Grand Lodges.

Slight rewrite to cut out a few "too much info" things: A meeting of Freemasons is called a "Lodge" (a term which is also used to describe the building in which a Lodge meets). Every regular Lodge is chartered and supervised by a "Grand Lodge" or "Grand Orient". There are hundreds of Grand Lodges throughout the world, with their jurisdictions usually corresponding with national, state, or provincial boundaries.

Freemasonry has often been called a "Secret Society", due to the fact that Masons promise to not to reveal certain aspects of its rituals (essentially "secret" handshakes, passwords and recognition sighs) to non-Masons, and are generally reluctant to discuss what occurs in their meetings. Recently, however, Freemasons have objected to this appelation, pointing out that their membership rolls, meeting places and meeting times are all matters of public record; and that there have been numerous exposés written through the years that have revealed all if their "secrets". Today Freemasons prefer to say that they are a "Society with secrets" rather than a true "Secret Society".

Freemasonry has often been called a "secret society", since members promise to not to reveal certain aspects of Masonic rituals (so-called "secret" handshakes, passwords and recognition signs) to non-Masons. Recently, however, Freemasons in many areas of the world have objected to this appellation, pointing out that Masonic meeting places and meeting times are not only matters of public record but are also clearly marked, and also and that there have been numerous exposés written through the years that have revealed all of the so-called "secrets". Today, Freemasons prefer to say that they are a "society with secrets" rather than a true "secret society".

While Masons may object to the appelation, others feel it is apt. Freemasonry's traditional secrecy has bred distrust. The fraternity does have it's detractors, some of whom actively oppose it (such opponents are often dubbed "Anti-Masons"). Freemasonry is frequently mentioned in various conspiracy theories.

Blueboar 14:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, some feel that calling Freemasonry a secret society is apt. There are other individuals and groups that oppose Freemasonry on various grounds. Due to perceptions of secrecy, Freemasonry is also frequently mentioned in various conspiracy theories.

My goal was to really present only bare-bones info, and keep detail to a minimum (detail is what the article is for). Anyhow, that's my version of BB's version. I am assuming we will wikilink where appropriate, though I'd like to keep citations out of the intro if possible, and leave them only in the main body of the article. I think the intro might need to get shorter, but it's a matter of layout once it's on the page. MSJapan 18:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, an excellent condencing ... well done MSJ. I totally agree that the intro should be just "bare-bones" info ... but since an intro is supposed to mention all of the major themes contained in the main text... and since about half of the article is devoted to discussing either organizational structure or opposition to Freemasonry, I felt that we needed to at least mention these aspects in the new intro. If we can summarize even further (ie make it more "Bare-bones"), I think we should.

As for wikilinks and citations... I agree... wikilink in the intro and save the citations for the main text unless absolutely needed.

Here is a draft of the entire thing (I have made a few more tweeks) so we can see what it might look like: Blueboar 18:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Intro - Draft

Freemasonry is a world-wide fraternal organization, popularly claimed to have been formally organized in England in the 18th century. It uses an initiatory system of a series of allegorical tales set during the building of King Solomon's Temple to present universal and non-denominational moral and ethical lessons, which members may interpret and apply to their daily lives as they see fit. These lessons are conveyed through the symbols of the tools and implements of medieval stonemasons. Organized at the local level into "Lodges" and at a regional level into "Grand Lodges", the fraternity has served as the model for many service societies and fraternal orders.

Freemasonry has often been called a "secret society", since members promise to not to reveal certain aspects of Masonic rituals (so-called "secret" handshakes, passwords and recognition signs) to non-Masons. Recently, however, Freemasons in many areas of the world have objected to this appellation, pointing out that Masonic meeting places and meeting times are not only matters of public record but are also clearly marked, and that there have been numerous exposés written through the years that have revealed all of the so-called "secrets". Today, Freemasons prefer to say that they are a "society with secrets" rather than a true "secret society". However, some feel that calling Freemasonry a secret society is apt. Due to perceptions of secrecy, Freemasonry is frequently mentioned in various conspiracy theories. In addition, there are individuals and groups that oppose Freemasonry on various other grounds.

Freemasonry is a world-wide fraternal organization, popularly claimed to have been formally organized in England in the 18th century. It uses an initiatory system of a series of allegorical tales set during the building of King Solomon's Temple to present universal and non-denominational moral and ethical lessons, which members may interpret and apply to their daily lives as they see fit. These lessons are conveyed through the symbols of the tools and implements of medieval stonemasons. Organized at the local level into "Lodges" and at a regional level into "Grand Lodges", the fraternity has served as the model for many service societies and fraternal orders.

Landmark #23 of Freemasonry states that Secrecy is an essential part of Freemasonry. In addition to a requirement of keeping secret all of the ritual and recognition aspects, Freemasons are required to keep secret all confidences of a Brother Mason, including identifying him as a Freemason to Non-Freemasons. Thus Freemasonry is considered to be a Secret Society.Lcg.wda 10:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you are getting this "Landmark #23" from... since No two Masonic jurisdictions agree on what the landmarks are ... and some don't even have a formal list of landmarks (New York, for instance, does not enumerate any)... this can definitely not be included in the article.

Yes, there are things that Masons consider "secret" but, as my version clearly states, these are only the passwords, the "secret handshakes" ("tokens" or "grips" in Masonic language), recognition signs and the like. Blueboar 13:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the intoduction

Once the new intro has been finalized and uploaded, I think we will need to re-order and rework the main article a bit. I would first discuss what freemasonry is... its ritual, symbolism, and purpose (this section may need to be drafted afresh rather than just reordering existing sections). I would then discuss the organizational structure and issues such as regularity, recognition, and appendant bodies (I think the current sections are good, but some of them can be combined or reordered). Following that we can go into the history (can we summarize even more and bief up the "history of" article?) and end as we do with the oppositions section (this is a good excuse to re-draft this ...I have never been happy with the accusatory and defensive language and tone contained in this section, I would welcome a truly NPOV, factual version). Any other thoughts as to order and structure?

As for new material... We can certainly expand upon the charitable side of Freemasonry... and I would love to see a brief section on how certain Masonic usages have entered the English language (things like saying someone is "on the level" or that something is a "square deal". This can be included in a section on ritual and symbolism. We could even mention how the vary word "Freemasonry" has become discriptive noun meaning a closely knit group). Anything else we should talk about but currently do not? Blueboar 19:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 25 Landmarks of Freemasonry should be included in the article. Let people read them for themselves, as they describe what Freemasonry is, was, and must remain to be.Lcg.wda 10:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with that is comprehensive coverage, there is no one authoritative set of landmarks, so any usage is inherently flawed. There is an article on them, somewhere, but it's pretty half baked at the moment.

Standards are great, there are so many to choose from ;)

ALR 10:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced (so to speak) about the motivations for this statement so ignore my previous.ALR 10:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wei...? It's not important but you probably want to do some research about the Grand Orient before making corrective revisions, especially if your going to write to me about them. I know the problems with some crazies that go on about wildly unfounded allegations of anti-Christian or anti-religious practices in Masonry. Having said that, most Grand Orient Lodges do not require the use of religious texts or belief in a Supreme Being. (They don't forbid it either.) If you disagree with the practice, and many Grand Lodges do, (including my own) it is still not reason to change something (or to bother telling me about it). I gave a citation, and I know it is the case in practice. The GL of NY (my GL) happens to, by historic chance, to govern a Lodge system in Syria and Lebanon and I shared the citation. If Arabs or Arab countries with Masonry doesn't seem proper to you I suggest you take your bias elsewhere rather than connect it to Masonry. The other thing you removed was a cited reference to the use of the red patch in Nazi Germany for political prisoners including some Masons. (Nazis flipped flopped their attitude towards the Craft, but there was persecution.) Can't imagine your motivation to remove that... Fraternally, J.

I explained this already, partially, and I asked that the edits be discussed before being made. As you didn't, I reverted them. Secondly, you added no references to the article whatsoever that support your claims except for maybe the Muslim statement, so don't say that things were cited when they clearly were not. Thirdly, an Orient isn't always what you think it is - it's also a term for AASR bodies in some US states, and if Orients don't use a VSL all the time, they would not be recognized by UGLE, and some are, so that assertion of yours as to VSL not beeing required in general is incorrect. I'll also point out that your statement here about Orients is not what you introduced into the article, either. I would like to see separate bulleted statements, individually cited here on the talk page. If not, those edits will more than likely not remain in the article. I mentioned it to you to give you the opportunity to fix said statements and make a positive contribution. MSJapan 04:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't most/all of the AASR SJ use "Orient"? & if so, isn't that "most", not "some US states" ?~D Grye 07:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see why it's contentious. Someone made the decision in an (psuedo)encyclopedic context to call a major branch of FM "irregular" and thus not worthy of including or acknowledging. I won't pursue this here, but gawd! this is just unbelievable. This is why I would immediately flunk a college student that even thought about citing the stuff on Wp. And yes, I'll happily and openly continue to visit lodges in a system representing millions of my Brethren. In general I think they are much more relevant and true to the spirit of intellectual inquiry (and maybe brotherhood) in the way they conduct their system as a whole. Rather than actively terming others "irregular" we should take a look at the abysmal state of some things closer to home. In fairness though I entirely appreciate your respect for FM manifested in you bothering with this article. Always Fraternally, Me

This is what various regulations and constitutions state, and therefore this is what a member will find. Would you rather someone got expelled or denied entry into a Lodge because regularity or the lack thereof didn't matter to someone?

