Talk:New World Order conspiracy theory/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about New World Order conspiracy theory. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Compromise to resolve the lead section dispute

These political scientists warn that this mass hysteria may not only fuel lone-wolf terrorism but have devastating effects on American political life, such as the radical right wooing the radical left into joining a revolutionary Third Position movement capable of overthrowing the U.S. government and partitioning America along ethnoregional lines.

Due to a dispute that is now archived, I've replaced this disputed sentence in the lead section of the article with the following:

These political scientists warn that this mass hysteria may have devastating effects on American political life, ranging from widespread political alienation to escalating lone-wolf terrorism.

This new sentence, which is less dramatic and detailed, is sourced to the works of both Michael Barkun and Chip Berlet. I hope this compromise resolves this dispute once and for all. --Loremaster (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That's acceptable to me, except that I propose switching the word 'devastating' to something more neutral like 'serious'. JRheic (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't object a different word, but if a new word is going to be used in place of "devastating," then I feel that such a new word should still convey negativity, rather than seriousness. Perhaps using "negative effects" instead of "serious effects" - because the scholars cited are clearly suggesting that the effects in question (political alienation & lone-wolf terrorism) are negative. However, if the they feel the impacts would indeed be devastating, I think it's more accurate to reflect that. John Shandy` • talk 17:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

From Daniel Pipes's 2004 article [Michael Barkun on] Old Conspiracies, New Beliefs:

What does this craziness all amount to? Mr. Barkun, who reads widely in this backstairs literature, argues that in recent years "ideas once limited to fringe audiences became commonplace in mass media" and this has inaugurated a period of "unrivaled" millenarian activity in the United States. He worries of the "devastating effects" this frenzy could wreak on American political life — and by extension, around the world.

Pipes is quoting words used by Michael Barkun in his book A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America so it's perfectly appropriate for us to use this qualifier. --Loremaster (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be appropriate to say that it's the point of view of Michael Barkun that those effects are devastating, but as it stands the article itself is promulgating that judgement. It's not NPOV. I suppose it could be solved by putting quotation marks around the word as Pipes does in his article, but that seems messy. JRheic (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Your understanding of NPOV is flawed. There is nothing wrong with reporting the opinion of notable mainstream scholars and journalists, regardless of how negative or positive it may be, as long as it is clearly indicated as such. In this particular case, we clearly indicate that this an opinion expressed by Barkun and Berlet. You would only have a point if the sentence started as follows:

This mass hysteria will have devastating effects on American political life, ranging from widespread political alienation to escalating lone-wolf terrorism.

But it doesn't. Regardless, I am opposed to putting quotation marks since there is nothing un-neutral about using the qualifier “devastating” --Loremaster (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced the word “warn” with “are concerned”. --Loremaster (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there's nothing wrong with reporting the opinion notable scholars and journalists. My point is that the sentence doesn't make it clear that the qualifier 'devastating' is in the opinion of said notable scholars, and not just a descriptive word being used by the article itself, which would make it non-neutral. As an analogy, in the sentence "David asked if he could borrow my awesome car" it is not clear if David called the car awesome or if the speaker is describing the car as awesome. Just as in the sentence "These political scientists are concerned that this mass hysteria may have devastating effects on American political life" it is not clear if the 'political scientists' described the effects as devastating, or whether the writer is describing them as devastating. The simplest solution to this would be to place 'devastating effects' in quotation marks, since it is in fact a quote. - JRheic (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point but 1) your analogy is obviously far more problematic than the sentence you dispute because the latter reports the concern that these political scientists have, and 2) the problem is that your criticism could be leveled against any qualifier we use whether it be “serious” or “negative” or something else. In other words, should we put every qualifier in the article in quotation marks? --Loremaster (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If we were reporting that NASA scientists fear the catastrophic consequences of a recently-detected asteroid hitting Earth, would anyone challenge the neutrality the qualifier “catastrophic” and/or demand that “catastrophic consequences” be put in quotation marks? --Loremaster (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Well said, I don't think I could've put it better. John Shandy` • talk 03:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Happy to accept this compromise, which is remarkably close to the form of words I originally proposed. Rather odd that the debate that led to this compromise has already been archived. This means that the logic and history of how this compromise was reached is not readily available to interested editors. The handling of people's comments on this talk page is rather different from that on any other WP talk page. I have several other issues with the content of this article, which I will raise when I have enough time to argue the case for further improvements Riversider (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You never proposed anything. You simply deleted the second part of the original sentence before the dispute was resolved on this talk page. Regardless, although I have done some editing to make it stand out more, I provided a link to the archived dispute for interested editors in my initial comments in this section. I archived that debate to avoid it getting hijacked by pro-conspiracy cranks. That being said, I normally archive threads after 30 days when the debate is dead or the dispute has been resolved to avoid the talk page getting bulky and discouraging to read. However, sometimes I archive threads immediately when they violate Wikipedia talk pages guidelines. Anyway, feel free to argue the case for further improvements here rather than deleting content from the article using bogus arguments. --Loremaster (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There must have been some validity in my argument, as you have seen it as something worthy of 'compromising' with, and I certainly wouldn't use 'bogus' arguments, which people would have been able to see for themselves if you had left them on the talk page long enough for people to read for themselves, I don't think it's good editorial practice to archive discussions so quickly - so what if the conspiracy nuts jump on them? They would count the number of full stops on this page and jump on that if it gave legs to one of their ideas. I genuinely felt that starting the article with a false assertion or implication that right and left conspiracists were working together to bring down the USA was a step too far for any encyclopedia, and that people who are sceptical of conspiracy theories in general should be intelligent enough to be sceptical of that conspiracy theory in particular. Riversider (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There was no validity to your initial argument since it consisted of nothing more than dismissing Berlet's concern as a conspiracy theory. As everyone can read in the archives, I demolished that argument and all the others you made. The only reason why I chose to “compromise” on this issue is because the new sentence focuses on the concerns shared by both Barkun and Berlet rather than just Berlet's specific concern, which is a valid one you still misunderstand and mischaracterize. I'm sure you still haven't read Berlet's essay so your criticism of his concern has no merit until you do.

Regarding the problem of “conspiracy nuts” jumping in discussions, history has show that their contributions often lead to never-ending flawe wars that waste everyone's time, energy and morale. I prefer to take measures to make sure that doesn't happen again.

Ultimately, I archived this debate in order to propose a compromise that I had reason to believe you would accept so that we could move on to other things. --Loremaster (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason so few other editors have contributed to this article, is because they find their contributions triumphantly 'demolished' rather than considered as being in good faith, intended to improve WP. Just because this is an article about conspiracists does not mean we need to imitate their methods of debate. I do accept the compromise on this sentence as it stands, though there are other areas of the article with serious encyclopedic flaws. Riversider (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason why so few other editors have contributed to this article is because they have never made edits to this article that complied with Wikipedia guidelines so they were immediately reverted and their suggestions on this talk page were rarely constructive but I actually have improved this article the few times some of them did offer some useful criticism. That being said, by “demolished” I simply mean that I successfully explained why your arguments (and those of others) were wrong, especially when they indicated an ignorance of Wikipedia guidelines. Since you don't seem to have a good grasp of Wikipedia guidelines, forgive me for being skeptical of your ability to determine what “serious encyclopedic flaws” are. But to show your good faith, you can honestly answer this question: Did you read Berlet's essay before dismissing his concern as a conspiracy theory? Yes or No? --Loremaster (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Another reason why so few editors have made standing contributions to the article is because few editors have been able or willing to provide reliable sources to support their proposed edits and other claims. Much of what editors have attempted to insert into the article has been blatant conjecture or original research. John Shandy` • talk 00:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well we seem to have two discussions going on in one section now but I will reply here to your last reply to me (Loremaster). Just to remind anyone, the sentence under discussion is: 'These political scientists are concerned that this mass hysteria could have devastating effects on American political life, ranging from widespread political alienation to escalating lone-wolf terrorism.[3][5]'

Reply to point number 1): Reporting the concern that some people have isn't the problem, the problem is adopting their point of view when you describe it, instead of describing it with a NPOV. It is not an indisputable fact that "political alienation" for example, is a "devastating effect". In fact many would dispute it. For example, most anarchists would advocate political alienation. And this is just one example that lies in the range 'from widespread political alienation to escalating lone-wolf terrorism.' If the intention is to inform the reader that the qualifier is in the opinion of the 'political scientists' in question then it should be in quotation marks. As it is, the sentence is advocating a point of view.

reply to 2): I disagree that the same criticism could be leveled against any qualifier. It could only be leveled against qualifiers that present a non-neutral point of view. Wikipedia is full of qualifiers that present facts and I have no problem with any of them. I suggested 'serious' as a compromise because it's a more neutral and less emotive word in my opinion, and I think that there is unlikely to be a significant number of people that disagree with it. But having no qualifier at all would be absolutely neutral and would present exactly the same information.

reply to your NASA example: Yes it would definitely be possible to dispute the sentence 'NASA scientists fear the catastrophic consequences of a recently-detected asteroid hitting Earth'. For example, if there were other groups of scientists that believed that the consequences would NOT be catastrophic. Quotation marks would fix it, but instead I would rephrase it as 'NASA scientists fear that the consequences of a recently-detected asteroid hitting Earth would be catastrophic.' My way of phrasing it presents only facts, while the other could be advocating a point of view. If you'd like to rephrase the the sentence under discussion in that way, that would be fine by me too. - JRheic (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I have edited the sentence to now read as follows:

These political scientists are concerned that this mass hysteria could have what they judge to be devastating effects on American political life, ranging from widespread political alienation to escalating lone-wolf terrorism.

Does this change satisfy you? --Loremaster (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep that's good. Nice working with you. JRheic (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

title

Is it really a conspiracy theory? do you really need to have that in brackets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.248.14 (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The parenthetical is a form of WP:Disambiguation. We have several articles that all could be entitled New World Order... so we need to distinguish one article from the other. Since the topic of this specific article is the theory that there is a conspiracy to issue in a New World Order (a phrase which has specific meaning to those who advocate this theory), it is accurate to use the term "conspiracy theory" in the disambiguation. Blueboar (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar is right. I would only add that, according to notable mainstream journalists and scholars who are considered reliable sources within Wikipedia guidelines, the claim that there is a conspiracy to impose a New World Order in the form of a totalitarian one-world government is a conspiracy theory. The term “conspiracy theory” is defined as “a fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end”. That being said, if you are interested in contributing to this article, I encourage to create a user account. --Loremaster (talk) 04:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Freemasonry section

Currently the second paragraph of the Freemasonry section states: "Freemasons rebut these claims of Masonic conspiracy. Freemasonry, which only requires a belief in a nonsectarian God, promotes a balance between rationalism and mysticism through a system of degrees of initiation and the use of sacred geometry in art and architecture. [31] Freemasonry places no power in occult symbols themselves, and it is not a part of its principles to view the drawing of symbols, no matter how large, as an act of consolidating or controlling power.[32] "

I have several issues with the second sentence of this paragraph (in italics above).

The sentence is citation is to a book called The Hermetic Code (published by the Winnipeg Free Press), written by Frank Albo. Do we know if Mr. Albo is a Freemason? (I can't find any indication that he is). If not, then at minimum the sentence is misplaced. It does not belong inserted after a sentence that says "Freemasons rebut..." (and especially not sandwiched in before the following sentence... which is a statement by one of the more respected and prominent Masonic researchers... one who clearly is a Freemason).
I think the sentence is out of place even if Mr. Albo is a Freemason. His view that Freemasonry "promotes a balance between rationalism and mysticism through a system of degrees of initiation and the use of sacred geometry in art and architecture" may or may not be accurate (quite debatable) but what he says has nothing to do with Freemasonry's rebuttal to the claims of Masonic conspiracy. It is essentially an irrelevant comment... an asside that does not relate to the NWO conspiracy claims in any way.
I would contend that his view is NOT accurate. Or at least that his view that Freemasonry "promotes a balance between rationalism and mysticism through a system of degrees of initiation and the use of sacred geometry in art and architecture" is most definitely NOT shared by the majority of Freemasons. His view is just as much a Fringe view of Freemasonry as the claims that the Masons are involved in the NWO conspiracy.

So... at minimum, the sentence needs to be moved... and I think it better just to omit it. Blueboar (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Blueboar,

I have no problem moving the second sentence to resolve this minor dispute once and for all.
A factual description of what Freemasonry is and does from a neutral and reliable source is obviously pertinent and useful in a discussion that seeks to demystify Freemansonry to counter conspiracy theories not only implicating it but mischaracterizing it as well.
Putting aside the fact it is nothing more than your opinion that University of Winnipeg researcher and teacher Frank Albo's erudite view of Freemasonry is most definitely not shared by the majority of Freemasons, I don't know how many times I'm going to say this on a talk page but the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth nor accuracy — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true or accurate.

So, as I said before, I have no problem moving this sentence and actually will do so right now but it will not be omitted for the reasons you expressed. --Loremaster (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, I have to thank you because this dispute had led to an important improvement of the Freemasonry section with the addition of a better introduction. --Loremaster (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree... the new introduction is an improvement. And Albo's view (now properly attributed) does fit in that new introduction better than it did in the "rebuttal" paragraph. I could quibble and say that the views of an art historian (who I note is only a PhD candidate and who is not a member of the fraternity he talks about) is less than a reliable source for a statement as to beliefs of the fraternity... but I will let it stand as long as attribution makes it clear that this is his view and not one that is generally accepted by Masonic historians. Blueboar (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that Albo's book doesn't seem to be a reliable source. His website brags that he is 'Canada's Dan Brown' which doesn't inspire confidence. His book was published by a local newspaper and of the few reviews I can find of it, most are on pro-conspiracy sites (who love it) and the few that aren't seem to be of the opinion that it's a bad rip off of The Da Vinci Code. A cynical person might think that he was just trying to cash in on the aforementioned book's popularity. His claim may be true but if so it shouldn't be hard to find a better source. JRheic (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Although being a Freemason would make a historian of Freemasonry more knowledgeable, it could just as easily make him more biased and less critical or, at the very least, vulnerable to fair and unfair accusations that he is. Therefore, being a Freemason is definitely not a criteria in determining whether a source on Masonic history is reliable.
No one has demonstrated that Albo' view of Freemasonry is not generally accepted by Masonic historians. Since I've read Masonic sources over the years that essentially say the same thing I am confused as to why this uncontroversial sentence is being disputed. So, despite point #1, what is the view that is generally accepted by Masonic historians?
Although it is undeniable that Albo is using the popularity of The Da Vinci Code to attract attention to his work, reading this excerpt from The Hermetic Code indicates that his research is far more serious than that of Dan Brown who openly acknowledges that he based his book of fiction on the work of pop pseudo-historians. Regardless, both Frank Albo and his book meet the minimal requirements to be considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia guidelines. However, I would welcome a better source to support the same sentence. In fact, why not simply used the sources that Albo used to support his claims, since we can probably all agree that they are far more reliable than he is!

--Loremaster (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I would love to know which sources you are referring to. I run a Masonic historical society here in NYC, and as part of my job, I try to stay on top of the relevant literature in the field... none of the histories that I have read (and certainly none of the "standard" histories of the fraternity) say anything even remotely close to what Aldo says. Blueboar (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall my sources at the moment since I read them many years ago so let's focus on those used by Albo, such as Margaret C. Jacob's 1991 book Living the Enlightenment: Freemasonry and Politics in Eighteenth-Century Europe. --Loremaster (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

OK... I have read Jacob's book (and generally agree that it is a reliable source ... although when it comes to specifics she does get a few facts wrong). I don't remember it supporting the sorts of things Albo says (but then again it has been a while since I read Jacob, so perhaps I am misremembering. Luckily, I am heading into the Library tomorrow, and can check it out and review it. I will get back to you.) Blueboar (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Good but please remember that it doesn't matter if Jacob gets a few facts wrong since all reliable sources do. --Loremaster (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that... with the caveat that specifics and context are important. Even a source that is considered highly reliable in general can be deemed unreliable when it comes to specific statements. No source is ever 100% reliable nor 100% unreliable. And there are the situations where sources of more or less equal reliability disagree on a given specific point... in which case we word what we write as a statement of "opinion", with attribution to let the reader know a) that there is disagreement and b) who says what.