WP is not the place to debate issues of regularity, nor to try to prove one side wrong on these issues. This is also not the place to bring up European vs. American Masonry, for the same reasons that this is not something to debate here. WP deals in facts, not opinions, and that's the way it will remain. MSJapan 15:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The real issue is that there is nobody would consider themselves to be an irregular mason. Regularity is a relative thing, your lodge isn't on it's own regular, it's adknowledged by another GL as a regular lodge. From what I can tell, the article is based around the major, most common, form of masonry, and talks in generic terms. And from all that I have read/researched requiring belief in a superior being is exceedingly common in lodges. The article uses a weasle word when discussing the requirements since obviously, it's impossible to list requirements that hold true accross all of masonry, however it's then followed by a statement "A candidate is asked 'Do you believe in a Supreme Being?' Since an initiate is obligated on the sacred volume which is applicable to his faith, a sponsor will enquire as to an appropriate volume once a decision has been made on the applicant's suitability for initiation.". I sugggest that we remove that line, and just leave the part that states "Generally to be a regular Freemason, a man must: [...] Believe in a Supreme Being.". Seraphim 01:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So... Great, we can make this edit(s) & be done with it? The next issue, & I give it about 10 hours max, is going to be the line, "to be a regular Freemason, a man must...", becaus the next bone of contention is going to be "what about all the regular women Freemasons?!?"... whatever, it all harks back to the question define Freemasonry.... so... howaboutthat? Grye 04:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that the article considers the craft from the perspective of Anglo-saxon GL Masonry, since that is where all FM is derived from anyway and the majority of the published work is written from this perspective.

The issue about SB and appropriate VSLs is significant, some Mulsim initiates are happy with a bible, others aren't, so the discussion needs to be there. It's also worth highlighting that the majority of feminine and androgynous freemasonry take a similar position with respect to the ethical framework within which the individual operates.

ALR 09:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early Lodges

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

One dollar bill

Hi. I heard that the seal of the Freemasons is on a USA one dollar bill. Can this be on the article? --Steinninn 14:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. The seal on the US one dollar bill is not the seal of the freemasons, but the Great_Seal_of_the_United_States. Hope that helps. Justin Eiler 15:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Masonic conspiracy theories for this and other claims. As far as the one doller bill goes, the word 'mason' is one of 120 different possible ways to read it... neither of which is correct (as JE points out, it's the seal of the US) WegianWarrior 15:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To explain further, this is all hooey... the reverse of the Great Seal of the United States, which is what is depicted on the dollar bill, was not designed by Freemasons (there were three committees who were asked by Congress to propose designs. The only Mason on any of these committees was Ben Franklin, who served on the first of the three. His design proposals were rejected. The final design was that of the third, which had no Masons on it.) While you can use a six sided star to point to letters that form an anagram of the word Mason... the star must be noticably irregular for it to actually work. Blueboar 16:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with mentioning that Freemasons F.D.R. and Wallace, his V.P. had the seal placed on the one dollar bill in 1935. Freemasons also took part in the design of the seal, Benjamin Franklin for example. The all seeing eye, is one of the most recognizable symbols of Freemasonry, and the truncated pyramid symbol comes from the kabbalah of the scottish rite.Lcg.wda 10:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, back in the real world. Blueboar has just explained what really happened, so how would you justify including conspiracy theory material in the article?ALR 10:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lcg.wda... please READ what is written before you respond to it. I just explained how the Masons (and specificly Franklin) did NOT take part in the design of the seal.

As for the rest... The all seeing eye (of God) is a recognizable symbol, often assumed to be Masonic because the Masons use it. However, it did not originate with the Masons. It can be found in Medieval Christian iconography; it was used by the ancient Greeks, Romans and Egyptians. In other words, the symbolism is not unique to Masonry. It is an easily recognizable reference to the idea that God is watching over us. That is why the men who designed the seal chose it... to indicate that God is watching over our republic (symbolized by the pyramid... note the 13 steps that stand for the 13 original States).

The truncated pyramid is not masonic in origin either. An unfinished temple/castle/building is also common in medieval iconography. I assume you are simply misusing the word "kabbalah" to mean "iconography" or "symbolism", but in any case your assertion that the symbol comes from the Scottish Rite is wrong. If anything it is the other way around... since the Scottish Rite as we know it today, did not really exist at the time that the Great Seal was being designed (while there were a group of degrees that were called "scottish rite" <they were actually French> at the time <to distinguish them from the more common "English" degrees> , these were significantly different than they are today... the modern Scottish Rite, and it's associated symbolism, dates from the 1850s.)

Sorry to disappoint you, but if you read history books instead of popular pseudo-historical thrillers and conspiracy websites, you will find that the seal (nor the dollar bill) is not Masonic. Blueboar 14:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep in mind that this statement is coming from a person who thinks "carrying an airgun for self-defense is not very intelligent" is an appropriate addition to a Wikipedia article, hasn't cited a single other trivial edit he's made, and then takes citation issue with a supposed lack of notes in Hodapp? Pot, kettle, black, and let's move on. MSJapan 14:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who also never seemed to notice the lack of footnotes in ALL Dummies books. That's their rules, not the authors'.--Frumious Bander 03:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

long talk page

Talk page is getting long again. Would someone archive... (I forget how). Blueboar 14:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it done - basicly, it's a cut 'n paste job =) WegianWarrior 14:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

GA possibility

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Freemasons redirect.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

For those of you who care about policy

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)[reply]

Holocaust Section

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

FAC nomination

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

F.&A.M. and A.F.&A.M. articles

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

These should indeed be merged and redirected to this article. They are essentially dicdefs. Blueboar 14:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Work in progress: references

I've done some work I later reverted because I dropped a ref tag. If someone has time to do it, can my revision be put back and fixed, and can we add cites? Freemasonry for Dummies is good for the Officers section for a start, and perhaps some of the other unciteds stuff as well. MSJapan 03:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MSJ, I restored your edit w/fixed ref tag, look at it I think that's what you wanted? & you mean cites in general, as per the nom page suggestion? I for one will look at it...;~D Grye 04:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I didn't realize we had such large sections of uncited material. That being said, things like "these are the Lodge Officers" are something easily found on almost any Lodge page, and I don't think need to be cited. Just in case, though, Hodapp 97-104 will cover that for the most part (and should probably go in the relevant article as well, though I don't want ot over-rely on it. I'm hoping to be getting some non-US-based reference material soon, so maybe we can use that, but if anyone has one of the various Masonic encyclopedias (other than Waite - his work is what other folks tend not to have), it would be nice to get some refs from them, because we have none, AFAIK. MSJapan 22:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting: When this came up, & otherwise in the last couple days, I've been looking around & other articles aren't nearly as referenced as (most of) this one. Also, alot of it has been spun off into other articles, w/"main" tags in their now-sections. If those articles are ref'd, do we want to, or not to replicate those refs here?!? W/enough refs, it rather breaks up the readability of the article... (that'd be a question ;~) Grye

US-POV a for instance on both the points, "US-POV", & ref's (Vs. subarticle being ref'd), Look at Freemasonry#Lodge Officers and Masonic Lodge Officers: 1) UGLE (& otherwise England) is referenced 10 times, so there is considerable UGLE-POV (& thus non-US) material here, & 2) well, OK, there's not alot of inline refs, but there's 4... Good example US Vs. UGLE, bad for subarticle ref'd. Grye 23:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if anybody's got MacNulty's book, there's a bit on specialty Lodges. If not, I'll add it tomorrow. MSJapan 03:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't ;~( Grye 02:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reference sites of note

GL of BC&Y's post of William's copy of the charges

Freemasonry - regularity

Hi, I have been reading about the history of freemasonry and started to add some historical information on articles on freemasonry in Wikipedia. It seems that there is a bias towards the UGLE-type of freemasonry, while the GOdF-related freemasonry is largely disregarded or being classified as "co-freemasonry" from the point of view of the UGLE-type of freemasonry? How to bring more neutrality and avoid POV into this subject which seems te be highly divisive in masonic circles? Pvosta 07:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No bias is intended. If these articles over discuss UGLE/US style Freemasonry at the expense of Continental/GOdF style Freemasonry it is because that is what most of the contributing editors are familiar with. Please help us balance things out. Note, however, that these pages do get contentious. I have found it helps to discuss proposed edits on the talk pages before making any major changes. Blueboar 15:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed this on the user's talk page, but if we de-focus at all off of what we have here, we're in trouble. We need two different histories, two sets of requirements, two sets of this that and the other thing, and we'd have to start talking about all the irregular groups, which is a ridiculously huge number. Never mind the fact that irregular Masonry is sketchy (RGLE and the "Duke of Cabinda", anyone?)