To switch gears a bit while we wait for me to re-read Jacob's book... We have not really discussed the relevance issue. It is obvious that you think it important to include this particular language in the article... but I do have to wonder why? Why is it important to have this article state that Freemasonry "offered freethinkers an egalitarian social club, which promoted a balance between rationalism and mysticism as an alternative to religious dogmatism through a system of degrees of initiation and the use of sacred geometry in art and architecture."? And why include it in this specific article? Blueboar (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware of this caveat so I don't need the lecture. However, you also need to make it clear how you know that a sentence is a statement of (fringe) opinion rather than a statement of fact universally accepted. In other words, are we suppose to simply trust you when you declare what historians of Freemasonry believe or don't believe without any source to back it up?

That being said, small prejudices and full-blown conspiracy theories about Freemasonry (or the Bilderberg Group) originally stem from the mystery and secrecy surrounding this organization. A section in an article seeking to explain why these conspiracy theories are false should briefly explain what Freemasonry is and isn't in order to demystify it rather than just saying that Freemasons obviously rebut these “theories”. --Loremaster (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It is kind of hard to cite sources that don't discuss something. For example, Albo goes on about how important golden ratios and such were to Freemasons... but these things are not even mentioned by the vast majority of Masonic historians (or in the Masonic rituals). As for demystifying... using phrases like "Freemasonry's promotion of a balance between rationalism and mysticism through a system of degrees of initiation and the use of sacred geometry in art and architecture was widely embraced as an alternative to the religious dogmatism of Christendom" hardly demystifies the fraternity. If anything it makes Freemasonry sound even more mysterious and secretive than the conspiracy theorists suggest. Blueboar (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

We have never reported Albo's specific opinion that the golden rations and such were important to Freemasons in the New World Order conspiracy theory article so that's irrelevant. I am asking you to find a source that contradicts the specific claim that Freemasonry or, at the very least, many Freemasons promoted a balance between rationalism and mysticism through the use of sacred geometry in art and architecture.
Although I well aware of the trouble with historical revisionism, you seem to ignore the fact that a researcher can uncover historical facts that a vast majority of historians were previously unaware of that positively revises our knowledge and understanding of history.
I obviously disagree with your personal opinion that this sentence makes Freemasonry more mysterious and secretive than the conspiracy theorists suggest when they are convinced that Freemasons are crypto-Satanists secretly preparing the coming of the Antichrist!
The sentence is simply summarizing the follow paragraph in Albo's text, which is based on reliable sources:

This sanctuary of esoteric architecture is found in the society of Freemasonry whose raison d'être placed mystical geometry and sacred architecture on holy ground. For Freemasons, architecture was a vehicle for moral betterment and personal perfection. By making the tradition of architecture the basis of an initiatory system of degrees, Freemasonry offered an alternative to the religious dogmatism of the Eighteenth century and situated itself squarely within the vanguard of progressive interests of the period. Although little discussed, much of the architecture of the Enlightenment was inspired by the social utopia of Freemasonry. This is best evinced in the utopian projects produced by visionary architects Etienne-Louis Boullée, and Claude-Nicolas Ledoux, whose ideal city near Chaux has been called "an entire city of lodges." Amid the fervour of the late eighteenth century, a number of Masonic architects and architectural theorists played a crucial role in preserving a balance between the primacy of rationality and the growing search for truth beyond rational understanding.

However, I will tweak this sentence to make it more clear. --Loremaster (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I've radically improve the first paragraph of the Freemasonry section taking into account all the criticisms expressed here. I hope my last edits have resolved this dispute. --Loremaster (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I assert that Albo's book does not meet notability guidelines per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Scholarship and should not be used to derive facts.

Loremaster says: "you seem to ignore the fact that a researcher can uncover historical facts that a vast majority of historians were previously unaware of that positively revises our knowledge and understanding of history." Comment: If we considered one researcher claiming to uncover something as a reliable source then we would be presenting all conspiracy theories as true.

Loremaster says: "No one has demonstrated that Albo' view of Freemasonry is not generally accepted by Masonic historians." "However, you also need to make it clear how you know that a sentence is a statement of (fringe) opinion rather than a statement of fact universally accepted." "I am asking you to find a source that contradicts the specific claim that..." Comment: According to wikipedia guidelines "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." i.e it is up to you find evidence that Albo's view is generally accepted, not anyone else's to find evidence that it isn't. - JRheic (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Albo no longer matters since we are now using the reliable sources he used to support his opinion.
By “researcher”, I'm obviously limiting this term to mainstream scholars and journalists who can be considered reliable sources.
Albo's opinion doesn't have to be generally accepted to be included in the article. It only needs to be significant and notable. So the burden was on me to find evidence that his view is significant and notable, which is now a moot point. So Blueboar should have demanded this evidence instead of making arguments on this talk page and deleted content from the article based solely on what he claims to be the opinion generally accepted by Masonic historians.
Since the mention of “sacred geometry” (which seem to be the thing that troubled Blueboar the most) has been deleted from the introductory paragraph of the Freemasonry section of the article, this dispute is essentially over.

--Loremaster (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Origins

It's only a theory that Speculative Freemasonry evolved out of Operative Masonry, there's absoulutely no material evidence to support this claim (and just how old is this claim?). The earliest authentic Freemasonic documents claim that Hiram Abiff was the founder of the Craft (and other documents claim it was Noah). Lung salad (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Most mainstream historians believe that speculative Freemasonry evolved out of operative Masonry so we have no choice but to report that widely-accepted opinion. That being said, an overwhelming majority of (Masonic and non-Masonic) historians of Freemasonry believe claims about its origins contained in the earliest Freemasonic documents are obviously mythological and therefore not factual. Only pop pseudo-historians (and cranks who read their books uncritically) seriously believe that Freemasonry was founded by Hiram Abiff and/or Noah. --Loremaster (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Which "Mainstream Historians"? List them. Loremaster is out-of-depth when it comes to knowledge of Freemasonry. That's right, Freemasonry's claims of origin from Hiram Abiff or Noah are mythological in nature, Think about it. The generalised description of Freemasonry in this article is risible in the extreme. Lung salad (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Please also provide details of the "evidence" used by such authors who claim that Speculative Freemasonry evolved out of Operative Masonry. The provenance that makes their theories credible. It would be useful to have references dating from the 17th century, originating from the critics of Freemasonry at that time, of such a claim. Curious if they did not make such a claim during a period of time when hostility towards Freemasonry was rife, also not referred to in the Anti-Freemasonic literature of the period Lung salad (talk) 09:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Lung, there definitely is evidence to support the "theory" that speculative Freemasonry grew out of operative stonemasonry, and that "theory" is most definitely the majority mainstream academic opinion... historians/Masonic scholars that support this include Jasper Ridley, David Stevenson, Steven Bullock, Trevor Stewart, and Andrew Prescott (just to pick five at random... there are lots of others). The evidence these historians cite are the membership rolls and minutes of lodges that existed in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, which document a slow shift in membership from "opperatives" (ie those involved in actual stonemasonry) to "speculatives" (ie gentlemen who were not actual stonemasons).

The story of Hiram did not entire Masonic ritual until the 1730s, with the invention of the Third Degree in England. Prior to that Freemasonry had only two degrees. Furthermore, once invented, the stories of Freemasonry starting in biblical days were always understood to be allegorical in nature... stories designed to teach moral lessons... there was (and is) never a serious claim that they were "factual". Blueboar (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The theory that Speculative Freemasonry evolved out of Operative Masonry is only a recent one - how far can you trace it back? Harry Carr, Robert L. D. Cooper could also be added to your list of people who subscribe to this theory - but what is the evidence for the transition if this theory is historically tenable? I flicked through a few books today in the library and no evidence was forthcoming in the pages. This is only intelligent guesswork on the part of the authors, and nothing else. There is no concensus agreement on the historic origin of Freemasonry - the Jury is still very much out on that. As for the literal belief in the Freemasonic legends - yes, there is ample evidence that both practicing Freemasons and Freemasonic historians in the past believed in the legends as if they were historically factual (for example, J M S Ward - and I can cite other examples).Lung salad (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What the first Freemasons (or Mormons) truly believed is irrelevant since the only thing that matters in an encyclopedic article is the current consensus among modern historians. --Loremaster (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

But there is no concensus - not everyone agrees that Operative Masonry evolved into Speculative Freemasonry - those who believe that cannot provide the historical gaps Lung salad (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The term “consensus” often means an “overwhelming majority” so, of course, there is and will always be a minority of historians who disagree with the consenus. Our responsibility, in the context of writing a summary of Freemasonry that isn't overburdened with tangential details, is to report what is commonly believed. --Loremaster (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: The theory that Speculative Freemasonry evolved out of Operative Masonry is only a recent one - how far can you trace it back? Um... we can trace it back to James Anderson's, Constitutions of 1723. While Anderson's history includes a lot of "mythological" invention as to what happened before the middle ages and the era of the operative guilds (his tales of Pythagoras and Euclid and Freemasonry being brought to England under King Athelstan, etc) he clearly asserts that speculative Freemasonry had recently (for him) evolved out of the lodge of operative stone masons. What Anderson did not provide in his history was "evidence" to support this assertion (it wasn't needed, as everyone involved in the fraternity at that time had lived through the latter stages of the transformation and knew first hand that that part of his history was accurate). It was not until later, when others started to invent alternative theories (such as Chevalier Ramsey's theory that the Craft descended from Medieval Crusaders - which was the antecedent of the "Templar origin" theory) that anyone saw a need to "prove" the traditional theory. Yes, scholarship that provides actual evidence (in the form of examination of actual archival documents) is a relatively recent phenominon... but the theory itself has been around since at least the early 1700s. Blueboar (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Rather peculiar that there is no official endorsement of this theory from Grand Lodge itself, and I presume that to Anderson the inclusion of Operative Masonry into his patchwork of mythological history dating from Athelstan was just one out of the other many elements he decided to embroider into his fabricated history Lung salad (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

Relevance

That said... none of this is relevant to this article. The place to discuss the origins and purpose of Freemasonry is the Freemasonry article (and perhaps the History of Freemasonry article). This article needs to focus on two things: 1) what do the NWO conspiracy theorists say about Freemasonry, and 2) direct rebuttals to those claims. That's it. This isn't the appropriate place to "demystify" Freemasonry, or go into detail as to its origins and purpose. If readers want to find out more about Freemasonry they can click on the provided link. Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There is an introduction to the Freemasonry subsection in this article that proposes to give the historical origin of Freemasonry - is this pertinent to this article? If the historical origin of Freemasonry has to be given then it should represent the factual account that no agreement on its origin exists (Margaret Jacobs has offered no new discoveries in her books, she only provides her own personal gloss over an existing theory).Lung salad (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Much like the first paragraph of the Illuminati section of the article, regardless of whether or not it demystifies the subject, it is revelant to provide context by explaining exactly what this organization is before reporting conspiracy theories about said organization.

Just because we link to the Freemasonry article, which readers can click if they want to find out more, the Freemasonry article (or any other article we link to) could be or become of such poor quality that it misinforms readers. Therefore, we should provide a conscise yet comprehensive definition of what Freemasonry is in the Freemasonry section of the New World Order conspiracy theory article.

Although I am not opposed to trimming (which I'm in the process of doing), I will resist any attempt to delete the introductory paragraph I added. --Loremaster (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I can cite a well-known famous contemporary Freemason and author who has written several books on this subject matter who states the historic origins of Freemasonry are unknown. Lung salad (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Cite him here. That being said, we are simply reporting what is commonly believed about Freemasonry and I'll edit the article to that more clear. --Loremaster (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Does Margaret Jacob seriously argue that Freemasons were militants who argued for Republicanism? This may be true within the context of America and France (where the required belief in the Supreme Being was dropped), but it certainly does not apply to British Freemasonry. And here lies the problem, Freemasonry is a massive subject matter that cannot be condensed into several fleeting passages Lung salad (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm the process of summarizing content so there may be a few mistakes that I will quickly edit out. That being said, here is a synopsis of Jacob's book:

Long recognized as more than the writings of a dozen or so philosophes, the Enlightenment created a new secular culture populated by the literate and the affluent. Enamoured of British institutions, Continental Europeans turned to the imported masonic lodges and found in them a new forum that was constitutionally constructed and logically egalitarian. Originating in the Middle Ages, when stone-masons joined together to preserve their professional secrets and to protect their wages, the English and Scottish lodges had by the eighteenth century discarded their guild origins and become an international phenomenon that gave men and eventually some women a place to vote, speak, discuss and debate. Margaret Jacob argues that the hundreds of masonic lodges founded in eighteenth-century Europe were among the most important enclaves in which modern civil society was formed. In France, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Britain men and women freemasons sought to create a moral and social order based upon reason and virtue, and dedicated to the principles of liberty and equality. A forum where philosophers met with men of commerce, government, and the professions, the masonic lodge created new forms of self-government in microcosm, complete with constitutions and laws, elections, and representatives. This is the first comprehensive history of Enlightenment freemasonry, from the roots of the society's political philosophy and evolution in seventeenth-century England and Scotland to the French Revolution. Based on never-before-used archival sources, it will appeal to anyone interested in the birth of modernity in Europe or in the cultural milieu of the European Enlightenment.

I hope that answers your questions. --Loremaster (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, French Freemasonry has a completely different history and agenda to British Freemasonry, and the two movements cannot be even remotely compared to each other.Lung salad (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Both Jacob and I am well aware of that but we are not and don't to discuss these differences in the article.

And a lot of the comments above belong to The Royal Society Lung salad (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. We are getting off-topic. --Loremaster (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree Margaret Jacob went off-topic when discussing issues that were more pertaining to The Royal Society. Lung salad (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that this is what she did. I'm simply arguing that this debate is getting off-track. --Loremaster (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Not off-track if the author happens to be an unreliable source and a copycat of a theory Lung salad (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It is off-track in the sense that this sub-section is focused on the relevance of the introductory paragraph of the Freemasonry section of the article not whether or not the information contained in it is accurate. That being said, Jacob (whose book you haven't read) is considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia guidelines, regardless of the alleged flaws in her theory, so that's all that matters. --Loremaster (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Therefore that should also apply to detractors of the theory who happen to be notable authors and Freemasons, and all positions and viewpoints should be included in Wikipedia articles to show that Wikipedia is not biased to any view Lung salad (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You would be right if we are discussing improving the Freemasonry article but we're not. We are simply providing a consice yet comprehensive definition of Freemasonry for a section in an article about New World Order conspiracy theories. It would therefore be inappropriate to burden this article with all positions and viewpoints about Freemasonry. --Loremaster (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Extracts from Robert A Gilbert's article on Freemasonry (Freemason, author and historian), sourced from Encyclopaedia of New Religions, edited by Christopher Partridge, Lion Hudson plc, 2004 ISBN 978-0-7459-5219-2

"Because there is no universally accepted theory of its origins, and because its nature and purpose have been given such widely divergent interpretations, a concise, adequate definition of Freemasonry remains elusive. What is, perhaps, the most effective attempt at a definition is that given by the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE), the controlling body of English Freemasonry:

"[Freemasonry is] one of the world's oldest secular fraternal societies... society of men concerned with spiritual values. Its members are taught its precepts by a series of ritual dramas, which folow ancient forms and use stonemasons' customs and tools as allegorical guides. The essential qualification for admission and continuing membership is belief in a Supreme Being. Membership is open to men of any race or religion who can fulfill this essential qualification and are of good repute."

Having defined the nature of the institution, other questions about Freemasonry remain: when and how did it originate, how did it develop, how is it structured, and what is the nature of its masonic ceremonies? In other words, what do Freemasons do?

The traditional view of the origins of Freemasonry is that it descended in a direct line from a presumed governing body of operative stonemasons. There is, however, no firm evidence to support this view. In England, no organisation of operative or working masons survived The Reformation, and there are only a few instances of non-working masons being admitted to masonic lodges during the 17th century - probably with the aim of creating meeting places for those who sought to promote religious and political tolerance in an intolerant age. Honorary members were also admitted to operative masonic lodges in Scotland, but there is no evidence that such lodges employed ceremonies of initiation or engaged in philosophical discussion.

Truly Speculative Masonry can be certainly dated only to 1717, when four lodges in London united to form a Grand Lodge as a governing body of English Freemasonry. The number of lodges under the premier Grand Lodge increased rapidly, and by 1723 their rules and regulations had been codified in the first publication of the constitutions."

Here's another position Lung salad (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That's actually a good source that we can use. --Loremaster (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if we do want to include some sort of introductory paragraph to explain what Freemasonry is to the readers of this article (and I am still not at all convinced that this is necessary or helpful) then I don't think we could do better than to simply quote the first paragraph of UGLE's explanation (ie from "Freemasonry is one of the worlds..." to "... and are of good repute".) I certainly think quoting that would do more to "demystify" and explain Freemasonry than the contested language Loremaster is so intent on keeping. Blueboar (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not the language I am intent on keeping but the introductory paragraph itself. --Loremaster (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying you would not object if we change the introductory paragraph to read:

"Freemasonry is (in the words of the United Grand Lodge of England) "one of the world's oldest secular fraternal societies. A society of men concerned with spiritual values. Its members are taught its precepts by a series of ritual dramas, which folow ancient forms and use stonemasons' customs and tools as allegorical guides. The essential qualification for admission and continuing membership is belief in a Supreme Being. Membership is open to men of any race or religion who can fulfill this essential qualification and are of good repute."<cite to UGLE>

If not, I will make the change. Blueboar (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That won't be necessary since I've already significantly changed and improved the introductory paragraph by incorporating some but not all the elements from the Encyclopaedia of New Religions's entry on Freemasonry (and I've also edited the following paragraph so to make the intro more relevant but also delve deeper in the origins of anti-Masonic conspiracy theories). So, if you can accept this compromise and accept the existence of an introductory paragraph to explain what Freemasonry is, this dispute is resolved. --Loremaster (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to have an introductory paragraph (and somewhat irrelevant to do so)... but I certainly and willing to compromise and won't object to including one. My concern is more with what is said in that paragraph. I do have problems with the current language (especially in the second half of the paragraph). You are asserting as blunt "fact" several things which are, at best, debatable (and at worst, inaccurate) and which (because they are debatable) must be hedged as being "opinion" and will have to be balanced with contrary opinion to maintain NPOV. This will mean that what should be a short "introduction" will (of necessity) end up morphing into a long explanation of something that is only tangentially related to the topic of this article.

I don't object to describing what Freemasonry is... if we can do so succinctly and accurately. Unfortunately that may not be possible. Freemasonry is actually a very difficult thing to describe... because, from its inception, it has meant different things to different people. It developed differently in different parts of the world (and significant differences can exist even from lodge to lodge). Saying that lodges "gave freethinkers of different social classes a place to fraternize and debate on an equal footing" may be accurate when describing one lodge in one location, but completely inaccurate when describing another lodge in another location. As an over-simplistic stereotype, it tends to be more accurate when looking at Freemasonry on the Continent, and significantly less accurate when it comes to describing Freemasonry in England and America (although even in these countries there is variation and exceptions to the rule).

The same is true for the next statement: "Outside the lodges, many Freemasons championed progressive causes, such as secularism, liberalism and egalitarianism." Sure, there were some Freemasons who championed these progressive causes... the problem is that there were also many Freemasons who spoke against such causes. And a huge number who were somewhere in the middle. To highlight one group of Freemasons without mentioning the other skews the explanation of what Freemasonry is towards one particular POV. The statement also implies that there was something in Freemasonry that caused these men to champion these causes... that is absolutely wrong. It was more likely the other way around... they joined the Fraternity because they championed these causes and believed that they would find like-minded men in the Fraterinty (sometimes they did, sometimes they didn't... depending on the lodge they joined).

Then there is the statement that: "Masonic spiritual ideas also grew influential in the art and architecture of the Age of Enlightenment." That is, if anything, backwards... Masonry has always reflected and been influenced by the society around it. Masons looked at Enlightenment art and architecture (and, at later periods, other forms of art and architecture) and then described it in Masonic terms... in an attempt link the fraternity to what was going on in society and give the fraternity relevance in that society.

In short... you are emphasizing specific aspects of the fraternity, and highlighting certain attitudes and opinions held by individual Freemasons, and asserting that these aspects and attitudes were universal... when in fact they were not universal at all. Freemasonry reflected (and still reflects) society, and since society was (and is) complex and varied in its attitudes, so was (and is) Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Although it isn't absolutely necessary to have an introductory paragraph, it is definitely relevant to have one to provide a context that better explains why and when an organization became the subject of conspiracy theories. (By the way, is the introductory paragraph in the Illuminati section irrelevant?)
Although you are right that we should be clear about what is fact and what is opinion, please remember that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth nor accuracy — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true or accurate.
I have edited the paragraph to clarify that the lodges we are talking about are in Continental Europe. However, I may delete "gave freethinkers of different social classes a place to fraternize and debate on an equal footing" only for the sake of making the introductory paragraph slightly shorter.
I have edited the paragraph to clarify that it was some Continental European Freemasons who championed progressive causes.
I would disagree that there isn't something in Freemasonry that causes some people to champion progressive causes. It could be and is often argued by reliable sources that the Masonic principles of "Brotherly Love, Relief, and Truth" do just that.
On the issue of Freemasony and art/architecture or the universality of some aspects of the fraternity, I am only reporting what reliable sources have chosen to emphasize and assert on the subject. However, I have edited the paragrah to make some nuances more clear.
What you seem to fail to understand (and that I failed to properly explain) from the beginning of this dispute is that what you could consider tangential elements are actually what conspiracy theorists have misinterpreted and mischaracterized when developing their conspiracy theories. In other words, the fact that Freemasonry, for the most part, doesn't require a belief in a Christian God or that some Freemasons were progressive champions or that some Enlightenment art and architecture was influenced by Masonic ideas is what made conspiracy theorists like Robison freak out. Without this explanation, a reader is left to wonder why did the first conspiracy theorists believe that there was a Masonic conspiracy to spread deism, anti-clericalism and revolutionary republicanism. An introductory paragrah therefore becomes highly relevant.

--Loremaster (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Not quite right on the last point... what made Robison et al freak out was his belief that Masonry actually rejected a Christian God (ie his belief that the Freemasons were at best Deists and and worst Atheists), and his belief that Freemasonry was directly responsible for the excesses of the French Revolution (a charge far more explicit and damning than simply saying they "championed progressive causes") ... I don't remember Robison et all even discussing art and architecture, but the same thing applies... what we need to make clear to the reader is that some people believe that Enlightenment art and architecture was influenced by Masonic ideas. Those beliefs are relevant to this article... but they need to be presented as being beliefs, and not presented as accepted fact.

Which brings up your invoking of the mantra of "verifiability, not truth"... What is verifiable is that a specific person or group (whether scholars or conspiracy theorists) is of the opinion that Freemasonry is X (what ever X may be)... what is not verifiable is that Freemasonry actually is X. That's why attribution is important. Also, the simple fact that something is verifiable does not mean we must include it. There are other policies that factor into such decisions... one of the more important in this case being WP:NPOV (and especially the WP:Undue weight section of that policy).

Finally, as to relevance.... Not only have you not properly explained the relevance of what you have been saying here on the talk page... you have not done so in the article. Let's take the (contested) assertion that Enlightenment art and architecture was influenced by Freemasonry ... what does that assertion have to do with the NWO conspiracy theory? I don't see the link? Blueboar (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I was fully aware that Robison only focused on the issue of Freemasonry's relationship to Christianity and the French Revolution. My point was that Robison used, among other things, the fact that some Freemasons were prominent champions of progressives causes to support his paranoid fantasy that Freemasonry was responsible for the French Revolution. However, in my rush to reply as concisely as possible to your comments, I didn't specify that it was other conspiracy theorists, besides Robison, who focused on real or imagined Masonic symbolism in art and architecture. That being said, I think the current sentence dealing Freemasonry's relationship with Enlightenment art and architecture is far more nuanced than the previous version in the sense that we no longer talk about “Masonic ideas” but rather that “some” Freemasons became influential contributors to “some” Enlightenment art and architecture. Your predictable opinion that even this new statement implies something that it doesn't explicitly say is nothing more than your opinion.

Regarding my so-called mantra of "verifiability, not truth", you seem to not have noticed that I've edited sentences you alone contest in the introductory paragraph to avoid any suggestion that Freemasonry is X in order to focus on reporting what reliables sources tell us some Freemsons have done. None of these statements violate Wikipedia's policies about preserving a neutral point of view or avoiding giving undue weight to fringe views. Furthermore, none of these policies imply that content added to an article must meet your opinion of what is “accurate”.

Regarding the issue of relevance, putting aside the fact that you are the only person contesting a sentence that is based on content from two reliable sources and that has been modified to now say something different than what you claim it does; the relevance is that conspiracy theorists who are convinced that Freemasons are involved in a conspiracy to impose a New World Order seize on real or imagined Masonic symbolism in art and architecture from the Age of Enlightenment or inspired by this period to argue that it is part of said conspiracy. That being said, I agree with you that we could make this link more clear, which is why I keep tweaking the article until it does.

--Loremaster (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The Art and Architecture of Freemasonry

Here is a description of [http://www.amazon.com/Architecture-Freemasonry-James-Stevens-Curl/dp/0879514949 The Art and Architecture of Freemasonry], one of two books we are using as a source for a contested sentence:

This book examines the origins, development and iconography of Freemasonry, to throw light on its important role in European and American cultural development. A particularly important period is the Eighteenth century, when Freemasonry could count amongst its ranks Mozart, Washington and Voltaire. Professor Curl shows how art, architecture, design, theatre and music owe a great debt to the traditions of Freemasonry.

About its author:

James Stevens Curl is Professor of Architectural History and Senior Research Fellow at The Queen's University of Belfast. He read for his Doctorate at University College London, and in 1991-2 was Visiting Fellow at Peterhouse, University of Cambridge. He has established an international reputation for scholarship, lucidity of style, and thorough investigations in little-known fields of research. His many books include Classical Architecture

The irony is that the contested sentence doesn't go as far this descrpition does. Perhaps it should... --Loremaster (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Relevance 2

Having read this long and sometimes meandering discussion, I'm even less convinced that the introductory paragraph should stay. I wont get into an edit war over it though, however I feel that the paragraph as it stands today have a couple of major issues:

It has no relevance to THIS article.
It contains a number of opinions presented as fact.
It introduces things that while verifiable have no bearing on the NWO conspiracy theory
- Some masons were architects and artists... great. A large number of architects and artists were NOT Masons. I know of a couple of Masons who are carpenters, plumbers and bricklayers - does this mean that Freemasonry is conspiring to corner the contractors market?

Perhaps - if the consensus is that an introductory paragraph is needed - a better phrasing would be something along the lines of:

Freemasonry is one of the world's oldest secular fraternal organizations, which arose in late 16th- to early 17th-century Britain. Over the years a number of allegations and conspiracy theories have been directed towards Freemasonry, including the allegation that Freemasons are trying to bring about a New World Order.

Short, sharp, to the point and RELEVANT for this article. WegianWarrior (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. Blueboar (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Remember, the topic of this article is the NWO conspiracy theory, not Freemasonry... that means we should primarily be be focused on explaining to readers what the NWO conspiracy theory says... and not on explaining what Freemasonry is (that should be done at other articles, that we link to). The reality of what Freemasonry actually was or is, is actually somewhat irrelevant here in this article... far more important to this article is what the NWO adherents say or think it was/is. (And yes, I would say the same about the other sections in this article such as the one on the Illuminati... each section should essentially consist of two paragraphs: 1- what do adherents of the theory say and 2- what do critics of the theory say. No more, no less. Keep it simple and on point.). I have made the change suggested by WegianWarrior. Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That's all we need, and I agree with Blueboar about the other sections such as the one on the Illuminati. Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with all the arguments expressed here for reasons that I comprehensively explained in sections above. However, since I don't want to waste my time and energy endlessly on this silly dispute over the Freemasonry section, I will accept this compromise (despite some tweaks to it that I may make) that I can easily live with it. However, I will resist any attempt to make changes to the Illuminati section based on the arguments above since reliable sources who discuss Illuminati conspiracy theories do take the time to briefly or lengthily explain what the Illuminati were before explaining the conspiracy theories that evolved around it. --Loremaster (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Article needs a re-write

The more I look at this article, the more I am becoming convinced that it needs a complete re-write. As I commented above, the topic of this article is the NWO conspiracy theory. As such, we should be focused on explaining to our readers what adherents to that theory (or rather set of theories, since there are more than one) say, and what critics say in reply. Because the topic is complex, I agree that it is helpful to break the topic up into identifiable sub-sections... each devoted to a particular aspect of the theory, but the basic structure of each section should be 1) this is what the adherents of the theory say, followed by 2) that is what critics of the theory say.

Unfortunately, this isn't how things are currently structured. The article has essentially morphed into a series of mini-essays on the history and development of various aspects of Conspiracy Theory in general, instead of remaining focused on what one specific conspiracy theory (know as the "New World Order" theory) says. These mini-essays are well written and well sourced... that isn't the problem... the problem is that they try to cover too much.. they wander off into tangents things and lose their focus.

A lot of this material is good... and would do well if moved to other articles. Either the articles on the sub-topics (Freemasonry, Illuminati, etc.) or into the general overview Conspiracy theory article. But much of it does not belong in this article.