It's really not a POV fork, but rather two completely different systems - it's not really a good idea to try to address them both here. I'm always a little concerned about GodF anything, because invariably people try to say that the loss of recognition was totally political, when in fact it was predicated on a major change that violated a Landmark. MSJapan 16:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There' a huge difference between the Hiram-come-latelies of RGLE/UGLA etc and GOdF, GLdF etc, which, in many cases were derecognized for political reasons first, then justification was drummed up after the fact.--Vidkun 16:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the underlying politics, but if we look at it that way, we have one "regular" system (which is also the one most people know about and associate with the term "Freemasonry"), and at least two irregular systems (GodF and the "splinter groups"), which I think only compounds the overall problem (in addition to differentiating all this stuff - Paul Bessel has a list of all GLs he could find, and he hasn't even attempted to classify them either). I don't think any other branches save the "mainstream" regular one could be adequately addressed here succinctly, and the article is pretty big as-is. If someone wants to draft something, though, feel free. I'm out of my area of expertise here. MSJapan 20:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: a couple several Landmarks... Grye 02:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Widow's Sons

I was wanting to know what everyone thought about an article regarding the "Widow's Sons" Motorcycle Assn. Grand Chapter. I don't belong to it, but I know it has a fairly active group nationwide. Just concerned about it meeting notability guidelines, etc. I have no association with it, other than an interest in its Masonic affiliation. http://www.widowssons.org/main.html Jokerst44 23:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joker, I thought about that recently too, but my thought was an article on freemasonry's MC history, especially considering the Shrine's history of using MCs in their acts etc... & That HD actually made (still makes, I think) a Shriner Model only available to Shriners...(!)

If so, then w/a section on Widow's Sons, & if that section really grows from there then split it later.

NOTE: This is a good way to start articles, as it's always contentious, as you well know, to start a stub & see it get torn apart & AfD etc etc etc, while if you start it about a more general subject, it can be split later, and in fact at a certain point the split will be strongly suggested, & there ya go, you get your article, and a master article to prove it's noteworthyness ;~). Oh yeah, plus we all get along much better ;~D

NOTE: CO Masons have a club, I did a quick search didn't find 'em but I have 'em on my old laptop, I'll find it for you.

Grye 01:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say that I don't think it would be considered all that notable. There are many Masonic motorcycling groups and organizations. I am not sure what makes this one unique and special. I could see it being nominated for deletion as either a "Vanity" article (at best) or advertizing (at worst)... both of which are frowned on by the wikipedia community. I think of it as being similar to the reason why we don't have articles on individual lodges. As proud as we all are of our individual lodges, and as much as we would love to express that pride by having Wikipedia articles on them, when push comes to shove most of them are simply not all that notable. The very rare exceptions are those with some sort of historical notability (Killwinning #0 in Scotland, for example). Heck, I question whether individual Grand Lodges should have articles... they are similar enough that I don't really consider one to be more notable than another... and considering how many exist around the world is any one GL really that notable? UGLE is notable for being the oldest... but beyond that I am less sure. Blueboar 01:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.. thanks for the input guys. I appreciate it. Jokerst44 02:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Kilwinning, No0, please.

If there are any reliable sources on the links between riders and FM then there might be scope for a more generic article, rather than highlighting specific associations. I've attended Chevaliers de Fer a couple of times which is peripatetic and intended for riders, there is something in Aus and as I recall also in South Africa, there are bound to be a few more.

ALR 07:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, yeah, that's 2/3s what I was trying to say, BB's right: ""Vanity" article (at best) or advertizing (at worst)... "

But if you do a general article, I'll help w/refwerk, & drop you what links & etc I know... Grye 02:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to bounce your ideas off of the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling... they may have their own criteria for inclusion/exclusion, and at minimum they can offer their advice and opinion as to what is and is not notable. Blueboar 13:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

second paragraph

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)[reply]

POV in intro

While there have been many disclosures and exposés dating as far back as the eighteenth century, these often lack the proper context for true understanding, may be outdated for various reasons,[6] or could be outright hoaxes on the part of the author.[7]

The text in bold is particularly problematic: I think the "true understanding" part is a clear example of POV pushing. It implies that one interpretation is 'true' and that others are misguided or false. The whole sentence downplays the credibility of all 'disclosures and exposés' and I think the references cited may be questionable. For example, reference 7 (Is Freemasonry a secret society (UGLE)) is a link to an FAQ-type page on a mason site with no mention of exposes or hoaxes at all. "Outright hoaxes" indeed! --Eloil 17:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text refers to a number of known hoaxes involving exposés of Masonic ritual... the most notable being the Taxil hoax. Sorry... no POV... just facts. Blueboar 17:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand... the citation to UGLE does look like a mistake. My guess is that at one time we used the UGLE page to cite the entire paragraph and not just the hoax part. As we found better citations for the individual statements, UGLE probably got shunted to the end and separated from what it was intended to cite. I will find a better citation about hoaxes. Blueboar 17:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not POV, but I specified "understanding of content." The fact is that the exposes aren't credible, and the references are fine - the section being referred to is: "The rituals and ceremonies used by Freemasons to pass on the principles of Freemasonry to new members were first revealed publicly in 1723. They include the traditional forms of recognition used by Freemasons essentially to prove their identity and qualifications when entering a Masonic meeting. These include handshakes which have been much written about and can scarcely be regarded as truly secret today; for medieval Freemasons, they were the equivalent of a 'pin number' restricting access only to qualified members."

I have moved the citation earlier in the sentence (in direct support of the line about context)... it is now citation #6 ... I will find another source (possibley BC&Y's page on the Taxil hoax?) to put at the end to directly support the phrase on hoaxes. Blueboar 17:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The unsigned comment above was by MSJapan.

The specific POV claim I made was in reference to the phase "these often lack the proper context for true understanding". Who determines "proper context" and "true understanding"? I think it's obvious these depend on POV.--Eloil 17:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be like a statement, a true understanding of mathematics, or something like that. it is possible to have a quasi or false understanding. That is not a point of view, but can be a fact. The fact is, there have been many hoaxes, that have been substantiated ash hoaxes, therefore making anybody reklying on them to have a quasi or false understanding. This is not POV, however a statement of substantiated facts. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the citations now (I moved them around and added a new one)... I think all statements are now specifically cited properly. Blueboar 18:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the claim that "disclosures and exposés... often lack the proper context for true understanding" is supported by anything on that page. Maybe you can find a quote there that supports the statement?--Eloil 18:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The UGLE page, that is.--Eloil 18:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The rituals and ceremonies used by Freemasons to pass on the principles of Freemasonry to new members were first revealed publicly in 1723. They include the traditional forms of recognition used by Freemasons essentially to prove their identity and qualifications when entering a Masonic meeting. These include handshakes which have been much written about and can scarcely be regarded as truly secret today; for medieval Freemasons, they were the equivalent of a 'pin number' restricting access only to qualified members." Which gives the proper context.

Thinking about this more, I can see how a non-mason might not understand how the above relates to context and understanding... perhaps we should find something more specific. I know that both "The Complete Idiot's Guide" and the "For Dummies" books discuss examples of exposés and disclosures that lack context/understanding ... in fact, so does Robinson's Pilgrims Path (I would need to borrow the book from the library again to find the exact page citation). Give me a bit of time to do the needed reading and I will find it. Blueboar 19:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NPOV:

The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or 'asserted as being the truth'

I'm proposing that the reference to "true understanding" asserts that one viewpoint is the truth. User:Chrislk02's post seems to agree on this point (unless I'm misunderstanding) but proposes that the assertion of truth is justified. I think the print references Blueboar proposes are a good idea; there can be problems with using primary sources to justify controversial claims.--Eloil 19:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an after thought... would substituting the word "complete" or "accurate" for the word "true" make the statement seem less POV for you? (Truth is subjective after all). Blueboar 19:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "While there have been many disclosures and exposés dating as far back as the eighteenth century, critics argue these often lack the proper context for complete understanding of the content,[6] may be outdated for various reasons,[7] or could be outright hoaxes on the part of the author.[8]"--Eloil 19:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another minor point, I thought it might be better not to pipe the hoax link to Taxil hoax per WP:MOS-L#Context. An alternative would be "outright hoaxes on the part of the author, as in the case of the Taxil hoax." I'll go ahead and change this part as it seems like an uncontoversial change.--Eloil 19:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The minor point is fine... especially considering that there have been other hoaxes.

As for your suggested wording as to who "argues" this... in the case of the outdated or hoax materials it isn't a question of anyone arguing an opinion... an exposé/disclosure is either outdated or it is not, and it is either a hoax or it is not. The same can be said for the context/understanding bit... but since "context" and "understanding" are both a bit more subjective we may need to phrase things as an opinion (in which case, we would have to say "Masons argue", as it is the 'critics' who put out the disclosures and exposés)... However, the statement is more a statement of fact than an opinion (disclosures and exposés do often lack contextual understanding... not all, but a great many). The issue, I think, is that we have three statements of fact, one of which is boarderline twoards being a statement of opinion. What we need are solid supporting citations to show that these statements are indeed facts and not an opinions. We have that with the outdated and hoax statements... we don't have it yet with the context/understanding statement. I agree that we need a better citation than the one currently used. Blueboar 20:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility would be splitting up the sentence into more than one sentence. Using "critics of these claims" or similar intead of "critics" is also an option that could be explored. As far as the fact/opinion thing goes, saying that disclosures and exposes are often problematic for various reasons is a subjective claim. The fact that some claims are old is uncontroversial, but saying that these are "outdated" and thus no longer applicable is subjective. I think the term "disclosure" could use a bit more explanation also as it seems like it may be used in a specialized sense here.--Eloil 20:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't subjective; there's verifiable variation between modern rituals, so how much more so in those from over 100 years ago as compared to now, especially when the source of the exposure is questionable? Those statements are facts, not subjective opinions. The usage of disclosure is also standard - look it on dictionary.com. MSJapan 22:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is standard usage or not I think it needs further explanation (ie disclosures of what specifically)? By "specialized sense" I was just suggesting that perhaps Masons see "disclosures" and think "disclosures of rituals" for example, while other readers are left to speculate (as I just did) becase there is no further information.--Eloil 04:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further VS at all.

The only reason you speculated at all is part of the point: should it exist here at all, for people to speculate upon? & if so, w/o explanation from every POV about it? etc. "Standard usage" is not the probelm. It's more like "is any usage, ever, good enough to make it an entry in a worldwide encyclopedia?? You have/make a very good point that people out there hear something, go & look for answers, & come here & maybe find some, & get here w/ some "speculation", & be/leave here with further speculation, but none of that dictates what should be written here, really. We aren't here to dispell every myth; nor to to raise a defense to every POV. If that content is unencylopedic, &/or cant be addressed as such, it shall be discarded; & with that, let it at least partially satiate the reader, & further them in their journey !~) Grye 07:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation updated as requested. - used both Morris and Robinson. Blueboar 15:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article

Maybe this article should be put through the good article process to help on its way back to featured article status. Lexicon (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a search for "apron" and found that it does not exist in the article (been quite some time since i read through the whole thing). Perhaps we need a small section on symbols/furniture/whatever in this article. It would also be another place for insertion of a much needed image (we're really lacking in them). An image of an apron would look good somewhere. Lexicon (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, though I'm not sure of the general utility of lodge furniture to a csual reader. Maybe keep it to the tools, sourcing from a published source (maybe McNulty for a change?), and wrt the apron, ok, but from where, and what era? MSJapan 04:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A modern one, and from what jurisdiction, I don't think it matters. Personally I'd choose one that's, well, pretty. Mine's pretty nice looking, and it's fairly new as well. I wouldn't mind taking the picture. Lexicon (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only hesitation I have is that we want to present something that is representative of a "typical" apron. So I would avoid using one that is overly fancy (say a GL officer's apron)... on the other hand, we want something that is visually pleasing. I know that aprons are a bit different in the US as opposed to England. In the US a brother is presented with a plain white apron at his initiation (which is boring visually, so let's not use that)... what happens next depends on the lodge and the jurisdiction. Some lodges have "lodge" aprons (blue boarders and perhaps a bit of embroidery... often not owned by the individual brother, but by the lodge) as well as fancier offier's and PM aprons. In other lodges and jurisdictions the sideliners use their white aprons and only give fancier ones to Officers and PMs. From what I gather, in England it is different yet again ... you get a fairly fancy apron after 1st degree, and add rossetts and tassles and stuff as you advance through the degrees (I don't know the details). An English apron would probably make for visually pleasing picture. Blueboar 14:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy enough to take a picture of mine, although as a PM it has levels rather than rosettes. Perhaps excessive but I can also provide a photo of a Kilwinning MMs Apron, Green with bullion.

ALR 15:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where I am (Ontario), you use a lodge's apron for the first and second degrees (plain white lambskin for first and the same with two rosettes for second), and are presented with your own apron when raised (blue-bordered, three rosettes, and tassels (silver or gold, depending, I guess, on your lodge's preference). I assumed it was done the same way in the US, but perhaps you are correct, Blueboar. You can see an image of my style of apron here. Lexicon (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HAH! You should never assume commonality between jurisdictions in Masonry :>) (don't worry, it took me years to figure that out) heck we can't assume commonality even within a jurisdiction. In NY we don't even have conformity between lodges! (I have been to one lodge where everyone including the Master just wore white aprons all the time) In any case... this site (to a apron supplier) shows typical US versions. Some lodges use the MM presentation apron they show, but with the lodge number in the center instead of a S&C. For officer's aprons it will have the emblem or jewel of office in the center (similar to how a US PM's apron has the PMs emblem in the center.) Blueboar 15:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before I became a mason I actually thought that the first apron received (a plain white one) was the one kept (I guess I read it on a US masonry site), and was surprised when I found out that it was the MM apron I was to keep. I guess I afterward made the same mistake in reverse and thought that what my GL did was what other GLs also did. Actually, I remember reading something about the "original" way of distinguishing between degrees by folding the flap and corner of a plain white lambskin apron differently according to degree. Anyway, there are obviously many choices when it comes to what apron to display (it would probably be too much to display more than one), but I do think a picture of an apron would be a very useful addition. I still like my own apron. I'm biased, of course, but I also think it does a good job of showing some of the fairly elaborate decoration that can go on an apron while still just being a MM apron. It might also be neat to add a composite image of officers' jewels, sort of like a banner with each of the jewels lined up (could be illustrations for this one, not actual photographs), and a description below naming each of the items (and linking to any articles on the actual tools/items that might be on Wikipedia). Lexicon (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lex- What you remember about the flap is how most (if not all) US lodges do it... plain white until raised, with the flaps etc. done according to the degrees.

As for the picture... I have no problems with using a pic of your apron as an exemplar, if the consensus is that such a picture would enhance the article. It is more visually interesting than a plain white apron, but simple enough to represent a "Typical" apron of the British tradition.

Question to all... would this topic make for an article on its own? ("Masonic aprons"?... "Aprons in freemasonry"?) If so, we could show several different styles of aprons (historical and modern) and give proper explanations as to what the differences indicate. Just a thought. Blueboar 20:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may be a Master Mason, but I'm not a master photographer. This is currently the best I have. Lexicon (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lex - Just wanted to comment on something you mentioned above. In Ontario, we have the "Grand Lodge of Canada in the Province of Ontario;" the first grand lodge in Canada which eventually wound up only having jurisdiction over "Upper Canada" which is now Ontario (I would suggest you pick up a copy of "Whence Come We" the next time there is a DDGM visit to your lodge - fascinating history of the Loyalist movement after the American war of independence, and you can watch Masonry grow out of our own uniquely British North America schisms at the time). But I digress...

The main point I wanted to make was that the apron you are showing has gold trim because the Lodge you belong to is more than 100 years old on the GLCPO records (i.e. has a charter that is dated prior to 1907) - Silver trim is for lodges less than 100 years old. Also, some of the "older" lodges out here in Loyalist Country (I'm in Belleville, and belong to a lodge in Kingston, Ontario) have officer aprons as well. In our lodge, we use the officer collars to denote who sits in what chair; at a lodge I visit in Belleville on a regular basis, only the Master wears a collar, and everyone else wears an apron representative of their office. This even shows the differences between districts, since the Belleville lodge belongs to Prince Edward, and my mother lodge (Royal Edward of Cataraqui #92) is in the Frontenac district!

This is one of the things that always makes me laugh at the conspiracy theorists. If they only knew the truth - that we couldn't co-ordinate a fart after a baked bean festival between lodges in two different districts, let alone control all the governments in the world!

Blueboar, I think its a great idea to have a "Regalia" page, and would even be interested in helping you maintain it - as I've said before, I lurk a lot, but would love to do some work on this site or others (history, this topic, etc.) - Would also be really great to see the regalia from different lodges around the world. Absalom (4B54L0M) 05:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)--[reply]

Absalom: Yes, I figured out the gold trim/100 year history connection just prior to posting the image (and had a message all written up saying "hey, guess what I just figured out!" but decided against posting it). I suppose I could have just asked someone at my lodge about it, but it just never occurred to me that there was any real reason for the difference. Then, when looking up aprons during this discussion, I found a site selling aprons (actually for Quebec, not Ontario, but they use the same aprons), which explained the connection. It makes more sense now that I look at the silver aprons, because they only have silver tassels and buttons in the middle of the rosettes—they don't have any silver "trim" at all—whereas the blue border of a gold apron is fully trimmed with gold. My lodge is the oldest of the six my city, dating back to 1870 (still not old enough for a double-digit lodge number, though), and I know some of the other lodges are quite a lot younger than that. Personally, I actually dislike the colour gold, and would prefer a silver apron, but then it's certainly nice to belong to a lodge with more history and, dare I say it, prestige. Lexicon (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, many Jurisdictions specifically reserve gold trim for Grand Lodge regalia ... Lodge level is to use silver. However it is not always set in stone... and even where it is set, some very old lodges may have been granted a dispensation to be non-standard. (As an interesting side note... GLNY recently chartered a military lodge in Iraq... The lodge was presented with a set of aprons with a "desert cammy" border and black trim... very appropriate!) Blueboar 15:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected or not?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))) (Change) " -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

passwords

User:Dr who1975 seems insistant on including a list of supposed "passwords" to the article. For most of these he/she supplies no reference at all. For one he/she has attempted to put two citations in... both of which are not reliable sources. The first is a personal website. The second is Amazon.com ... I assume he really means to cite to the book being sold at Amazon... which is not a reliable source in any case... it is a very outdated exposé of Freemasonry (a Facsimile reprint of the rare Irish exposure of circa 1777) written by "Anonymous" ... hardly a reliable source.

What I find interesting is that he/she adds this information to the very same paragraph that clearly states that the various passwords, grips etc. can change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction... so even if they are legit (ie currently used) "passwords", they would only be legitimate in one or two places world wide (I would presume Ireland, as that is where the exposure apparently comes from). Long ago those of us who work on this article agreed that we wanted this article to reflect Freemasonry in general, and not get into the specifics of one jurisdiction's usages.