I propose a top to bottom re-write to re-focus. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that the article needs a radical rewrite, although I do agree that certain sections need rewriting and improvement. The article is presently rated as a Good Article, and things that aren't broken needn't be fixed. I find it odd that you suggest the "this is what adherents say, that is what critics say" structure and assert that this isn't how the article is structured - one of the most common things we have heard from respondents on this talk page is that the article follows that pattern, and in some cases respondents have attacked that structure. The problem is exactly that the New World Order conspiracy theory is actually a superconspiracy theory, and perhaps easier understood as a theory set, because there are such wildly different views of what a NWO would be, whom would implement it, and what its goals and objectives would entail. This is why the article is so long and thorough - it needs to provide context each time the article shifts to a different viewpoint of the alleged NWO, be it Illuminati, Freemasonry, Shape-shifting reptilian humanoids, Gradualism, Mind Control, etc. It currently accomplishes providing such context in approximately 2 to 4 brief paragraphs per section. I think this is entirely acceptable. However, I did recently convey to Loremaster that some sections may benefit from improvements that make them more concise and exclude certain details if we can deem them unnecessary or immaterial. I don't think that constitutes a radical rewrite of the article, however. To simply skirt the borders of the drastically different versions of the New World Order conspiracy theory, and then lazily cast readers to other articles with a bunch of See also and Main templates, is to let readers walk away from this article without a comprehensive characterization of the wholesome New World Order conspiracy theory set. Frankly, I think most if not all of this content belongs in this article. Rewritings of sections should focus on concision, but not defer readers to venture into different directions to read this relevant and notable content elsewhere. John Shandy` • talk 16:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it needs a rewrite, you shouldn't just reinsert text that 3 editors have agreed is inappropriate. I've removed it again, join in the discussion above. Dougweller (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, once content in the article was contested on this talk page, everyone should have waited till the dispute was resolved before making substantial changes to avoid an edit war. --Loremaster (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The revert was my mistake Dougweller, as I admittedly didn't count 3 editors. I apparently missed the additions to the talk page that took place overnight while I was sleeping. I only glanced at my watchlist to see the latest changes to the article and its talk page, and didn't see that editors (including Loremaster) had agreed on that edit as a compromise. I didn't even know that you had responded on the talk page. Sorry. That said, I agree with Loremaster that editors should have been less hasty in rendering substantial changes to a disputed section. John Shandy` • talk 17:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that I'm bit surprised and saddened by Blueboar's recent attitude towards the article, I obviously disagree that the article needs to be entirely re-written especially when 1) it is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, and stable, 2) it has had consensus for months if not years, 3) it has achieved Good Article status, 4) its structure mirrors that of some of the works of journalists and scholars who have written on this subject and whom we use as our reliable sources, and 5) one of these reliable sources, Michael Barkun, a political scientist who specializes in conspiracy theories in general and New World Order conspiracy theories in particular, has reviewed and praised the article. That being said, it has always been my intention to make some substantial improvements so that the article meets Featured Article criteria but I will resist any radical change that makes this article less comprenhensive and informative. --Loremaster (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:OWN much? If the article is well written is a very subjective matter, but as it stands today it's meandering all over the place - it reads as an essay, not as a encyclopedic article. Perhaps the article can benefit from a top to bottom rewrite. Perhaps the result will be less good. Without an attempt, how can you be so sure you're right? WegianWarrior (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Please note... I have no desire to make the article "less informative and comprehensive"... I do have a desire to see it more focused (and that means a re-examination of what we are informative and comprehensive about). As the article stands now, it is indeed a very good overview of conspiracy theory in general... what I want to turn it into is an extremely good overview of the NWO conspiracy theories in specific. It may be that I have frightened some of you when I used the term "re-write"... so let me re-state my intent... I think we need to do a top to bottom review of the article (going slowly and deliberately), with an eye towards imparting a clearer and somewhat narrower focus to each section. That review (as with all reviews) will end up naturally evolving in a top to bottom re-write... but it will be a re-write that has consensus and will make this an even better article (possibly earning it featured status). Hope that eases any fears you may have... I have no intention of rushing in like a bull in a china shop. Blueboar (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't help but roll my eyes every time someone accuses Loremaster of article ownership. He's simply been the single most willing contributor to this article, often left outnumbered by cranks who would, in a heartbeat, turn this article into a soapbox for promoting their paranoid conspiracy theories as genuine facts. Notice Loremaster said "resist," not "revert." Loremaster has already sought what I'm counting to be 3 compromises to resolve content disputes on this talk page in essentially 1 week's time. Though dissenting, he has cooperated thoroughly and openly with other editors. While it is your opinion that it reads as an essay rather than an encyclopedic work, a Good Article review and a review by a third party expert on the subject, as well as historical consensus (albeit presently evolving and changing), and relatively recent positive feedback found in the talk page archives, suggest that this article is comprehensive, factually-accurate, and neutral. Both Loremaster and myself agree that there are sections that need what some might call "overhauls," but to essentially scrap the article and startover with a top-to-bottom rewrite strikes us as absurd. I think that some of you may not be recognizing or respecting the magnitude and diversity of New World Order conspiracy theories - the subject is nothing short of a monolith, which makes this a particularly difficult article to write such that it is comprehensive and informative without becoming bogged down with details. Despite Loremaster's changes over the years, many sections of the article are relics of the editors that heavily contributed to it before his arrival. Some of these things he and I have discussed changing, but either are busy (in his case) or have yet to read more of the sources for certain sub-sections (in my case). So, yes, the article needs improvements, with concision being an important objective. However, radically rewriting and (essentially reducing, as seems to be what you and Blueboar are suggesting) the article runs a risk of excluding important context that props up the neutrality of this article and forms the foundations on which notable scholars scrutinize the paranoid theories of conspiracists.

That said, taking into account Blueboar's latest comment (above mine), I feel easier about that and agree that a section-by-section review would be a good thing. But scrapping the article and rewriting from scratch struck me as a terrible idea at this stage of the article's development. In fact, a section-by-section review, conducted patiently and with respect for differing time zones, may very well help get the ball rolling on some changes that Loremaster or myself are interested in seeing or helping with. John Shandy` • talk 18:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll back you up about Loremaster, not many people are willing to work on this article and without Loremaster it would probably be a mess. And there is no need to start from scratch, section-by-section is certainly the way to go. Dougweller (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you John and Doug. Since we seem to all agree on how to proceed from here, the only thing I would suggest before new contribtors start hacking away at the article is that 1) they take the time to familiarize themselves with the subject of conspiracy theories in general and New World Order conspiracy theories in particular by reading the works of Michael Barkun and Chip Berlet (most of which is available online), and 2) they discuss substantial changes to the article on this talk page to reach consensus before making them. --Loremaster (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, I too would agree that Loremaster is not really engaging in WP:OWNership. At least, no more than is normal and acceptable in any established article. What has been occurring here over the last few days is the normal WP:BRD cycle... This is how Wikipedia works. Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

agree with blueboar. There is much about this article that is unencyclopedic and it needs rewriting, whether top to bottom or section by section is immaterial, as long as it is rigourously scrutinised. The article relies too much on material from two self appointed 'experts', rather than on the wider material on the topic. It's not true to say that the article has been stable. It has only been kept so by an almost obsessive resistance to the slightest change, combined with a very hostile treatment of editors wishing to improve the article and a very strange approach to managing the talk page which suppresses any open discussion of the article, I'm glad to see that this is finally changing.River sider (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Riversider, you have still neglected to cite or even point to the parts of the article that you take issue with, or note what's wrong with them. You do seem to take issue with two of the notable scholars whose reliable sources are used extensively throughout this article, but have neither done nor suggested anything in their place with any validity. It's your mere opinion that Barkun and Berlet are self-appointed experts, but they aren't the only critics who hold their views. Resistance to change is not a problem here, as you can see by the BRD taking place and the compromises recently reached on at least 3 significant content disputes. Resistance to editors' opinions, to bogus arguments, or to lack of reliable sources, have certainly been commonplace on this talk page, and for good reason. Suppression of discussion is nonsense. You're welcome to excavate any archived talk page discussion and cut and paste it here on the talk page and continue discussing it if you feel the need. The archives are readily available for anyone to view or further discuss. I don't know what hostility you're talking about, as there's nothing other than words being exchanged on this talk page - that editors are strong in their wording does not mean they're not being WP:CIVIL. You need to read the sources by the authors you're critical of, and find alternative reliable sources that significantly deviate from their views, before we can modify the article to conform to your mere opinion that their concerns are just reverse conspiracy theories, which you voiced in an earlier discussion. John Shandy` • talk 16:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply John. I've promised that I will raise the various concerns I have with the article over time, and I will share sources that support my arguments, as I already have with the BBC article that Loremaster found useful. I felt that article better reflected the kind of tone that an encyclopedic article should have. Tone is quite a subtle and nuanced concept, and I don't think I expressed myself clearly enough for other editors here to understand, but there is a clear difference in tone between the neutral, balanced and evidence based approach adopted by the BBC, and the hyperbolic arguments adopted by the two 'scholars' that this article relies on, and this affects the tone of the whole article, as well as some of it's particular assertions. You'll have to appreciate that some editors have more time on their hands than others, and that I'm only able to edit in short bursts as a consequence of my other commitments. I'll do my best to use that time as well as I can. Riversider (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds great then. I do agree that tone is important, especially given the controversial nature of the topic and the risk of readers digging their heels into paranoid views further when reading this article. Do keep in mind, as mentioned above, that many parts of this article are relics from past editors that essentially haven't contributed to the article in years, so they aren't necessarily going to be rigorously defended unless there happens to be a good reason. I understand what you mean about time constraints - that I was able to create an article and radically rewrite another last week was a miracle for my schedule, and has definitely left me exhausted for my 4-day weekend. I also believe some of the editors contributing to this talk page are in different time zones, so we might experience delayed talk page feedback from day to day. I am glad to see this article getting some attention, at any rate. John Shandy` • talk 17:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Riversider, if you are interested in editing this article, you need to be aware of a few things:

Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view. If the majority of reliable sources on a topic are critically positive or negative, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint.
Although we have extensively relied on one scholar and one journalist as reliable sources for content in this article for the sake of convenience, their work reflect viewpoints shared by a strong majority of experts on this subject. So, although we should strive to add more reliable sources to avoid relying only on a few, don't be surprised if this doesn't change the tone of the article but rather reinforces it.
However well-toned you may think it might be, one short, anonymous (and arguably tongue-in-cheek) BBC article is a source that has far less weight that a well-referenced essay or book written by a notable mainstream scholar (like Barkun) or journalist (like Berlet) who is widely known for specializing in the study of conspiracy theories in general and New World Order conspiracy theories in particular. As long as statements of fact and statements of opinion are properly differentiated, it is not a violation of Wikipedia's policy on neutrality to report the opinion of a scholar or journalist who argues that, for example, many prominent conspiracy theorists may suffer from paranoid psychophrenia or the spread of conspiracy theories might lead to pogroms.
Before when can take seriously your criticism of sourced statements in the article or the scholars and journalists whose work we have used to support these statements, you need to show that you've actually read and understood their work. Unfortunately, by repeatedly avoiding to answer such questions, you have given the impression that you haven't read their work and therefore your criticism is based on nothing more than prejudice.

--Loremaster (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't refused to answer any questions, I've chosen to ignore them, because I think they are impertinent and do not assume good faith. Your treatment of other editors on this page is a significant reason why this article has not improved, with your attitude that your task here is to 'demolish' them, rather than work with them to improve the article. There are lots of matters for editorial judgement, one is the extent to which we should rely on one or two sources when there are many more out there. The BBC has a reputation for NPOV and good journalism and usually maintains high standards. They too use editorial judgement in their use of sources. Riversider (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you insist on repeatedly and grossly misinterpreting and mischaracterizing the claims of some of the notable mainstream scholars and journalists we have used as reliable sources for this article, it is not assuming bad faith to ask you whether you have read and understood these sources in order for all of us to get to the root of this misunderstanding. By the way, you need to be also aware of the fact that sometimes it is the summarizing and paraphrasing of a source that is unintentionally inaccurate or hyberbolic rather than the source itself. This is another reason why it would be useful for you to read the essays and books we are using as reliable sources.
Although I freely admit and apologize for often lacking tact, this shortcoming doen't change the fact that the vast majority of editors who have complained on this talk page were true believers in a New World Order conspiracy who want to turn this article into a vehicle to promote their paranoid conspiracy theories as undisptuble facts. So the reason why so few other editors have contributed to this article over the years is because they have never made edits to this article that complied with Wikipedia guidelines therefore they were immediately reverted while their suggestions on this talk page were rarely constructive but I actually have improved this article the few times some of them did offer some useful criticism.
The suggestion that the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article has not improved is absurd when 1) many people (including some critics) agree that it is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, and neutral; 2) it has achieved Good Article status; and 3) some experts on conspiracy theories in general and New World Order conspiracy theories in particular have praised the article during its evolution over the years.
When I used the word “demolished” in one of our previous debates, I simply meant that I successfully explained why your arguments (and those of others) were wrong, especially when they indicated an ignorance of Wikipedia guidelines. There is obviously a difference between “demolishing” bad arguments and “demolishing” people.
You seem to conveniently ignore the fact that, despite my alleged tyrannical attitude, our first dispute about the last sentence of the lead section concluded in a complete compromise on my part to your intransigeant demand to have part of that sentence deleted. So this ironically proves that we have been able to work together to improve this article despite the tension between us. ;)
I agree with you that we should use more sources. However, a majority of notable mainstream journalists and scholars share the views expressed by the two sources we have extensively used so far. Therefore, even if we had more sources, Wikipedia should accurately reflect the proportionality of viewspoints on this subject. In other words, just because one journalist decides to give equal time to a writer who sympathizes with creationists or climate-change deniers, it doesn't mean that we, contributors to an encyclopedic article, should do the same in an article about evolution or climate change.
No one is disputing that the BBC is a reliable source. However, not everything produced by the BBC is of equal value. Even you can agree that one short, anonymous, and arguably tongue-in-cheek BBC online article is a source that has far less weight than a lengthy, serious, and comprenhensive investigative report clearly attributed to one of the BBC's top investigate reporters. Therefore, this BBC online article is obiously a source that has far less weight than a well-referenced essay or book written by a notable mainstream scholar who is widely known for specializing in the study of conspiracy theories in general and New World Order conspiracy theories in particular. Furthermore, according to Wikipedia guidelines, “when available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources”. So a scholarly source has more value than a journalistic one.
One last thing you need to remember is that the Wikipedia article on New World Order conspiracy theory focuses on all conspiracy theories about a New World Order, the vast majority of which are paranoid fantasies of fundamentalist Christians who are convinced that agents of the Antichrist are behind it all. The BBC article, on the other hand, focuses on the most plausible conspiracy claims made againt the Bilderberg group, some of which is arguably true. This explains the difference in tone in these two articles and why they cannot be similar.

--Loremaster (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Raw Material

Need to cite raw material of the conspiracy theories and not just the debunkings.Lung salad (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

In general, the article currently explains what conspiracy theorists believe and then what skeptics think of it. This is what most journalists and scholars do when they write on the subject. Although we can use a select few quotes from first-party sources (i.e. the articles and books of prominent conspiracy theorists), it is better to report what third-party sources tell us about conspiracy theories. --Loremaster (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

If we use “raw material” from conspiracy theorists, it should be from conspiracy theorists who have been mentioned by journalists and scholars as notable conspiracy theorists. The reason being that Wikipedia should not be raising the profile of an obscure conspiracy theorist if scholarship and news organizations haven't already. --Loremaster (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists don't agree

Something that we should probably make clearer ... The NWO theory is not one single unified theory, but a collection of bits and pieces "borrowed" from other fringe theories... theories that don't necessarily relate to the NWO. Not all believers in the End Times (for example) believe in the NWO ... and not all NWO believers believe in the End Times. (to give another example: Not all NWO theorists believe in a Masonic conspiracy... and there are Masonic conspiracy theorists that are not tied to the NWO.) We have to be careful that the reader does not come away thinking that all End Times (or Masonic) theories are NWO theories, and vise versa.

One of the confusing things about dealing with "conspiracy theory" in general is how fragmented they are... and how frequently these fragmented theories seem to overlap and borrow ideas from each other, without actually agreeing on what it means. Conspiracy theorist A may make a claim about X... Conspiracy theorist B may make what appears to be a similar claim about X (sometimes even citing A for the claim)... and yet when put into context of the specific theory that A or B each proposes, the claims turn out to actually be very dissimilar. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem of dealing with conspiracy theories is that they are quite often not very consistent, but mere bits and pieces, somewhat intuitive. The academic scholar is used to consistency and argument, and looking for it may unify what isn't unified, look for consistency where there is none, or look for a point when none is to be had. My personal experience with conspiracy theorists is that quite often there is no theory at all, but a dispersed, contradicting body of knowledge even if talking to just one person. "Theories" or rather catchwords such as "NWO", "Illuminati" or "Freemasons" take a top level in CTs, functioning as flexible unifiers of the ununifiable for its proponents. They explain everything, everything comes down to them. Chemtrails, 911, JFK, the FED, etc. can be integrated into one narrative (however confusing and contradicting), even Freemasons, Illuminati and NWO are mutually integratable. But specifically because they function as integrators, they bear the CTs contradictions and, in the end, are almost empty vessels to be filled with anything.

So, while we may, with Barkun and others who attempted a typology of conspiracy theories, note that NWO is a "super-conspiracy" and possibly present some common features, any attempt at completeness with regard to the content must, IMO, ultimately fail. An article on NWO should probably reflect this dillema and note the terms elusiveness in regards to specific content. (This is obviously meant as editorial consideration, since I'm not certain about RS in this matter. It's just an attempt to work out the problems and dillemas of writing about CTs. I have the utmost of respect for Loremaster as a main author of this article as it stands, and this is in no way intended to denigrate his efforts.) SK (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that I don't share Blueboar's concern since the article, for example, specifically talks about end-time believers who have embraced NWO conspiracy theory rather than all end-time believers; in his book A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America, Michael Barkun (who is a leading expert on the subject), talks about the growing popularity of “superconspiracy theories”, which are conspiratorial constructs in which multiple conspiracies are believed to be linked together hierarchically. “Event conspiracies” and “systemic conspiracies” are joined in complex ways, so that conspiracies come to be nested together. At the summit of the conspiratorial hierarchy is a distant but all-powerful evil force manipulating lesser conspiratorial actors. The term “New World Order” is often used by many conspiracy theorists to described the ultimate superconspiracy. Superconspiracy theories have enjoyed particular growth since the 1980s, in the work of authors such as David Icke, and Milton William Cooper. I therefore suggest that Blueboar reads Barkun's book before proposing changes based on personal opinions rather than scholarly research. I will resist any attempt to make “clarifications” in the article that are based on nothing more than original research. In other words, if a reliable source says “conspiracy theorists believe XYZ”, we have no choice but to report this statement without our “clarification”. --Loremaster (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

recommendation

In the "Postualted implementations" section, I wish to suggest 2 additions.