I will also note that Dr who1975 did not bother to ask why his additions were being reverted or discuss the issue on the talk page ... he/she immediately jumped to Mediation. It does not seem like he/she is assuming good faith here. It makes me wonder why? Blueboar 18:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using a link to amazon.com, a location where the book can be purchased for money, is not an appropriate way to cite anything. It would be a semi-advert for the book, which is not what wikipedia is for. ALso, he has made no attempts at dispute resolution. He should make attempts before proceeding up the ladder. ALswo, I agree with MSJapan, there are many sources that wills state that much of the information differs between grand lodges, and types of freemasonry. In these situations, more recent citations should be used as opposed to old versions (1700's) of which much has changed. Our goal is accuracy for this project, and citing innaccurate information will only go to discredit/hurt this project more. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there should be a section on some of the secret words... since they are not consistent and/or no longer used then there should not be a problem with this information. Everybody seems only concerned with how I cite it so I will find a better link. If that's the only problem then I'm sure you won't stand in my way once I've found a decent source.--Dr who1975 18:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

they are not consistent and/or no longer used - there is part of the problem; not only are the sources you provided failing WP:V, but by your own statement the information is unverifiable, probably out of date, unencyclopedic and unrepresentative of Freemasonry as a whole. Yes, I realise that NO password can be found that are representative of masonry as a whole - in my opinion thats one reason NOT to have ANY in the article. Undue weight and all that. WegianWarrior 19:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, WegianWarrior states it well above, and beat me to the response. Citation is not the only problem. It would appear to me that the reason why this information is not included is provided in the article and appropriatly cited. The information is not the same depending on where you go. The point of this article is to procide an oveview of freemasonry, not dependent on each grandlodge or governing jurisdiction. Including information from one jurisdiction would hardly be appropriate as it is innacurate in 99% of the situations. This article has been the soruce of much heated debate, and one topic is the general direction of the article. As I have stated previously, my interpretation of the curent consensus on this article is to include as much neutral, non jurisdiction specitfic information. Adding bits and pieces from different places is hardly congruent with that consensus. The fact is, the addition should be discussed here on the talk page before adding, which may require much more significant discussion as to the desired direction of this article. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... my earlier references were bad. I think I've agreed with that but we can mention it another half dozen times if you'd like. Here's my other point, surely all of that info about words changing could be (and in fact is) stated in the article. If that is the only other concern then I don't see a problem.--Dr who1975 19:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you stating above? What do you not see a problem with? THe concern I see is edits against the consensus of the general direction of the article, as well as accuracy. No matter what source you use, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have one that is accurate everywhere, even if it was disclosed today. Your desired additions open the door for this article to digress even further from featured status in my opinion as every different jurisdiction of freemasonry should get a section on what it does different making this articl epossibly fragmented beyond understanding. To me, the source and citation are not the problem, it is that the content in and of itself is not possible to be encylopedic. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the source and citation are not the problem, it is that the content in and of itself is not possible to be encylopedic. we've been beating our heads against the wall over that very issue over at Talk:Obligations in Freemasonry. Good luck!--Vidkun 19:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know. You're all correct. I will no longer attempt to put the secret word Mahabone on this page. However, I would like to leave this discussion open and psoted for while to see if anyone else wnats to take it up.--Dr who1975 19:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same thing that happens with just about everyone who goes around saying "booga booga here are the masonic secrets" They have an axe to grind, which is why they always cite from Christian antimasonic webpages, until they get told it's unverifiable. I have a hard time assuming good faith in face of that, time and again.--Vidkun 19:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we really want to get into examples, given the level of diversity within even the regular craft, without considering irregular or clandestine traditions. Whilst WP is not censored I'm unconvinced that any verifiable information would actually add much to the article, the only people who think that the externals are what's important tend to be Antis who don't understand the craft anyway.

With respect to the source provided, first the author is anonymous so we have no assurance of his or her authority with respect to the subject, second it purports to be Irish from the 1770s. Given that age it couldn't be considered representative of the modern craft in Ireland never mind anywhere else, but it's also pre-Union. Given that one of the major issues between the Antients and the Moderns was the Antients working of a wide range of rituals in their Lodges then the source can't be considered authoritative. Many of the additional rituals worked by the antients are now defunct, and some are worked in appendant bodies.

ALR 20:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALR, this is where/why I was calling sources into question, and, in fact, shows why I am directly arguing against their good faith. When the first citation someone uses is from a modern anti-Masonic webpage, good faith is out the window.--Vidkun 20:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'm not assuming good faith myself either in this case.

The above shouldn't have appeared as a response direct to you, I got caught up in an edit conflict at the same time as working on something else so it's ended up slightly awry. Sorry.

ALR 20:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the link changed somewhere in there. MSJapan 20:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well. That first cite may have been a biased source. It took you guys to help me realize that. The 2nd source was inapropriate for other reasons. It's silly for christian sites to be anti masonic anyway since the Freemasons are a christian organization too. As I said.... I'm done. BTW, I don't think revealing secret passwords that are not consitent and no longer in use such as mahabone would not necesarily constitue having an axe to grind. That would only even begin to make sense if the words were still in use today. Personally, I'm willing to stop responding here if people would stop posing questions or repsonses. I will not take it as an admission that I'm right.--Dr who1975 20:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry is not a Christian organization (except the Swedish Rite, which itself is only Christian in that it requires one to be a Christian to join—other than that, I don't suspect there's any mention of Jesus Christ anywhere in the ritual or anything). Freemasonry (at least regular Freemasonry) only requires a belief in God (and perhaps one who has revealed himself to the world and who punishes vice and rewards virtue). There are plenty of non-Christian Masons. I for one, am not a Christian. I'm not an adherent to any religion, actually, although I do believe in God. Lexicon (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I didn't read the article very well. I for one would not make a good freemason becuase I dont know if I beleive in god or not. So you're a freemason but not a christian. Cool. Mahabone.--Dr who1975 00:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Muslim freemason group? They beleive in one god. I tried looking it up and I only found how some Anti Masonic Muslims equate freemasonry with Zionism. Seems like there should be a Muslim freemason group in accordance with the principles of the craft.--Dr who1975 00:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know there is no "group" (Masonic organization, rite, etc.) that is specifically restricted to Muslims ... However, there are thousands of Muslim Freemasons, in lodges all over the world. Blueboar 12:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and Freemasonry

Moving the topic on from passwords - the issue of passwords having been sorted - we now see the discussion moving on to the field of religion and freemasonry. There is no such thing as a christian freemason or a muslim freemason. Freemasonry is not a religion, and requires - see the article - a belief in a Supreme Being as one of the pre-requisites for membership. There is only "freemasonry", and a freemason may sit in lodge beside a christian, muslim, buddhist, hindhu or an adherent of any one of the many religious groups, provided that belief is in a Supreme Being. I do not mean to be provocative, DrWho, but have you actually read the article through? I suspect - and I would really love for you to prove me wrong, call me a suspicious curmudgeon - but it seems to me that so far the only thing you have done with this topic is use the talk pages to insert secret words that have been removed from the current page. Am I being totally off target? docboat 10:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, I think your comment needs some further explanation, because it can be misconstrued to imply that once a man joins Freemasonry he is no longer a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddist etc. Freemasonry accepts men from all faiths, and they do not give up that faith when they join Freemasonry. So in that sense, there are Christian Masons, Muslim Masons, Jewish Masons, etc. Perhaps a more correct way to put it is that there are Christians who happen to be Freemasons, as well as Jews who happen to be Freemasons, Muslims who happen to be Freemasons, etc. etc. Or looking at it from the other direction, there are Freemasons who happen to be Christians, Jews, Muslims etc.

Perhaps the best way to explain this is to substitute the words "auto mechanic" for "Freemason". In one sense you can say that there is no such thing as a Christian auto mechanic or a Muslim auto mechanic ... being an adherant of a particular faith is irrelevant to being an auto mechanic; and being an auto mechanic has nothing to do with being a Christian or Muslim or any other religion. They are completely different categories. Being in one category does not depend on, nor does it negate being in the other. Blueboar 13:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so! Many thanks for the clarifying words! docboat 13:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is at the minimum a slighty religous bent what with the monotheistic thing. Don't know if it's enough to call the organization a religion or not mind you. I'm curious... do any of the freemason sub groups such as the Scottish Rite get religious tax exempt status?--Dr who1975 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't think so, since Freemasonry is specifically not a religion. I guess it depends where one is but it's not out of the question that some form of tax regime around charitable activity might apply.

ALR 20:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S. the fraternity definitely does not get religious tax exempt status ... indeed taxes have become a big issue in recent years, as smaller lodges have increasing difficulty meeting the property tax burdens on their lodge buildings. Some lodges have set up charitable foundations, and these foundations are tax exempt ... not as religious organizations, but as charities.

By the way.. Scottish Rite is not a "sub-group"... it is a completely seperate organization that requires you to be a Freemason to join. And no, it does not get religious tax exempt status either. that only applies to religions, and Freemasonry isn't a religion... it is a fraternity. Blueboar 21:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that. I realize precision is important but I was just trying to get the question otu. Thanks regardless--Dr who1975 23:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your "slightly religious bent" is a bit like saying a court of law has a religious bent because of the oath taken to tell the truth. Absolutely incorrect. docboat 02:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, I cut a closing clause in a sentence at the end of the paragraph about Catholicism. It read as follows: "implying that any organization which fails specifically to endorse their faith thereby rejects it." That's an unneccessary shot at the church, not an actual reference to anything regarding masonry.Ctmnt08

It may be seen as a such, however it is more than just implied in the source (which you happened to delete as well...) I've restored the source. I'll leave it up to others to decide if we're going to restore the wording as well. WegianWarrior 06:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Too late - beaten to it.

I agree with Ctmnt08 about the inappropriateness of the clause regarding Catholic opposition. In fact, the entire sentence, not just that final clause, is a rather clumsy misinterpretation of the letter by Cardinal Law cited. I do think that the letter itself is informative, and citation to it should be included. But to say that it stands for the proposition that the Catholic Church opposes masonry because of "Masonry's openess to members of other faiths" is just incorrect (or at least not the conclusion of the letter). There are plenty of organizations, clubs, etc. that welcome all faiths, but the Church would not oppose membership by Catholics. --Anietor 23:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim anti-Masonry

MSJapan. Could you please tell us where in this link Islamic anti-Masonry is closely tied with Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism. The "referenced" sentence ends w/ ..though other criticisms are made. Can you also tell us if the reference is related to this last portion or to the whole sentence. And please, AGF before hearing about editors' intentions. Cheers. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can start with the paragraph in the link that begins: "A number of people have written about the secret aims of the Society of Freemasons..." You should especially note what is stated at the end of that paragraph and the beginning of the next one. Blueboar 17:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That covers it, actually, and I was more concerned with a fact tag being added two words before a reference that was not removed (and was relevant), because there's no justifiable reason to do that. MSJapan 19:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also threw a citation to Prescott into the mix. Should settle the issue. Blueboar 19:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your above suggestion Blueboar. MSJ, my point was straightforward. The sentence in question is composed into of different points:

Islamic anti-Masonry is closely tied with Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism

though other criticisms are made.

According to the article, the reference of "Islam Online" covers both points. We have two issues here. (1) How could Wikipedia come to a conclusion in that X anti-Y is closely related to Z? (2) If it is true than quote it using the format below. This is not just telling people that JD was born on March 2nd and not the 31st by using a ref w/ no citing, sourcing or quoting. This is a case which is much more serious than that and this place is a respected gathering of respectable and academic sources especially used for serious and important articles. If we can prove to the reader and draw for them a clear and concise relationship between XY and Z out of random reference than we obviously would be WP:SYN.

In accordance w/ the above, my action was not out of line or place. It even auto-generated an answer for why the link was removed while the reference for the second part of "Wikipedia sentence" was left intact. Cheers. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the sources... Both directly discuss the Muslim form of Anti-masonry and tie it to Anti-semitism and Anti-Zionism... Both sources also directly discuss other Muslim anti-masonic criticisms. This is not a case of Synthesis. We are not drawing a conclusion based upon primary sources, but repeating what is said in secondary sources. Now, perhaps the wording of the sentence could be improved, but that is a very different issue. Blueboar 21:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of my edit there was only once reference to the alleged relationship between Islamic anti-Masonry and Anti-Semitism/Anti-Zionism. The other one refered to the Baath Party. I see now that a notable reference from an academic source has been added. I haven't had enough time to check when it was added but thanks to the contributor. However, as we have a notable reference now which doesn't fit into WP:SYN, the other one has to be removed.

That aside, i suggest that the section be split or a more concise and accurate title has to be formulated. I prefer to change the title for now and maybe split later when each topic will be more expanded. It is a fact that Baath Party in Iraq was a "radical, secular Arab nationalist political party." It has nothing to do whatsoever w/ "Muslim anti-Masonry." -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem determined to get rid of the islamonline.com citation. But I find it directly relevant. It is a prime example of Muslim anti-masonry... and specifically uses anti-semitic language ... Since you don't seem to see the connection, I will quote: "We also know that the society serves the aims of world Jewry and derives its name from that particular purpose. A 'mason' is a builder, and the Society of Freemasons aims to rebuild the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem after destroying Al-Aqsa Mosque because the Jews allege that the mosque has been built on the site of the destroyed temple. Everything that furthers the interest of the Jews and promotes their position in the world is undertaken by the society. The cover of absolute secrecy and its strict hierarchy enables it to make use of the positions and influence of its non-Jewish members to serve the Jewish cause. We have to understand that many of its members work for the society trusting that they only serve the causes of liberty, equality and justice. They remain unaware that they simply serve the cause of giving the Jews supremacy in world affairs." In this context the source is directly relevant and definitely is a reliable source for what Muslim Anti-masons say.

As for Prescott, I added his essay shortly after you raised your issue... his essay is about about the general trend of all anti-masons (both Christian and Muslim) towards anti-semitism. It was (and still is) used as a citation for the discussion on the Baath Party's opposition towards Freemasonry... but the essay talks about more than just that. He also discusses the tie between muslim religious anti-masonry and anti-semitism. Again, please read the sources.

Finally, please note that the article already splits the discussion of Baathist anti-masonry from the discussion of Muslim religious anti-masonry... I completely agree that Sadam's opposition was due to political issues (as is the case with most dictators). It is discussed along side other political forms of anti-masonry. In short, both sections are appropriately placed, and appropriately sourced. Blueboar 01:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I heard about AGF just after my edit. I know hear another call but i just don't mind because my reasoning is simple. I don't disagree with the fact that there is a connection otherwise i'd be pushing a POV or you could call me a censor. All i need is to edit according to policies and guidelines. True that i seem determined to get rid of the islomonline citation and i gave you my reason twice. Isn't it our work to ask questions re that? You believe you are respecting related policies but i bring a point. Everything is well explained at the last sentence of WP:SYN. I personally see a relationship on the fatwa but i'd not be making an analysis or synthesis or evaluating claims when establishing that relation using that as a reference. We need a secondary source such as the one you brought to tell the reader about that. I may refer you to Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.

Anyways, we can still disagree about the above but you say Saddam's opposition was due to political issues and we agree on that. So what it is doing fused w/ religious opposition? Isn't there a section just above titled political opposition? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article again... I do see how we have mixed political and religious where it comes to Sadam. This used to be seperate... my guess is that someone moved it since it related to anti-semitism and they figured that it was thus religious... a misplaced move in my book. I will fix that, and move the Baathist stuff back to the political discussion.

Getting back to the religious discussion... I don't see where WP:SYN comes in. We are not joining two ideas to advance a conclusiatory position... there is no A+B=C... we simply have statement A, and a source (now two sources) that backs A. We are stating a fact that is backed by a source. That is not OR. Blueboar 12:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job in taking the Ba'ath stuff to its appropriate location. I've expanded the section of Islamic Anti-Masonry according to the references to avoid any doubt about SYN. I hope the issue is sorted out now. Let me know if you object to that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A nice edit. No objections. Blueboar 14:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I wouldn't call them scholars neitherl. Nice spot. More expqnsion re Hamas is added. I hope now you got my the whole point i raised during this discussion. Non academic references (especially interviews, answers, etc) are to be reported and not synthetized. So all references remained but the section is much more NPOV and OR free. Thanks for you cooperation. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent addition of views of "Muslim scholars"

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I FACed it, and got very little constructive response, so try GA first. MSJapan 19:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Cultural references" section

Can we scrap this section entirely? It's really just a renamed "trivia" section. Trivia sections are frowned upon, and don't really add anything useful to an article. It will also cut down (slightly) on the size. If one or two references are actually useful, someone should be able to find a place for them in the "real" article itself. Lexicon (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No objection on my end. Blueboar 19:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact... I desided to be BOLD and have deleted it. If anyone disagree's just revert. Blueboar 19:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is some useful stuff for people who don't know certain things. It also says a lot about Masonry as to its place in popular culture and media. Maybe retitle it "Masonry in (Modern?) Media" and rewrite it in paragraph form? It can be left out for now, but I'll pull it out of history when I get a chance to work on it. MSJapan 19:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Interesting", maybe, but useful? This is an eneyclopedia we're working on, and if we ever want this article back up to featured status, it's likely going to need some real good pruning. Lexicon (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: At the editor's invitation, I restored this section and gave a rationale in the edit comment. A simple way of sorting fact from fiction would of advantage to this article. Deleting the contributions of others is not the best example of being bold, though it certainly is the easiest. Were the contributors involved contacted for their rationale? Length is not a criteria at FAC and if the section became an article, this would be win/win for all the editors involved. Literary references to 'Freemasons' are abundant (and extend past modern media) and the examples given are familiar to a well read person. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 15:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-removed. References to things, unless they fit into the body of an article, are not notable. It is a trivia section. I'm sure Encyclopedia Britannica does not have trivia sections in its articles. As for your suggestion that it could be turned into its own article, it could not--the places people mention "Freemasonry" (or allude to it, a la "Stonecutters") could never be considered encyclopedic. It is unfortunate that people worked on it, but the whole premise behind the cultural references section is flawed. Notable useful information would be able to be incorporated into the proper sections of the article. If not, then that just goes to show how non-notable the references are. Lexicon (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, in reference to my mention in the edit summary of cultural references to apples on apple, I guess I should have checked that article first, since there is a very extensive cultural section. Of course, there's a major difference between the two, in that that is highly historical, and deals with underlying themes of the apple, whereas these are generally unconnected modern mentions of Freemasonry. Lexicon (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, apple was not the most appropriate example. There are thousands of other cultural reference sections and, I fear, hundreds and thousands of articles that many would not want included - or is the encyclopaedia britannica able to. Please provide an examples where a similar section was removed by broad consensus of editors or to support opinions or categorical statements when reverting. Without looking I recognise the hilarious parody of fraternal organisations, stonecutters, many brothers thought so too. Trivia is deprecated generally, I agree that it should be. Literature is not trivia, I'm pretty firm on that. I also think it should be written out in full, not point form in a section. But that is part of the inclusion, or expurgating, process in this community. That Tolstoy, Eco or Moore are not notable is baffling. As with apple the 'underlying theme' is the subject of the article, insinuation and demonisation by lesser writers is regrettable and probably non-notable in some cases, but not censorable.