1) in the Gradualism sub-section, a mention of the democratic socialist society named the Fabian society "whose purpose is to advance the principles of democratic socialism via gradualist and reformist, rather than revolutionary, means." http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Fabian_Society Ive been involved with reading and researching the NWO, and I have heard the name "Fabian Society" on occasion.

2) a new sub-section titled "Hegelian Dialectic" http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Hegelian_dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic, known by its common phrases "Problem, reaction, solution", or "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Thesis,_antithesis,_synthesis Alex Jones, Max Igan and others have used this quite often, and it should be addressed that their opinions/hypothesis/etc mentions something to the effect that the ones in power create a problem, the public reacts, and then the ones in power [whom created the problem to begin with], solve it [often detrimental to society as a whole]. More will probably need to be added, but this is a good start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 04:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't take original research, because it goes against the verifiability policies and it opens the door to unobjective, opinionated, and unbalanced material which goes against the neutral point of view policies. Please cite reliable sources (such as books, scholarly journals, news articles, etc) for each point, without providing any elaboration or explanation of your own. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

As the title states, its a recommendation, not a command to do so. I dont plan to do lengthy research in order to cite sources, hence the reason of the original message. Feel free to do the reseach, and add it to the article. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 07:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Frankly these suggestions sound appealing to me at face value, but unfortunately we can only make them if we find reliable sources that substantiate them (e.g. sources that make these same claims themselves). Perhaps search mainstream news sites, scholarly journals, or maybe books that make these particular connections. Let us know how we can help. John Shandy` • talk 05:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Alleged conspirators and criticisms- parts should be merged

I can't help but notice that the beginning of alleged conspirators presents a view of Domhoff's where he describes CT's beliefs that he almost holds himself- the whole first passage, if you removed conspiratorial, echoes this from the article on who rules america- Domhoff argues in the book that a power elite wields power in America through its support of think-tanks, foundations, commissions, and academic departments. Additionally, he argues that the elite control institutions through overt authority, not covert influence. In fact it can be argued Domhoff's prominence is through his assertions America is ruled by a small elite class. It's not until the next section on criticisms do we see a passage where a clarification is provided by him. This makes reading the article difficult and confusing, Domhoff is portrayed as calling people conspiracy theorists for thinking the world is ruled by a conspiratorial elite, however he always promotes an elite rules, and promotes they suppoort and control all these entities that wield power.

I think the assertion and clarification need to be connected somehow. Or insert an eloquently phrased "everything you suspect is going on really is, which we're free to discuss until someone uses the word conspiracy." Don't blame me for saying that, I just returned from reviewing some of Domhoff's material. He's amazingly contradictive but of course an enjoyable and accessible source of knowledge.Batvette (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between sociologists pointing out that our society (like almost all human societies) is ruled by self-interested elites of a ruling class and conspiracy theorists engaging in wild speculation without any hard proof that our society is ruled by conspiratorial elites committing treason. That being said, putting aside the fact that your comment is far more convoluted than the parts of the article you are critical of, I disagree and oppose your suggested merge based on your inability to understand content from a source. --Loremaster (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

End time criticism

Some of the most vocal critics of end-time conspiracy theories come from within Christianity. In 1993, American historian Bruce Barron wrote a stern rebuke of apocalyptic Christian conspiracism in the Christian Research Journal, when reviewing Robertson's 1991 book The New World Order. Another critique can be found in historian Gregory S. Camp's 1997 book Selling Fear: Conspiracy Theories and End-Times Paranoia. Religious studies scholar Richard T. Hughes argues that "New World Order" rhetoric libels the Christian faith since the "New World Order", as defined by Christian conspiracy theorists, has no basis in the Bible whatsoever and that, in fact, this idea is not only unbiblical; it is anti-biblical and fundamentally anti-Christian because, by misinterpreting key passages in the Book of Revelations, it turns a comforting message about the coming kingdom of God into one of fear, panic and despair in the face of an allegedly approaching one-world government.Progressive Christians, such as preacher-theologian Peter J. Gomes, caution conservative Christians that a "spirit of fear" can distort scripture and history by dangerously combining biblical literalism, apocalyptic timetables, demonization, and oppressive prejudices; while Camp warns of the "very real danger that Christians could pick up some extra spiritual baggage" by credulously embracing conspiracy theories. They therefore call on Christians who indulge in conspiracism to repent.

I dont see the need to add so much criticism to the end time section. You could just as easily add conservative, fundamental Christians who believe in the end time conspiracy (LaHaye, Hitchcock etc). A short summary would work better just like in the other sections. Portillo (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I obviously disagree with you. Since many scholars argue that Christian apocalypticism is the most important source of, and influence on, New World Order conspiracism, a section on the subject deserves to be more lenghtly than others. Furthermore, the only reason why some criticism paragraphs in other sections are short is either because I've never gotten around expanding them or because critics don't have much to say on the subject. That being said, although I am not opposed to adding more content about influential Christian conspiracy theorists, I think the current criticism paragraph in the End Time section is both concise and comprehensive now that I've improved it in reaction to your reverted 20 July 2011 edit. --Loremaster (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and I do hope it is made more clear that many Christians do believe in the end time prophecy, such as Tim LaHaye, Mark Hitchcock and Hal Lindsey. In fact, Id argue that the end time prophecy is a standard Christian belief rather than a fringe theory. Portillo (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that there is a difference between “end time prophecy” and Christian apocalyptic millennerian conspiracism, I don't understand why you think it is necessary to make more clear that many Christians believe in “end time prophecy”. --Loremaster (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I just think its a bit silly to say that Christians who believe in the end time conspiracy are unbiblical and should repent. Many Christians believe in the antichrist, world goverment, etc. Portillo (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh! I understand your confusion now. What you failed to grasp is that there is a difference between Christian eschatology (vague beliefs about the return of Jesus, the resurrection of the dead, the rapture, the rise of an antichrist, the tribulation, the millennium, the end of the world, the last judgment, and the new heaven and earth) and the paranoid conspiracy theories (such as the idea that Freemasons, the Illuminati and/or Jews are part of a secret conspiracy to take over the world OR that Obama is the Antichrist) that some Christians attach to eschatological beliefs. The critics mentioned in the article argue that Christians can continue believing that the end time will come one day without embracing the conspiracy theories of the lunatic fringe. Furthermore, just because every Christian in the world believes XYZ, it doesn't mean that their beliefs reflect a proper interpretation of the Bible. In my humble opinion, the full preterist interpretation of the Book of Revelations is probably the correct one but I suggest you read Richard T. Hughes' essay Revelation, Revolutions, and the Tyrannical New World Order for a different and more scholarly opinion. Lastly, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. --Loremaster (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Im of the belief that the events of the Book of Revelations are going to happen in the future and have not yet occurred. Thanks for your reply. Portillo (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcomed. --Loremaster (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that the NwO conspiracy is real or fake? Portillo (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the “New World Order conspiracy”, as described by prominent conspiracy theorists ranging from Alex Jones to David Icke, is a paranoid fantasy. However, I fully accept the idea that the globalization of neoliberal capitalism, with the transnational capitalist class that has emerged from it, is responsible for the perfect storm of converging crises that are threatening the peace and properity of all nations but also the future of human civilization... That being said, since you are a Christian, I strongly suggest you read Gregory S. Camp's 1997 book [http://www.amazon.com/Selling-Fear-Conspiracy-Theories-End-Times/dp/0801057213 Selling Fear: Conspiracy Theories and End-Times Paranoia] to learn a different Christian perspective on the subjet of New World Order conspiracy theories. --Loremaster (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

A new Organization " Center for Religious Peace and New World Order"

In 2010 a new organization "Center for Religious Peace and New World Order " was organized by Emmanuel Adetula who is counted among the most hated religious and social commentator among African American in U.S history, a self define Preacher and Social Entrepreneur, He studies Negotiation and Conflict Management at United States Institute of Peace. Born in Nigeria, West of Africa, resident in United States , The Center for Religious Peace and New World Order mission is to Seek and Pursue good governments, religious peace, liberty , freedom, social justice, human rights and democracy around the world by using research, dialogue, conferences, workshops, and media projects; such as documentary films, TV , Radio , Social and print media to achieve its mission towards one world Government . The organization promotion of the rule of law, transitional justice and democracy featured Interviews and dialogues with Political and Religious Leaders , the result of these dialogues contributed immensely to documentary films on the organization websites. The Center for Religious Peace is a Division of Christ Channel Network a bona-fide 501 (c) (3) non profit organization in United States founded in 2002 . www.christchannelnetwork.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccnhouse (talk • contribs) 05:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Until a reliable source (such a notable mainstream journalist or scholar) mentions that conspiracy theorists believe Emmanuel Adetula's "Center for Religious Peace and New World Order" is part of a conspiracy to impose a world government, we can not and should not mention this organization in the article. --Loremaster (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

climate change one world government conspiracy

surprised this hasn't crept into the article yet.Batvette (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of it. Can you point us to a reliable source that discusses it in a serious manner? (ie not just some obscure website that makes the claim). Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Batvette is correct that many New World Order conspiracy theorists are paranoid cranks who believe that climate change is a hoax that serves the agenda of creating a world government. Lord Monckton is probably the most famous one. Read Climate change denier Lord Monckton meets Glenn Beck. That being said, we do briefly mention climate change in the Population control section of the article. --Loremaster (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds right. What I was trying to say is that we have to give the various NWO claims Due Weight within the context of the broader topic. If a claim is repeated by only one or two conspiracy websites, we should not give that claim too much weight (even to the point of not mentioning it at all)... However, if thousands of NWO websites all claim it, we should give it more weight (and at least mention it). And, if the mainstream has commented on the claim, then we should give it a fair amount of weight (and give it at least a short paragraph). Since I had never heard the claim about climate change before, I wanted to know what kinds of sources existed... so I could get an idea of where on the weight scale it should fall. Blueboar (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you would find the claim made very prolifically, not on NWO conspiracists sites, but on the sites and media sources of right wing and libertarian climate changs skeptics- as well as those who are convinced climate change is happening but believe those engaged in alarmism have underlying agendas. Some of those agendas are obviously true, and it could be easily argued that global socialism is being advanced by policies of the IPCC as well as carbon trading schemes.

Anyone who believes climate change policy will lead directly to a one world global governance is of course, a paranoid crank.

Anyone asserting it is not just one more incremental step toward this, and an way for "TPTB" to further their grip on power and greed, whether the extreme situation of that goal is realized or not, is equally delusional and should be treated with similar contemptuous ridicule. To make my personal position clear I think it's almost certain the globe is warming, man's role is part though may not be the largest influence. It IS clear that many different participants are using the issue for their own selfish agendas, and I'm quite sure that reducing global GGE is not possible with any of the proposals enacted or on the table, since global socialism IS on the minds of most of the people involved- unintentionally in many cases. I do not think one world government is plausible in any case.Batvette (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

One has to be really careful not to confuse “globalism” with “socialism”. Just because some proposed or existing law, treaty or organization is global in nature it doesn't automatically mean that it is socialist in nature. There are currently numerous laws, treaties and organizations to manage global capitalism. That being said, to get a clue of what “ecosocialism” is I suggest you read Joel Kovel's essay Why Ecosocialism Today? and then the Wikipedia article on ecosocialism.
The notion that “global socialism” is being advanced by the moderate policies of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is ludicrous when we know, among things, that the Bush administration, oil producers like Saudi Arabia, and oil corporations like Exxon-Mobil have conspired to replace the leadership of the IPCC with people more sympathetic to the needs of industry.[1]
Carbon emission trading schemes are an “ecocapitalist” solution to problems related to climate change that are denounced by ecosocialists who argue that: “Effective action on climate change involves demanding, adopting and supporting policies that reduce emissions at the source as opposed to offsetting or trading. Carbon trading isn't an effective response; emissions have to be reduced across the board without elaborate get-out clauses for the biggest polluters. There is an urgent need for stricter regulation, oversight, and penalties for polluters on community, local, national and international levels, as well as support for communities adversely impacted by climate change. But currently such policies are nigh-on invisible, as they contradict the sacred cows of economic growth and the free market.”
Unless one is a scientist who has actually studied climate change, one's personal opinion on humanity's role in global warming is worthless and the fact that the majority of scientists who mininize or completely dismiss the role of humanity in climate change are funded by oil companies should make one skeptical of “climate change skepticism”. That being said, I suggest you read Bill McKibben's article How the Mountain of Climate Change Evidence Is Being Used to Undermine the Cause.
The common good is what inspires socialism while greed, power-lust and selfish agendas are what fuel capitalism. In other words, the few true socialists that exist (such as Bernie Sanders) are the heroes of this story while capitalists (Exxon Oil, Haliburton, etc) are the villains.

--Loremaster (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Global socialism is what it is, it certainly is not the same as globalism, it is socialism realized on a global scale and seeks wealth redistribution from industrialized to third world nations. I would imagine ecosocialism may be a desirable term for the confused individuals who see nothing wrong with campaigning to reduce global warming at the same time they want to lend a hand up to impoverished peoples of Africa and Asia, but this kind of stupidity only renders their "the planet is doomed" message to be a self fulfilling prophecy of doom. What is AGW caused by? Human industrial activity. Simple and undisputable. How do you raise standards of living for the third world? Give them clean running water, hospitals, paved roads, electricity? You INDUSTRIALIZE them. Simple and undisputable. Say what you like, but the IPCC and related UN programs do seek to raise standards of living for the third world. Would you argue they aren't? And don't carbon trading schemes like Kyoto only cause capital and corporations to flow to third world countries, which only further industrializes them? How long will the charade go on concerning total global greenhouse gas emissions? Where the United States who was not signatory to Kyoto, has seen our output roughly level off, China and India's are soaring and will continue. There is your proof, if you can find it- total GGE worldwide since Kyoto's implementation. All this because your "ecosocialists" have two wildly conflicting agendas- global socialism and environmentalism as religion- the latter means they are thinking with their hearts, not their heads. Why is the third world poor? Partly backwards culture, partly past imperialism by outsiders, but mostly their own corrupt leadership. They come to the table of the UN/IPCC to grab what they can, and as their nations industrialize, they don't care about the planet. I'm afraid this whole scheme will only leave results much worse- and no oil company is paying me to say this. Should I wonder if some organization has, like in James Hanson's case, awarded you with over a million dollars to speak on it? Of course not, that would be silly. There are a lot of villains on both sides, and a lot of people with good intentions who want the facts. This kind of "environmentalism as religion" can result in huge catastrophes- take the "shipbreaking" debacle happening this last decade, you know who caused that? European environmentalists, who demanded a quick ban of single hulled tankers in their ports. Some 2500 ships were rendered obsolete practically overnight. They didn't think it through. Funny you mention studying climate change, you know that's an interesting field. One which did not even really exist until a few decades ago, and perhaps the only field of research where if enough scientists got together and came to a dissenting concensus from the status quo...they'd virtually all be cleaning out their desks in short order and looking for new careers. Think about that- "climate change..... it's not happening! whoopee, we can all go home now, the world's just fine!" No I'm not saying a conspiracy would be going on, but it's silly not to recognize they have no motivation to do anything not in their own interests. Batvette (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC) |}

Are their sources that say all that... or are you simply expressing your personal opinion on the issue? Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Batvette has sources or is simply expressing his personal opinion, there are so many non-sensical claims in that rant that I don't have the energy or time to refute it all. Even if I did, this talk page is only for discussing improvements to the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article and nothing in his rant is remotely about that. --Loremaster (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think a cap might be appropriate. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Feel free to add it now. --Loremaster (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you capping my comment stating it isn't about improving the article while leaving your own which had nothing to do with improving the article and everything to do with expressing your own opinions on the topic intact. I'm not surprised, there are many glaring issues in this matter some people refuse to discuss. I'm curious why it is Loremaster feels he should refute things people say, or why sources are demanded on talk pages when I had not proposed a factual insertion into the article body. (I can provide sources for many claims within that comment, simply asking me to provide them in the midst of discussion seems obstructive and perhaps if knowledge on this aspect of the matter is lacking it's not my duty to provide ongoing educational data- and I'm not trying to be a deek, to blueboar at least) I didn't see a source for that claim about socialists being heroes or capitalists being villians, has the game here changed and maybe before I replied I should have wikilawyered on policy to suppress his input? He stated his opinions on the matter and I replied with mine. I will note the disingenuous nature of his socialist bias is so flippant he feels referencing a memo between Exxon and the White House is sufficient to pretend the issue is not being used by third world countries to take what they can get from the UN, while outright confirming the point in the same post as he adds about "support for communities adversely affected by climate change". If a refutation was forthcoming I'm glad he spared me the blatant insult if it was as feeble as that. It's as insulting as watching people pointing fingers at everyone they are trying to gain political capital on and calling them villains while they are noble and righteous trying to save the planet but refuse to discuss why they are not concerned that their implementation of GGE legislation seems to have resulted in a soaring of global GGE. Batvette (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It was Ian.thomson who capped your comment not me. Regardless, as I said before, this talk page is only for discussing improvements to the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article and not our opinions about global warming or global socialism so I should never have started debating you on that subject. As far as I'm concerned, this entire section should be capped since, as I pointed out at the very beginning, global warming is mentioned in this article in connection with New World Order conspiracy theory. Dispute resolved. Moving on. --Loremaster (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that a very active current editor of this article's first response to the concern was "never heard of it" suggest to all but the disingenuous that I was correct. I had hoped merely mentioning it and stepping away would lead to your increased interest on this aspect and expansion of it. As AGW is one of the most pressing matters facing mankind, at least according to those most voiciferously demanding action on it, I think mere passing mention of it, considering CT on it is from the same political side as most of the NWO CT's, is a bit underwhelming. As you like, it's your article. As for debating the subject, perhaps you might refrain from such characterizations of people merely questioning an issue as "paranoid cranks" which really denotes the person using it as more of an extremist than those they would describe with that. I don't think Climate Change is a hoax, I would agree thinking so makes one a paranoid crank. So with what appropriately contemptuous and disrespectful label would we assign to all those people who deny all the clear evidence that multiple ulterior agendas are being forwarded, surely individually with no conspiracy necessary, in its name? Would we just call them dimwits if they thought Bush pushed a guy into a leadership position because he wanted to ensure capitalism endured- and not that Bush and oil companies can profit greatly going into third world countries as wealth redistribution occurs? Or would this person assume others are dimwits and accept it? If you're purposely obfuscating here you need to tinker with your tactics. When you insult someone's intelligence like that it's a challenge and most folks don't just walk away. Batvette (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

My resolution is to never again engage you in tangential debates and limit myself to replying to your comments related to improving the article. Putting aside the fact that many editors haven't read the article in its entirety or, if they have done so, sometimes forget some claims reported in it; we can only expand on some aspect of New World Order conspiracy if notable journalists and scholars have done the same in their work. For now, most of them focus far more on how New World Order conspiracy theory has been embraced and is being promoted by ufologists and New Age occultists then climate change deniers. However, if you can find reliable sources that focus on the fact that New World Order conspiracy theory has been embraced and is being promoted by climate change deniers, I would be more than happy to add content based on their work in the article. Until then, goodbye. --Loremaster (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well since you're establishing that as the standard it makes it all the more curious that apparantly the conspiracy theorist claim you've made concerning climate change does not appear in the reference you've provided. I searched that book on it's google books preview page and it doesn't seem to have the term climate change in it anywhere. Giving you the benefit of doubt I searched for its old name global warming and came up with nothing as well. Testing to ensure I wasn't too stupid to figure out how to search a book's content I tried new world order and got 72 hits. Okay I'm not stupid. Many prospective editors have pointed out the proliferation of claims by CT's in the article as unsupported by any references, now it seems some that have references are suspect as well. Perhaps I am in error, it is beyond my comprehension that an editor with your experience would engage in original research or just make things up as he goes along. Maybe it was Berlet that said it? He does sound like a reasonable fellow, from his page here:

"After visiting a meeting of the Idaho Liberty Agenda, Berlet wrote: "It helps to recognize that much of what steams the tea bag contingent is legitimate."

"They see their jobs vanish in front of their eyes as Wall Street gets trillions. They see their wages stagnate. They worry that their children will be even less well off than they are. They sense that Washington doesn't really care about them. On top of that, many are distraught about seeing their sons and daughters coming home in wheelchairs or body bags."

He might just take a look at the fact GGE emissions have soared in spite of, or even because of, measures claimed to reduce them, and admitted "by golly maybe they are saying one thing and doing another. Why would this be?"Batvette (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW,a side note, that link to the guardianUK article on Lord Monckton... I'll echo the comments, "did you see the same episode (same article's comments) I did?" A near unanimous jeering. I'm starting to think you must think people would insult you by not reading the "education" you provide with links. Batvette (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Google Books only previews some pages of a book but rarely a book in its entirety. Therefore, most people know that it is an unreliable means of determining whether or not a word is mentioned in a book.
I forget whether or not Barkun explicitly mentions “global warming” and/or “climate change” in his book since I read it a long time ago and I no longer have a copy with me. However, whether or not he does, his book was only being referenced for the general claim that conspiracy theorists believe that the New World Order will also be implemented through the use of human population control. The paragraph was simply expanded with details that Barkun may or may not mention when someone pointed out that this paragraph should discuss climate change a few months ago. However, adding a source for that specific claim would be a good thing.
The “prospective editors” who argued that some claims in the article are unsupported by any references were shown to be wrong or simply never made specific arguments that could be acted on. That being said, over the years, several paragraphs were rephrased or expanded with material that may not be found in the old references. However, this material is not original research. It comes from various reliable sources we have simply failed to get around properly referencing.
Chip Berlet is a strong critic of the Tea Party movement who simply argues that the anger over the bailout of big banks and insurance companies that led to the emergence of this movement is legitimate but the tragedy is that they aim their anger at the wrong target (“Big Government” rather than the big banks and insurance companies themselves) and their proposed solutions (more deregulation of business, austerity plans, etc.) would make things worse. The fact that some of the right-wing billionaires, who corrupted Washington, are bankrolling this movement tells you everything you need to know. That being said, please stick to debating improvements to the NWO conspiracy theory article. Unless there is a link, we should NOT be debating what Chip Berlet thinks about the Tea Party movement or climate change.
Linking the acknowledgment that the Tea Party movement has legitimate grievances with the notion that we should open to the possibility that climate change scientists are wrong has to be one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard!
I only posted a link to the Guardian article to support the claim that 1) there are conspiracy theorists who believe that climate change is a hoax that serves the agenda of creating a world government and 2) Lord Monckton is the most famous among them. Whether or not the article accurately portrays how Monckton was treated by Glenn Beck is completely irrelevant.

--Loremaster (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder if these more over the top replies are formed merely to instigate more animosity. Which argument within points 1-3 are we resting on? That the words are really in the book and the google search doesn't look at the whole book? That you aren't sure whether it's in there or not? That you provide references to "general claims" that aren't supported by them, which really does amount to original research? Was I wrong for finding this statement unsourced as you say others were? I do believe that enough editing has gone on you weren't pulling things out of your tookas on purpose and just forgot where it came from. The funny thing is it doesn't matter. You shouldn't have to provide a reference for that claim because it's the truth and we can find it at dozens of right wing climate change denier/skeptic sites, and there is due cause for rational suspicion on their part, if not paranoia turning that into nonsense about a conspiracy going on when it's just the same diverse villains (and in this case, some well intentioned but misguided ideologues) up to their same old games. If you were more willing to work with people and not always jump to defend the status quo of the article that would have been the lower standard you'd have set for others, not that we have to have a limited number of scholars recognizing it. Yes Berlet's views on the Tea Party are irrelevant to the article but in that article Berlet continues with a statement of ironic relevance to this article and its tone which I and others have long criticized (yet you seem to have either improved or obfuscated?) Berlet also believes that dismissing the tea partiers aids various factions, including John Birch conservatives, "Ron Paul libertarians," the Christian Right, and white supremacist groups, that have been documented trying to recruit the people who are newly moved by right wing populism. By dismissing and insulting the mere curious and implying their concerns are meritless or that of a crank, you risk further polarizing them- when you had the opportunity to instead educate them. Politics is not about chasing away the opposition or ridiculing them, it's about convincing them your side is the one to be on. I trust the article and its mention of climate change will be all that much better the next time I read it, you've yet to fail on that progress. Batvette (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that Wikipedia doesn't consider “dozens of right wing climate change denier/skeptic sites” reliable sources and demands that we find notable maintream journalists and scholars who report that climate change deniers have embraced New World Order conspiracism before being able to mention it in this article, I'm not gonna waste my time responding to the rest of your rant. Either make concrete propositions (involving content based on reliable sources) to improve this article or get lost because we don't need nor want your “seal of approval”. --Loremaster (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"responding to the rest of my rant" is neither your duty nor do I care to know how you feel about what I say. Improving the article can start with you removing all your POV ridden original research that this hack piece is full of, clear example being the above pointed out reference was found to have a whole passage pulled from thin air. It is simply amazing you have gotten away with such a hostile attitude toward so many editors for so long, demanding standards you yourself trample all over. This is not the end of this I assure you. --Batvette (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The passage was not pulled from thin air. It was based on a suggestion made by a reader on this talk page 6 months ago (see the “Quotes by notable people” discussion in the archives) and my reading of articles about Lord Monckton at the time, which I failed to reference.

Regarding the article as a whole: Putting aside the fact that editors have some leeway to use words that are not used by a source when paraphrasing/summarizing its content; as I said before, over the years, a few paragraphs were rephrased or expanded with material that may not be found in the current references. However, this material is not original research. It comes from various reliable sources whose references were mislocated/deleted in the process or that we have simply failed to get around properly referencing. You may simply be kicking in me in the butt to do the tidying-up I've been wanting to for a long time.

That being said, why would you want to remove a mention of climate change in the article when you are fighting to have the subject mentioned in the article? You're not making any sense. --Loremaster (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You're side stepping the point, which is that you continuously obstruct any editor's suggestions on changes with the stone faced reply Wikipedia doesn't consider “dozens of right wing climate change denier/skeptic sites” reliable sources and demands that we find notable maintream journalists and scholars who report that climate change deniers have embraced New World Order conspiracism before being able to mention it in this article yet it seems the article has many passages with your hand on them which don't begin to meet the same criteria. Worse, you've taken bits and pieces from various authoritative sources but peppered it with enough OR that the sum of the article has become your POV pet and really does not reflect reality OR the overall analysis found by the very sources it cites. This was a problem with the section I created about merging sections, you've taken it so far you can't cite Domhoff without breaking his views into fractured pieces so people can't keep track of what he really said. Batvette (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have and will continue to obstruct “suggestions on changes” made by people that any rational observer would agree was nothing more than clumsy attempts to uncritically present a pet conspiracy theory as an undisptuable fact (when it isn't) without a source or with an unreliable source to back it up. That being said, over the years, I have improved the article based on both reasonable and unreasonable “suggestions on changes” made by you and other people. So this accusation that my obstructionism has prevented the article from being improved or expanded is ridiculous when, for example, you know that the entire paragraph about Georgia Guidestones in the article is there because of one of your silly rants many months ago.

Regardless, the only reason why there still are some passages in the article that I or other people have written/edited that do not meet the criteria I've imposed on others is because they contain fairly common and mundane claims that have been expressed by many notable mainstream critics of conspiracy theories in particular and New World Order conspiracism in particular. In other words, although all claims should be properly referenced, it is far more important and urgent to reference a bold claim that will be subject to immediate dispute (such as “the Bilderberg Group is part of a communist conspiracy to take over the world”) than a mundane claim that most people accept as obvious (such as “Christian conspiracy theorists are influenced by biblical prophecies about the end time).

If you have actually taken the time to read all sources this article is based on (rather than only relying on the search engine of Google Books...), I welcome you pointing out examples where there is an inappropriate difference between claims in the article and content in the sources. In my experience, it usually leads to an article I am interested in being improved with more newer and better sources that reinforce the disputed POV even more. ;)

Putting aside the fact that it doesn't violate any Wikipedia guideline, there is abolutely nothing wrong in quoting relevant passages from Domhoff's essay in different sections of the article. It does not in any way prevent someone from understanding his argument nor does it distort his position. You will really have to do better than that.

Ultimately, the reason why I am hard on you is because, even when you are right, your arguments are so convoluted that they cannot and/or should not be acted upon. --Loremaster (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Batvette, I would appreciate it if you would please take an hour or so to itemize all of the specific excerpts or passages which you feel Loremaster's editing has carried synthesis, original research, or his point of view into the article. It is very difficult for myself and perhaps some of this article's other editors to make heads or tails of what you're talking about. I cannot discern what specifically you take issue with in regards to your allegations of Loremaster's editing behavior. I think the simplest route to the bottom of this dispute is to simply list the specifics so that parties other than you or Loremaster can understand what the problems are and take our own crack at evaluating the disputed content. John Shandy` • talk 22:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Freemasonry

Freemasonry and Politics

In some countries, like in France (where the list of 19th century members of Chamber of Deputies who were also members of the Grand Orient remains secret to this very day, and where disclosure is resisted despite several attempts to have it exposed), Freemasonry was all about politics - generalisation about Freemasonry is impossible. A summary of this extremely wide and diverse subject matter cannot be condensed into a couple of paragraphs. There is no "broad outlook" of Freemasonry, if Freemasonry happens to be different things in different countries. Which it is. Lung salad (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

[2]Lung salad (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The website globalsecurity.org needs to be dealt with case by case, and this is an unsigned, unreferenced article which doesn't meet our criteria for reliable sources so far as I can see. Dougweller (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Remember that reliability often depends on context. I would agree that the website in question is not reliable for a blunt statement of fact about Freemasons (stating that "X is true about Freemasonry"), but it might well be reliable for an attributed statement as to what someone believes about Freemasonry (saying: "Adherents/Critics of the NWO conspiracy theory claim/believe that X is true about Freemasonry"). Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

But we still have to establish the notability of that person. A paranoid conspiracy theorist is only notable if scholarship and news organizations deem him notable. --Loremaster (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Mostly I agree... my exception is when something as a genre is notable... I think it acceptable for us to choose a few websites/authors as being representative of that notable genre, even if the individual behind it isn't notable on their own. Obviously the ideal would be to find a notable representative of the notable genre... but that is not always possible. Blueboar (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia should not be raising the profile of an obscure representative of a notable genre if scholarship and news organizations haven't already. If we cannot find a notable representative, we simply don't mention one. --Loremaster (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Lung salad, whether or not you think generalization about Freemasonry (or any subject) is impossible, you need to understand and accept that we can and should report the generalizations about Freemasonry made by notable mainstream scholars and journalists... unless one can find a more reliable source that contradicts this generalization. Regarding the claims found in the Freemasonry section about Freemasonry not being political, you need to understand that we are reporting the standard rebuttal of Freemasons when they are accused of engaging in crypto-politics. The fact that you can find a multitude of Masonic Lodges in different countries and throughout history that were political doesn't change the standard rebuttal Freemasons choose to use. That being said, no one is arguing that politicians don't join Masonic Lodges, it is simply argued that there is no (or there isn't suppose to be) discussion of politics (or religion) in Masonic Lodges.