Comment: I find reverts to be quickly disruptive, could that editor (Lexicon) please undo that for the time being. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 16:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just an addition to this discussion, I remember i created Category:Atlantis back in 2005 after we decided to split [[Atlantis in art, literature and popular culture]] from the main article. [1], [2]. No one objected and the fork article is already rated as B-Class now! Other examples inlude Mars#Mars in culture. We must not forget that we also have Category:Religion in fiction.

A common ground here would be creating the article [[Freemasonry in fiction]] and insert it at "see also". (i.e. Bahá'í Faith in fiction)-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree with that suggestion. Given the nature of the topic how might one categorise some works, Lomas and Knight are, being as genorous as possible, speculative garbage and would easily fit in there. Others might disagree.

Since we're both active in the MilHist project you'll be aware that there is a preference there to avoid trivia sections, I'm not convinced that every incidental mention of Freemasonry in fiction is particularly useful in terms of informational value. Just because the space limitations in WP are less pressing than hard copy doesn't mean we need to be insdiscriminate. IMO it's better to have a well written, pithy and useful portfolio of articles, than content heavy behemoths.

ALR 11:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some history of the article may be in order here... about a year ago, the 'cultrual references' section was huge... it really was a "trivia" section, it contained everything from significant references such as Mozart's Magic Flute, Kipling's poems, and the Stonecutter episode of the Simpsons to all sorts of passing or incidental refference to Masonry that people could find: That is the video game World of Warrior Death Ninjas there is a secret Masonic emblem in the underground room on level twelve, or that such and such character in a TV show is seen to be wearing a Masonic ring in episode seven (best episode ever!)... etc. To cut the cruft, we decided to limit the list to references where Masonry was a major theme in the reference or played a significant part in it. Unfortunately that takes vigilance to maintain.

This article is very long as it is... do we really need a 'cultrual references' section that makes it longer? The info is interesting, but it is not central to the article. It invites repeated insertions of truely trivial references and argument about them (different people have differing ideas of what constitutes "culture"). Perhaps it could be split off into a sub-article... but I gather that doing this is somewhat frowned on.

I don't really care if it stays in or is cut... but I lean towards the cut side. Blueboar 12:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New lead

I tried copyediting the lead, and was reverted out of hand. So, let's discuss it here. I recommend changing the lead as follows. If there are specific concerns, please bring them up.

"Freemason" and "Freemasons" redirect here. For other uses, see Freemasons (disambiguation).

Freemasonry is a long-running fraternal organization, comprising millions of members worldwide,^[1] which uses the metaphors of operative stonemasons' tools and implements, against the allegorical backdrop of the building of King Solomon's Temple, to convey what is most generally defined as "a system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols."^[2] It is often referred to as one of the oldest "secret societies" in the world,^[1] though some Freemasons say that it is more correct to say that it is an esoteric society, in that certain aspects, such as the modes of recognition among members, and certain rituals are private,^[3]^[4] while other Freemasons say that it has become less a secret society and more of a "society with secrets."^[5]

Fremasonry exists in different forms worldwide, but its membership has shared moral and metaphysical ideals and in most of its branches requires a constitutional declaration of belief in a Supreme Being.^[6] The organization has administrative divisions known as Grand Lodges (or sometimes Orients) that govern a particular jurisdiction made up of subordinate (or constituent) Lodges. Grand Lodges recognize each other through a process of landmarks and regularity. There are also appendant bodies, which are organizations related to the main branch of Freemasonry, but with their own independent administration.

There have been many disclosures and exposés dating as far back as the eighteenth century, but many lack the proper context,^[7] may be outdated for various reasons,^[8] or could be outright hoaxes on the part of the author, as in the case of the Taxil hoax.^[9]

--El on ka 22:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference section

(to make the above post(s) more readable)

^ ^a ^b The History Channel, Mysteries of the Freemasons: America, video documentary, August 1, 2006.
^ http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09771a.htm 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia
^ Emulation Ritual ISBN 0-85318-187-X pub 1991, London.
^ Constitutions (UGLE) pdf file, Page xii. Accessed 12 June 2006
^ The Secrets of Freemasonry Grand Lodge of North Carolina Accessed 12 June 2006.
^ Freemasonry and Religion (UGLE) Accessed 12 June 2006.
^ S.Brent Morris, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry, Penguin Books, 2006, p.85 (also discussed in chapters 13 and 16). See also: John J. Robinson, A Pilgrim's Path, M. Evans and Co., Inc. New York
^ John J. Robinson, A Pilgrim's Path, M. Evans and Co., Inc. New York, p.129
^ Leo Taxil Hoax - Bibliography page from the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon, listing many books which perpetuate Masonic ritual hoaxes

comments

Some of the changes may be useful, such as moving the section about using the tools and such up, but I don't think the "millions of members" adds anything to the start, and, in fact, seems to be a weird kind of brag. "long-running" is way out of place, and I have already removed it from the edit you made. Lexicon (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I much prefer the language in the current version of the lead, although I agree that it can use some tweeking. As for your version, I really don't think we should use a History Channel documentary as our first, defining, citation... (hardly a highly respected source in my book). the current version starts with the UGLE website, which is far more definitive. You also cut some stuff that I think needs to be in the lead. Blueboar 02:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think the introduction to the article to some degree misses the point. We ought perhaps to take the definition of freemasonry from freemasonry itself, and say something like: "Freemasons describe Freemasonry as a system of morality which is veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols" docboat 02:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a summary of the topic, the Lead should definitely include some indication of the size and age of the organization. --El on ka 02:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we don't really know the size or age of the organization... beyond very general terms which come across as wishy washy.Blueboar 12:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure we do. 1979 Encyclopedia Britannica: "Of the world's estimated 5.9 million Freemasons, 4 million live in the United States and one million live in the British Isles." 2006 History Channel: "Over two million Freemasons in the United States alone." Columbia Encyclopedia: "Approximately 5 million members worldwide."[3] As such, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say "millions" in the Wikipedia lead paragraph. As for age, again looking to the Britannica: "Freemasonry evolved from the guilds of stonemasons and cathedral builders of the Middle Ages... In 1717 the first Grand Lodge... was founded in England." Seems like a reasonable way to state it. --El on ka 17:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I know a lot of people who would disagree with the EB on where Freemasonry came from (I don't, but I know those who ardently do). The origins of Freemasonry are a very complicated and highly debated issue. Too complicated in my book to raise in the intro - or at least too complicated to put into the first sentence. As for saying that there are "millions" of members... that I don't mind as much. I just think it comes across as puffery. I really liked the wording: "Freemasonry is a fraternal organization, existing in various forms worldwide..." it got the idea across in a nice succinct way.

One comment in general to, not just to Elonka... Please go slowly. No one minds your being bold and making changes ... but give us a chance to absorb, reflect and comment upon one change before you go on to make the next one. Otherwise people will end up reverting a lot of good changes because they object to one you made a while back. Thanks. Blueboar 18:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. And, speaking for myself, let me explain a bit about my reasons for being here. I recently helped get the Knights Templar article to featured status, and along the way, I acquired a fair amount of reputable source material which I'd like to use here at the Freemasonry article. Which doesn't mean I want to prove that the Freemasons descended from the Templars, but it does mean I acquired a lot of other useful info about the Freemasons during my research. I think I can help get this article (back) to Featured status. But, if every single edit is going to require a few days of consensus-building, that's going to be an agonizingly long process. On the other hand, I can understand the hesitancy. If this article has been targeted in the same way that the Knights Templar article was targeted, with lots of POV-pushers and poorly-referenced additions, I can understand why there are some kneejerk, "Wait, I don't know who that is, let's revert their edits," responses. I'm in full agreement that there are many people out there with Freemason axes to grind, and it's perfectly reasonable for the established editors here to watch this article closely, to keep out the cruft. I thank you for your vigilance! But really, I'm one of the good guys. :) I'll try to space my edits out a bit though, to help build trust. ;) --El on ka 19:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Knee-jerk tends to be more of "Wait, I don't know that source" or "THAT source... hogwash" rather than "Wait, I don't know that editor"... but I will admit that I have been guilty of reverting on instict rather than solid objection (I think everyone does that from time to time). I am sure you are one of the "good guys". My request for going slow should not be taken as an indication that I think otherwise. I don't think every edit you make will need a few days worth of consesus building... but perhaps a few hours of "hmmm... not sure about this one... let's read it... oh, ok" reflection time could be given. I, at least, would like a little time to actually look at the sources you add and see if I have concerns, questions or objections or not. It may be slow... but writing a good article isn't a race. We don't have a time clock running. Let's do it right so we don't have to re-do it in a few months time. Blueboar 19:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political opposition section