Regarding your source, I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines on how to identify reliable sources.

--Loremaster (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources on Grand Orient Freemasonry being involved with the Chamber of Deputies - there's tons of it. Admittedly it's all in French. And then there's the dissolution of Grand Orient Freemasonry by Petain, that resulted in Right-Wing Neo-Freemasonic groups calling themselves Grand Occident that were Monarchist in nature springing up and paved the way for the creation of Action Francaise and other right-wing fascist groups. This is all bonafide ordinary history, not "conspiracy theory". As for condemning websites, let's not condemn the factual historical content contained therein. Lung salad (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

*sigh* Freemasons asserting that a long-standing rule within regular Freemasonry is a prohibition on the discussion of politics and religion in a Masonic lodge and the participation of lodges or Masonic bodies in political pursuits is not incompatible with the fact that members of the Grand Orient Freemasonry being involved with the Chamber of Deputies in France or anywhere else. Furthermore, as I said before when we had this conversation many weeks/months ago, we are reporting an assertion made by Freemasons when they are accused of engaging in political conspiracies. Whether or not this assertion is true or contradicted by some facts specific to a country and time period is irrelevant. Ultimately, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. --Loremaster (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Freemasonry is part of the curriculum in the History of the Third French Republic, and this connection is to do with ordinary everyday history and not with "conspiracy theory". No verifiability? This is a joke. I will collect verifiable sources. There are many of them. If reference is going to be made that Freemasonry denies political activity, reference is therefore going to be made that Freemasonry does engage in political activity despite its declaration. That's neutral point of view, anything else is POV and against Wikipedia guidelines Lung salad (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many times I'm gonna have to explain this, but the fact that you can find an example of Freemasonry being political in a specific country during a specific time period doesn't change the fact a prominent Masonic apologist has chosen to respond to accusations of Masonic political conspiracy by arguing that a long-standing rule within regular Freemasonry is a prohibition on the discussion of politics and religion in a Masonic lodge and the participation of lodges or Masonic bodies in political pursuits. Wikipedia's guidelines regarding neutral point of view is irrelevant since we have a duty to report what a source says regardless of whether or not it is true. That being said, to resolve this dispute, I edited the disputed sentence to say “regular Anglo-American Freemasonry”. --Loremaster (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I know what you want, you want to insert a sentence "Freemasonry has nothing to do with politics" without including the fact that Freemasonry 'was' involved in politics, no matter how scholarly the source may be. Leaving out that latter point woould be POV, and would be in violation of Wikipedia Neutral Point of View. And every time that you include that word "understand" in a message to me it will be deemed as harrasment - because it is quite evident that it is you that does not "understand". To clarify the matter, French Freemasonry did not have any statement in its constitutions about politics, but at the same time it played a vital role in the creation of the Third Republic. Got that? Lung salad (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't Grand Orient Freemasonry said to be controlled by Jewish interests? Wasn't the involvement by Grand Orient Freemasonry in French politics and anti-clerical legislation in particular a powerful ingredient in the development of Freemasonry being creator of a New World Order? And in the escalation of Anti-Semitism? Isn't there a considerable amount of literature about this New World Order Conspiracy Theory? Have you checked this out? Lung salad (talk) 11:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The sentence was edited to clarify that Masonic apologists are only talking about Anglo-American Freemasonry so there is no need to talk about French Freemasonry's role in the Third Republic. Although you should be mindful that the Freemasony section of the article focuses on New World Order conspiracies implicating American Freemasons, please provide us with a reliable source for the claim that French Freemasonry being controlled by Jewish interests and playing a role in anti-clerial legistlation was a factor in development of New World Order conspiracy theories implicating Freemasons. --Loremaster (talk) 12:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh I know about the clarification and the edit to suit your POV opinion. And Grand Orient Freemasonry is part of New World Order Conspiracy Theory because it was viewed as the World Jewish Threat by those Catholics who were on the receiving end of the anti-clerical laws that the Grand Orient supported, and keeps an eye on things today to have it maintained.Lung salad (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

For Italy, see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Alta_Vendita Lung salad (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Another reference, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Grand_Orient_Freemasonry_Unmasked_as_the_Secret_Power_Behind_Communism Lung salad (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about Freemasonry, the conspiracy theories that implicate it, or anything about its political involvement or its stance on political discourse within its activities. However, it seems to me Lung Salad, that you wish to counter the sources that claim Freemasonry denies political involvement, by offering a source that demonstrates political involvement. Even with that being reliably sourced, I still think that you need a reliable secondary source that pits those two ideas against one another (a source that evaluates Freemasonry's claims of no involvement against evidence of involvement). In other words, what you are suggesting may indeed be valid, I think it treads on the border of synthesis maybe? I'm not entirely sure. We're not supposed to write things in an evaluative or comparative way though unless a secondary source does so. I'm trying to understand if this is the crux of Loremaster's objection to your suggested edits. John Shandy` • talk 14:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia should show that Anglo-American Freemasonry was free from politics 'AND' present the fact that Freemasonry was actively engaged in politics in countries like France, Italy and Spain, especially since this involved Conspiracy Theory of the relevant periods, and since in countries like France and Italy where Freemasonry was deemed to be in league with Judaism, being a continuation of the Protocols conspiracy, depicted in artwork where the Symbol of the Star of David represented Freemasonry. That was how anti-masonic and anti-jewish groups started in Vichy France, when Petain proscribed Grand Orient in 1941. This article is about New World Order, and to exclude this topic from this article would be like excluding Neil Armstrong from discussing the first NASA manned lunar landing.Lung salad (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Lung salad (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that Lung salad is trying to counter an argument that has been edited to better reflect what the source meant (the author is a Canadian Mason talking about Anglo-American Freemasonry) thereby making his counter-argument unnecessary, he needs to seek consensus for his suggested changes BEFORE making them, especially in the light of the fact that his last edits (which I reverted) are ignoring the logic of the last two paragraphs of the Freemasony section of the article, which focuses on the most common Masonic apology against accusation of Masonic political conspiracy found in the first three paragraphs. Furthermore, even when he finds reliable sources, he writes sentences that do not accurately reflect what these sources state. --Loremaster (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Henry Coston and Nesta Webster are two good sources. Lung salad (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There are links to this Wikipedia article from [3] and [4] so let's include references to those documents and what those documents are about - New World Order. The last two paragraphs to the portion about Freemasonry need to be amended and revised since they are far from conclusive endnotes to the subject matter, and I have added mention of the two documents. Lung salad (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Henry Coston and Nesta Webster are conspiracy theorists. Their books are not reliable sources for statements of facts nor should we interpret what they say. We can only mention their opinions through the commentary of notable mainstream scholars and journalists who discuss the conspiracy theories of Henry Coston and Nesta Webster.
I've explained in a section below that the last two paragraphs should not be edited to add content that should be in the first three paragraphs. --Loremaster (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Freemasonry and Taxil hoax

Is there a reason why we do not even mention the Taxil hoax in the section on Freemasonry? The claims that Taxil put forth during his hoax are still being repeated (as fact) by NWO conspiracy theorists today. Despite the fact that Taxil admitted that his claims were all a hoax, they were (and are) believed and repeated by numerous conspiracy theorists, and had a huge influence on subsequent anti-masonic claims about Freemasonry. It should be mentioned. Blueboar (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

We did mention it in the past or, at the very least, a sentence had a word linked to the Taxil hoax article. However, it was lost during the re-writing of the Freemasonry section. That being said, we need to find a reliable source (notable maintream scholar and journalist) which explicitly states that many NWO conspiracy theorists repeat as fact the claims put forth by Taxil and/or that the Taxil hoax had a huge influence on subsequent anti-Masonic conspiracy theories. --Loremaster (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest "Is it true what they say about Freemasonry?" by Art DeHoyos and S. Brent Morris. It goes into this extensively. Blueboar (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you quote here the parts about NWO conspiracy theorists? --Loremaster (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There is an on-line edition here... the latter part of Chapter One contains a long list of authors who have repeated the Taxil claims. Blueboar (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Good. When I finish reading this, I'll think of the best way to integrate this claim. --Loremaster (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Loremaster (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Robison's influence on anti-masonry in the 1800s

While Chip Berlet may contend that John Robison's reactionary conspiracy theories produced/contributed to outbreaks of Protestant anti-Masonry in the United States during the 1800s, I think most historians would disagree. What really caused the wave of (mostly) Protestant anti-Masonic hysteria in the 1830s was the William Morgan Affair. Robison's theories really had little impact on that. In fact, I can not think of a single historian who, in writing about the Morgan Affair and the rise of the Anti-Masonic Party, even mentions Robison as an influence or factor. I think we should find a second source to corroborate what Berlet contends. He is a journalist after all, and not a historian, and he may be giving more weight to Robison than is warranted. Blueboar (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not necessarily Chip Berlet's opinion. He seems to be reporting a statement from historian David H. Bennett 's book [http://www.amazon.com/Party-Fear-American-Nativism-Movement/dp/0679767215 The Party Of Fear: The American Far Right from Nativism to the Militia Movement], which is considered one of the most comprehensive works covering right-wing movements in the United States since colonial times. That's the reason why I have reverted your edits when you attributed this statement to Berlet. That being said, I edited the sentence to use the word “influenced” you had first suggested. --Loremaster (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah... that is different (this was not clear from the citation). Would I be correct in thinking that the reason we cite Chip Berlet, and not David Bennet, is WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT? I think it would be better to get a copy of Bennet's book, and cite that directly. A respected historian is a better source than a journalist. Blueboar (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Although Berlet is being used as source for his work as a political analyst rather than a journalist, I have no problem with using Bennet as a source. Since you're a librarian, it might be easier for you to get your hands on a copy more quickly. --Loremaster (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a librarian... I am a historian (I run a Historical Society that, in part, focuses on Freemasonry)... but I do have relatively easy access to one of the better Masonic libraries in the country (the Livingston Library, run by the Grand Lodge of New York)... I'll see if they have a copy. Blueboar (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. --Loremaster (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Livingston Library does not have a copy in their collection. We will have to obtain a copy another way. Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. --Loremaster (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Freemasonry and politics - neutral point of view

If it is to be cited that Freemasonry proclaims that it is not political, then it should also be cited that Freemasonry is political in nature, and is involved in politics. Neutral Point of View needs to be established in the article - one example how French Grand Orient Freemasonry is political in France:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2860

Meanwhile, Sarkozy is considering amending the 1905 law separating Church and State. On Tuesday I referred to an interview conducted by Libération with Jean-Michel Quillardet, the grand master of the anti-Christian Grand Orient of France, the first Masonic lodge of France, who expressed his fears that the 1905 law would be in some way amended in favor of religion. As it turns out, guess who Sarkozy has appointed to modify the law? None other than Quillardet himself! This report is from E-Deo:

Jean-Michel Quillardet, Grand Master of the Grand Orient, visited the French president last Tuesday. After the meeting he expressed his relief and his satisfaction, assuring the press that the president was committed to leaving untouched the 1905 law separating Church and State except for a “few technical changes.” […]

[A]fter his interview with Jean-Michel Quillardet, Nicolas Sarkozy promised to visit the headquarters of the Grand Orient to acquaint himself with the principal doctrines of French masonic thought.

Lung salad (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm certain this is a reliable source [5] Lung salad (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The Freemasonry section of the article is NOT about the nature and history of Freemasonry but about accusations made by New World Order conspiracy theorists against Freemasonry and how Freemasons respond to these charges so, as I said before when we had this conversation many weeks/months ago and recently in a discussion thread above, we are reporting an assertion made by Freemasons when they are accused of engaging in political conspiracies. Whether or not this assertion is true or contradicted by some facts specific to a country and time period is irrelevant. Ultimately, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. That being said, I'm not opposed to adding content from a reliable source that explicity counters the argument made by Freemasons by saying something like: “although Freemasons argue that Freemasonry is apolitical, there are numerous examples that prove the contrary, such as in France...” What you have presented so far doesn't do that. --Loremaster (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The part about Freemasonry not being interested in politics is laughable, and should be removed. Scholarly Citations have been provided about French Freemasonry's role in the Third Republic.Lung salad (talk)

The sentence was edited to clarify that Masonic apologists are only talking about Anglo-American Freemasonry so there is no need to talk about French Freemasonry's role in the Third Republic. --Loremaster (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Except that French Freemasonry is a vital ingredient in the subject matter of New World Order, and a new subheading can be introduced to include this. Lung salad (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a new subheading is necessary and it really depends what reliable sources have to say on the subject. --Loremaster (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please explain why you consider the essays by M. L. McIsaac and Hamon & Hamon as unreliable sources on the history of Grand Orient Masonry and the Third French Republic. Lung salad (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources have been provided. Grand Orient was part of French politics and was accused of being part of New World Order conspiracy as a result of this. Grand Orient Freemasonry supported the policies of the Third Republic in its Annual Conferences and reliable sources of the period can be cited. Lung salad (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

One thing you need to accept is that just because you found what you think is a reliable source for content you want to add in article it doesn't mean that it should or has to be added in an article.
When someone reverts your edits, regardless of whether or not these edits involveadding content based on what you think is a reliable source, you need to seek consensus on this talk page through discussion and resolve the dispute before you restore your edits or make new ones. Just mentioning that you have reliable sources and restoring your reverted edits before anyone responds isn't enough nor it is appropriate. Even if it takes a day or a week before someone responds, you need to wait.
Correct me if I'm wrong but your sources do not specifically mention the New World Order and/or one world government conspiracy

--Loremaster (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You have failed again to explain why you consider the reliable sources as provided to be "unreliable" - is it just because you "don't like them" - is that the reason? You need to provide something better than that. The Jews to the antisemites were regarded as the big threat, and instigators and masters of the forthcoming New World Order. Both by French and German Nazis, and their suspected involvement in Freemasonry was part of that perception. Lung salad (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The work of a conspiracy theorist is obviously not a reliable source. You need to cite a notable scholar/journalist who discusses the work of a conspiracy theorist.
Just because you are adding content that is based on a reliable source it doesn't mean that this content is relevant or fits where you put it.
The problem isn't always the reliability of the source but the accuracy of your interpretation of content found in the source. You often write/edit sentences to says things that the source doesn't.
I am well aware that Jews were regarded as the ultimate conspirators since I mention them in several sections of the article.
You need to understand the logic and structure of some sections and the fact that we need to be mindful not to make this article longer than it already is.

--Loremaster (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Disputed content

Why should the inclusion of non-Anglo and non-American Freemasonry be disputed material? Why can't material on Freemasonry found in other Wikipedia articles not be included in this article? Why can't the Grand Orient of France be mentioned in this article? Why should these additions be regarded as disputed? Any answers? Anyone? Lung salad (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The header to the discussion page reads: "Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions."

I have added another scholarly source giving evidence that the Grand Orient was involved in politics with the French Third Republic. And I can continue providing similar sources.

The Political Situation in France by A. Hamon, H. Hamon, [The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Jul., 1905), pp. 107-128]

"Every year the Radical and Socialist Radical parties hold a general congress, where all the delegates of the groups that follow Radicalism meet. Frequently these groups are electoral committees which live only during the period of the election. They have but a small number of members, and sometimes the delegate appoints himself. The Radical and Socialist Radical congress appoints from among its members an executive committee. Recently the president of this committee was M. Bertaux, a deputy who served as minister of war in the Combes cabinet [Emile Combes: Prime Minister of France 1902-5; who was also a Freemason and a Spiritualist]. Its president is now Jean Bourrat, a deputy. The difference between the Socialist Radicals and the Radicals lies in the varying degree of emphasis which they place upon democratic reform.