You convinced me Nzattitude 06:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good points, but one inaccuracy, the Boston Tea Party was undertaken by the Sons of Liberty. And while it's probably likely that some Sons of Liberty were Masons, their actions were individual actions, not actions sanctioned by Grand Lodges (and therefore were not actions of "Freemasonry"). As such, the same can be said for your comment suggesting we mention that Freemasonry has been involved in independence movements. Freemasonry has not. Individuals who were also Freemasons, however, were. To make the point you suggest we add to the article would be like saying that since Christians are involved in killing abortion doctors, then Christian churches support the killing of abortion doctors. Clearly, such a suggestion is ludicrous. Lexicon (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some other inaccuracies... or perhaps misconseptions is a better word... first, you assume that taking part in a war for independance is a violation of ones obligation... that is often a matter of interpretation. To a Mason like George Washington, he was not being disloyal to England... rather he was upholding his obligation by being loyal to "the country in which he lived"... ie Virginia (and, later, America). Second, You seem to assume that Masons were united in their opinions. They were not. In each of the conflicts you mention there were Masons on both sides... all of whom felt that they were living up to their obligations. (Freemasonry was just as divided as the rest of society). Yes, today we celebrate those "famous Masonic Leaders", Washington, Franklin and Handcock... that's because they won. If the Americans had lost the war for independance you would probably read all about those "famous Masonic Leaders": Bannister Tarlton, Phillip Skeen, and General Cornwallis. As Lexicon says... you can not make the assumption that Freemasonry is involved in independance movements... only individual Freemasons. Freemasonry is often "involved" on both sides. Blueboar 15:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You convinced me Nzattitude 06:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, and by the way someone added parts to my argument (with spelling errors) which I did not agree with so i have deleted th whole. Nzattitude 06:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anyone intentionally added to your argument. Someone may have commented and forgot to sign and that was mistaken as part of your argument. I have also, twice now, had to reformat your replies since you included a leading space, which formats responses as "preformatted", which ends up making normal text show up in a single, unreadable, line. Lexicon (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT?! I'll respond to your talk page, but my argument would not be like saying that at all. Lexicon (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - The Freemasonry information you cite from Boston Tea Party was just recently added by Elonka, and comes from the same History Channel "documentary" that is the source of the information she just inserted into this article. Again, you might want to find a stronger source. Lexicon (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, much of the "Masonic involvement" in the Tea Party is anecdotal - some minutes to the effect of "retiring to the harbor" supposedly exist, but nobody seems to have them. Moreover, I think this needs a historical context - Lexicon makes a good point, because Masons were on both sides in many wars, even as late as WWI (and I would gather there were still some on the Axis side in WWII, though it's hard to source). Moreover, the actions of a few members shouldn't reflect on the organization as a whole (though admittedly, it does, and funnily enough, never in a good context. Funny how no one notices all the good stuff, but I digress). Masonry at the time attracted "free thinkers", and those people felt that the governments were unjust. However, this is very much a chicken and egg situation - were the ideas already in the men before they became Masons, or was it in Masonry? My personal thought is that it was not and is not now in Masonry, and that Masonry and its ideas simply attracted men who had other "radical" ideas (like democracy) in mind and were willing to act upon them. MSJapan 18:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I do make a good point, but the one about Masons being on both sides of the revolutionary war was Blueboar's. Lexicon (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is some evidence to show that more Masons supported the British than the Americans during the war for independance. For example, in NY the majority of the lodges that existed prior to the revolution had closed by it's end... too many of their Loyalist members had fled the country for them to continue.

As for the tea party... I know that this myth is fairly well busted in both the "For Dummies" book and the "Idiot's Guide"... I'll pull them out later and give you more details. Blueboar 19:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for highlighting the importance of freemasons having led revolutions, that is not relevant to the article. Christians have led revolutions, as have Moslems and Buddhists. Relevant to the revolution is the reason behind the revolution, such as a drive for independance, freedom from oppression or the pursuit of a political ideology. These things have nothing to do with freemasonry as such, even if - as already said - a man may be more of a free thinker and as such is led to an interest in freemasonry. docboat 11:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another source for Muslim Anti-Masonry....

This article from the Telegraph (Sept. 12, 2005) makes a clear connection between Zionism and Masonry, and though it's not really coherent, it is a statement made by a government official (though he is politely discredited by the government spokesperson at the end). MSJapan 16:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also here, though Pietre-Stones isn't exactly stringent about what it publishes. However, there's another view on PS that may be of value as well. Also see GLBCY's page on Hamas and Freemasonry. Perhaps there is a distinction to be made between moderate and radical Islamic attitudes? MSJapan 16:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a Government official. President Tony consults all kinds of people about various things, in fact his very informal style was heavily criticised in the investigations into the fraudulent use of material leading to Op Telic. I wouldn't even say that the source referenced by the newspaper has enough credibility to be reliable in this context, it's written by a Lawyer, not an Imam, and given the structure of Islamic authority it's a personal opinion.

There is an issue around interpretation. Islam in general tends to be resistant to anything which exists outside the faith itself. FM is caught up in that. Specific sects within Islam have picked up on the various rehashes of Knight and utilise that, as part of their broad spectrum of condemnation. However that becomes all a bit OR.

ALR 17:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MSJ for the research. I tend to agree w/ ALR in that this source is more reliable, notable and appropriate. It talks about how the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the second oldest university in continuous operation around the world (Possibly the most influential body in promulgating and interpreting Islamic Law - according to the website) views Freemasonry. It is this kind of sources and references we are looking for. I really give much importance to the notability of references and would be glad to see people showing the same level of importance toward them. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition section

This section needs work... it rambles a bit; and is (in my opinion) overly lenghty and gives fringe views undue weight. I definitely think that we should discuss objections and criticisms dispationately and in a NPOV manner... but we could probably do so in about half the space. There are sub-articles that we point to that discuss all of this in more detail. We need to summarize more. Blueboar 15:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does need cutting down. As I think I mentioned, the religious opposition section can have its subsections removed, and instead made into just different paragraphs, (Catholicism, other Christianity, Islam), and a lot of the details can be deleted, particularly from the Catholicism-related section.

Also, as terrible as the Holocaust was, I think it, too, should be removed as a sub-section, and discussed, in brief, in [I guess] the political opposition section. Lexicon (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unicursal Hexigram

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)[reply]

No, the unicursal hexagram would have six points, a pentagram has five and a forget-me-not is not related to a rose. docboat 07:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, any connections are purely coincidental. Blueboar 13:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two related articles in need of a redirect?

I have been reviewing some of the articles related to this one... and noticed that we have both Freemasonry in Sweden and Swedish Rite. They seem to be about the same topic. I propose either merging or redirecting to the (somewhat) larger Swedish Rite article. Any comments? Blueboar 17:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a comment on the talkpage of the Swedish Rite. The Swedish rite and Freemasonry in Sweden is not the same thing - the swedish rite is also use in Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland and parts of North Germany. However, if this is pointed out, there is no problem merging the former into the later.

However, if you ever find yourself in Scandinavia, I would recomend visiting. It is quite something to witness =) WegianWarrior 17:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point... Freemasonry in Sweden is part of Swedish Rite... but Swedish Rite transends just Sweden. I am now thinking that they are not actually two articles on the same topic... but inter-related articles on seperate topics. Rather than merge, we should expand both articles so we can properly note how they interconnect. Blueboar 17:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[HC-1] The History Channel, Mysteries of the Freemasons: America, video documentary, August 1, 2006.

[2] ttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09771a.htm 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia

[Ritual-3] Emulation Ritual ISBN 0-85318-187-X pub 1991, London.

[Const-4] Constitutions (UGLE) pdf file, Page xii. Accessed 12 June 2006

[5] The Secrets of Freemasonry Grand Lodge of North Carolina Accessed 12 June 2006.

[FMreligion-6] Freemasonry and Religion (UGLE) Accessed 12 June 2006.

[7] S.Brent Morris, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry, Penguin Books, 2006, p.85 (also discussed in chapters 13 and 16). See also: John J. Robinson, A Pilgrim's Path, M. Evans and Co., Inc. New York

[changes-8] John J. Robinson, A Pilgrim's Path, M. Evans and Co., Inc. New York, p.129

[9] Leo Taxil Hoax - Bibliography page from the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon, listing many books which perpetuate Masonic ritual hoaxes

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 25

new introduction?

Complete Intro - Draft

Beyond the intoduction

Early Lodges

One dollar bill

long talk page

GA possibility

Freemasons redirect.

For those of you who care about policy

Holocaust Section

FAC nomination

F.&A.M. and A.F.&A.M. articles

Work in progress: references

reference sites of note

Freemasonry - regularity

See also section redundant

Widow's Sons

See also links

second paragraph

POV in intro

Good article

Protected or not?

passwords

Religion and Freemasonry

Muslim anti-Masonry

Recent addition of views of "Muslim scholars"

Good article

"Cultural references" section

New lead

Reference section

comments

Political opposition section

Another source for Muslim Anti-Masonry....

Opposition section

Unicursal Hexigram

Two related articles in need of a redirect?