As we have already seen, French conservatism has a live organ in the "Third Order". Radicalism possesses a similar organ in Freemasonry, represented especially by the "Grand Orient of France". It is difficult to ascertain the numbers in this secret association. It is known that they are divided into lodges, each of which has a president, who is styled "Venerable", and several other officers. There may be several lodges in the same town, according to its importance. The Freemasons of the Grand Orient of France hold an annual convention. Though secret, this convention was freely discussed in the press this year. It appoints a permanent council, which is charged with the direction of French Masonic affairs. This council is called the "Council of Order". Its president is M. Lafferre, a deputy and a barrister. Besides the Grand Orient of France, and in friendly relations with it, there are the "Grand Lodge of France" and the "Supreme Council" for France and its dependencies. These constitute what is commonly called the "Scottish Rite". It appears that the influence of the Scottish Rite Masons is less than that of the Grand Orient, whose lodges cover the whole country.

Republicans of all shades of opinion live harmoniously side by side in these Masonic lodges. M. Bonnet, the orator of the last convention, said in his speech, as reported by the newspapers: "We are the only association - and we are proud and happy to say so - where moderate but true Republicans, Radicals, Socialists, and Libertarians discusss together all the political, economic, and social problems." It seems, however, from what is known in the lodges, that the great majority of Freemasons are Radicals, with a Socialist minority in Paris, Marseilles, and other large cities. As for Libertarians and Anarchists, their number is very small.

The tendencies and program of Freemasonry may be considered as those of the Radical and Socialist Radical parties. The Grand Orient of France is unanimously anti-clerical. Its members one and all demand the seperation of church and state. Once this goal has been attained - and it has the first place upon its program - it will work for the political "purification" of the state functionaries; that is, the appointment to government positions of such persons only as have proved themselves to be good republicans. It desires a state monopoly of all elementary instruction, thus completely debarring the clergy from teaching. It favours laws increasing the liberty of citizens with respect to divorce, the press, etc. It advocates democratic legislation, improving the condition of the working classes in city and country, making taxes weigh more heavily upon the rich than upon the poor, providing for old-age pensions, introducing an inheritance and an income tax, fixing a weekly holiday, etc. Aside from the question of the seperation of church and state, and the destruction of the last remnant of the political power of the church, the Freemasons are, however, not entirely agreed on all of these points, some favoring a more thoroughgoing scheme of democratic reform than others."

Lung salad (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Freemasonry section of the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article is not and should not be about very single details concerning the history of Freemasonry and anti-Masonry. It is about specific accusations made by New World Order conspiracy theorists against Freemasonry and how Freemasons and/or non-Masonic skeptics respond to these charges. The first three paragraph focus on the former while the last two paragraphs focus on the latter.
The last two paragraphs shouldn't be filled with content that should be in the first three paragraphs unless it is clear that is based on a reliable source that is directly responding to an argument made by the Masonic apologist. In other words, you need to find a source that explicitly says “Freemasons defend themselves by arguing XYZ but here is evidence that contradicts their argument”.
The source we are using as a source for an apology of Freemasonry is a Canadian Mason talking about Anglo-American Freemasonry. Facts about French Freemasonry are irrelevant here.
The Freemasonry section focuses on New World Order conspiracy theories implicating American Freemasons. Although I'm not opposed to expanding this section to have a more international point of view, we need to focus on what reliable sources on the subject of New World Order conspiracism focus on.
The role of Freemasonry in the politics of the Third Republic of France is irrelevant to this section unless we have a reliable source that specifically and explicitly mentions that this historical fact was influential in the development of New World Order conspiracy theories.
Not all conspiracy theories implicating Freemasons are about the New World Order and/or one world government.
You cannot edit sentences that are already referenced to reliable sources to say something he/she didn't say or didn't mean just to set up a counter-argument you want to add.

--Loremaster (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Very well then, another subheading to this article entitled "Grand Orient Freemasonry" can be created to deal with that aspect of New World Order conspiracy theory - this is also relevant since it involved anti-semitism that led to the extermination of 6 million Jews (Vichy France were grateful to the Nazis for ridding it of its Jews). There is therefore no longer any need for a reference to P2 in your verdict on Anglo-American Freemasonry, since that is Italian masonry. The Grand Orient Freemasonry needs to be addressed since Wikipedia has dealt with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Edouard Drumont and both of these subject matters deal with Masonry, Conspiracy theories and Anti-semitism. Lung salad (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

We can integrate content about New World Order conspiracy theories involving Grand Orient Freemasonry in a new paragraph without creating a new subheading.
Some branches of Freemasonry being involved in politics and Freemasonry as a whole (or Anglo-American Freemasonry in particular) having a hidden political agenda is not the same thing. The former is perfectly legitimate while the latter is sinister.
As I said explained to you many times before, regardless of what you consider to be contradictory facts, Freemasons are entitled to argue whatever they want so the reference to PS stays.
I am reverting your edits and I suggest you present your changes here (so we can see what they would like and discuss them) before editing the article further.

--Loremaster (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If it's a section specifically about ANGLO-AMERICAN Freemasonry, then that needs to be highlighted in both the subheading and in the text, with the reference to P2 removed, and I have done that. There are references that P2 was and is a political masonic movement - and if P2 is to be mentioned, citations need to be included that it is regarded as a political masonic movement. Lung salad (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an objective and Neutral Point of View Wikipedia article, personal objections to mentioning links between Freemasonry and politics should not be allowed to hinder the quality of content of this article. Lung salad (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Freemasonry affairs within politics is a world reality and the subject matter should not be suppressed on Wikipedia. Not in this article nor in any other Wikipedia article. There is no reason to discuss this subject matter here if the discussion is being used as part of a censorship agenda procedure by Wikipedia editors who wish to introduce censorship on Wikipedia. Lung salad (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether not or we decide to include your suggested changes, can you PLEASE discuss them here and wait for a consensus to emerge before editing the article again? Is that really too much to ask? --Loremaster (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Except that you do not participate in discussion - what you do is put your edits on the article and then delete any edits that you do not agree with - then say "please discuss until a consensus is reached" - and you do not discuss. You just keep deleting other people's edits all the time without discussing, behaving like you were the final arbiter of Wikipedia articles. Lung salad (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Question to Lung salad... I completely agree that the Grand Orient style Freemasonry has been (and continues to be) heavily involved in politics ... but... what does this involvement have to do with the New World Order conspiracy theory? Blueboar (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is New World Conspiracy Theory and Judaism was suspected of starting a New World Order based on collaboration with Freemasonry. The inclusion of Grand Orient Masonry is justified in this respect. Without this there would not have been conspiracy theorists like Drumont and Coston. Lung salad (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Blueboar (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Because Drumont and Coston objected to what Grand Orient Freemasonry had become - non-Catholic and steeped in secular philosophy, blaming it all on Jewish infliltration of the lodges. Lung salad (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

When I reverted your edits, I was at work so I didn't have the time to discuss but I did tell you that I would explain myself later that day or the day after. However, you seem so obsessed with (clumsily) adding your content in the article that you are incapable of being patient enough to simply wait a few hours or a day or two for me to come back here and explain my objections, which I did. That being said, my suggestion was simple: Rather than editing the article, write your proposed new version of the Freemasonry section here on this talk so that we can discuss it, possibly makes changes, and form a consensus. Currently, the Grand Orient section you have created is a nightmare of superfluous content about the history of French Freemasonry that should not be in this article. Ultimately, please remember that just because content come from the most reliable source in the world it doesn't mean it is relevant and that it should be included in this article. --Loremaster (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the added subsection, except perhaps it can contain more material relating to the subject matter of New World Order. The Catholic newspaper La Croix was strongly supportive of Drumont and became the first to review his book La France Juive in 1886. In 1898 the newspaper published the pamphlet Le Complot Juif ("The Jewish Conspiracy") containing the Jewish plan of world domination. The Jews depicted as controllers of the press, the economy, and government, as well as disseminators of revolution and government. Lung salad (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The entire subsection should be deleted since it doesn't respect the logic of the Conspiracy theories section of the article, which consists of reporting New World Order conspiracy theories involving a particular group followed by criticisms by skeptics which debunks these conspiracy theories. However, some of it's content can and should be integrated in the original Freemasonry section of the article, while the paragraphs dealing with Masonic apologetics should be edited to remove statements that only apply to Anglo-American Freemasonry and replace them with statements that apply to both Anglo-American and Continental Freemasonry. Could this proposed compromise work for you? --Loremaster (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

If the above subsection is to do with the Anglo/American Freemasonry then what is the reference to Italian P2 doing there? Where is the logic in that nonsense? Perhaps you stuck that in to underpin your POV that Freemasonry has never been involved in politics, and any such belief demonstrates adherence to some "conspiracy theory"? You're the last person on Wikipedia to preach about logic. Lung salad (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I've always known that some branches of Freemasonry were involved in politics! You seem to forget that in late June I had a huge debate with Blue Boar and you over my intent to add content in the article (based on Margaret C. Jacob's 1991 book Living the Enlightenment: Freemasonry and Politics in Eighteenth-Century Europe) which would have specifically stated that, in Continental Europe, Freemasons became involved in politics in order to create a moral and social order based upon reason and virtue, and dedicated to the principles of liberty and equality. This line would have help explained why reactionary conspiracy theorists became obsessed with Freemasonry. However, a consensus formed against my intent and the content was deleted.

As for the specific reference to the Italian P2, it was mentioned because many conspiracy theorists point to it as proof that Freemasonry has a hidden political agenda but the Masonic researcher argues that this lodge is Italian therefore not representative of Anglo-American Freemasonry and, more crucially, this lodge was illegal and therefore not truly Masonic so it cannot be used as proof of anything.

That being said, we are reporting an argument made by a Masonic research who writes extensively on anti-Masonic conspiracy theories. Whether or not his argument is true and accurate is irrelevant to whether or not it should included in the article because the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth nor accuracy — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true or accurate. --Loremaster (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see, only YOUR CITATIONS count and nobody else's citations - an author's OPINION matters more than citations that refer to historical facts and to historical events, because a certain author's opinion fits in with your POV - right? Lung salad (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

My personal POV is irrelevant. The Freemasonry section would be written quite differently if I was trying to push my POV into it. My point is simply that a Wikipedia article must report both facts and significant opinions we can find in reliable sources. Now, as I suggested in a compromise, I am quite open to adding some of the content you suggested. However, you need to understand that some of the content you suggested, regardless of how well-cited is, is superfluous in a section that is dealing with a specific subject. That being said, you seem to forget something: Although I still disagree with it, I had to accept the consensus in June that all the content I added in the introductory paragraph of the Freemasonry section would be deleted because it was deemed superfluous. So the notion that only my citations count in this article is obvious false. --Loremaster (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Page protection

I don't know if my request will be granted, but I've requested page protection to stop the edit warring. Please don't edit right now, work this out here and get consensus. 06:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

A Wikipedia editor is attempting to censor a subject matter from being included in this article. Also trying to use the Talk Page argument to bring that censorship into effect. I seriously doubt that the Wikipedia editor in question will ever be prepared to accept the subject matter from ever being placed in this article, although it exists in other articles on Wikipedia - and the subject matter is accepted part of historical scholarship. Scholarly citations have been used. The Talk Page has been used to attempt to introduce consensus. It has all failed. Lung salad (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The next stage should be a WP:RFC. Please remember to show good faith, this isn't censorship but a content dispute. Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

All of Lung salad's September 3 edits should be removed until this dispute is resolved because, besides containing grammatical errors and Wikipedia guidelines violations, are deteriorating the quality of the article. --Loremaster (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have cited scholarly sources to the edits I have included in the article. I do not see how citing scholarly sources "deteriorate the quality of the article" - unless of course there is material in the article that you want to have censored for some reason. Perhaps now you can finally answer the question why it is you consider that the scholarly sources that I have cited are "unreliable" or even "wrong" (your above comments). Here is the Talk Page. Please discuss. Lung salad (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The work of a conspiracy theorist is obviously not a reliable source. You need to cite a notable scholar/journalist who discusses the work of a conspiracy theorist.
Just because you are adding content that is based on a reliable source it doesn't mean that this content is relevant or fits where you put it.
The problem isn't always the reliability of the source but the accuracy of your interpretation of content found in the source. You often write/edit sentences to says things that the source doesn't.
You need to understand the logic and structure of some sections and the fact that we need to be mindful not to make this article longer than it already is.
Ultimately, you need to WAIT until the dispute is resolved and consensus has been reached BEFORE editing the article. This isn't my personal wish. It is a Wikipedia guideline that you need to abide by or face consequences.

--Loremaster (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The page is protected, so nothing will be changed during this period (except minor copy editing if requested). I've suggested an RfC, Loremaster, why don't you start one? Dougweller (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Doug, it's obvious Loremaster has a problem with accepting the fact that Freemasonic bodies existed that were involved with politics, and there still is no answer to my question "Why were the scholarly citations I used either "wrong" or "unreliable" Lung salad (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have never had a problem with what I've always acknowledged to be a historical fact. My objection was to a sentence that a misleading synthesis of several sources to say something that didn't say. --Loremaster (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The work of a conspiracy theorist is not a reliable source, yet Loremaster wrote "Scottish physicist John Robison and French Jesuit priest Augustin Barruel, began speculating that the Illuminati survived their suppression and became the masterminds behind the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror" - without referencing any scholarly sources and leaving the reader relying on his say-so. The conspirtacy theorists I cited were referenced to scholarly works. Lung salad (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The sentence is in a paragraph that has always been referenced to Trevor W. McKeown's A Bavarian Illuminati primer. --Loremaster (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Loremaster did not engage in discussion last night until AFTER a long edit war. I made some comments on the Talk Page that were ignored because Loremaster was too busy deleting my edits without comment. Let's get things straight. Lung salad (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

During the edit war, I explained in one of my edit summaries that I would engage in you in discussion later that day or the next day. You should have simply been patient and waited. That's what most non-fanatical people do. --Loremaster (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Points 1,2,3,4, and 5 are all unjustified. The article is New World Conspiracy Theory and Judaism was suspected of starting a New World Order based on collaboration with Freemasonry. The inclusion of Grand Orient Masonry is justified in this respect. Lung salad (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree... the accusation that there was/is a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy does not distinguish between Anglo-American and Franco-European branches of Freemasonry (I often wish it would, but it doesn't). Blueboar (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It did in France, where it was active. And the subsection was originally written to balance the original argument that "Freemasonry had no politics". It was only later amended by Loremaster to refer only to Anglo-American Freemasonry when I pointed out that was not true of all Freemasonry. Lung salad (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says the French proponents of the NWO theory draw (or drew) a distinction between Anglo-American Freemasonry and Franco-continental Freemasonry. If so, then I could see adding something about it. Otherwise, No.

Grand Orient de France was used as an ingredient to promote the Judeo-Masonic World domination theory. Its archives were seized by the Russian army and taken to Moscow after World War 2, and there's a contemporary Eastern European anti-semitic author that has used that material in one of their books. Lung salad (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think a lot of what you are doing here amounts to an improper synthesis (of the kind that is discussed at WP:NOR)... you seem to be taking two disparate ideas: a) Continental style Freemasonry is involved in politics (and specifically left wing politics), b) Freemasonry has been accused of being part of a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy... and reaching the conclusion that c) these two things are connected and have something to do with the NWO conspiracy theory. You can source statements a and b... but you need a source for the conclusion c. Do such sources exist? Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The entire Freemasonry (Grand Orient) subsection should be deleted since it doesn't respect the logic of the Conspiracy theories section of the article, which consists of reporting New World Order conspiracy theories involving a particular group followed by criticisms by skeptics which debunks these conspiracy theories. However, some of it's content can and should be integrated in the original Freemasonry section of the article, while the paragraphs dealing with Masonic apologetics should be edited to remove statements that only apply to Anglo-American Freemasonry and replace them with statements that apply to both Anglo-American and Continental Freemasonry. Could this proposed compromise work for you? --Loremaster (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Masonic apologetics, that speaks volumes about Loremaster's soapbox. Lung salad (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that I'm neither pro-Mason nor anti-Mason, by “Masonic apologetics”, I am simply referring to the fact that the Freemasonry section of the article reports the most common accusations that Freemasons are involved in a New World Order conspiracy and the most common arguments some Freemasons use in response to these charges. That being said, you have avoided answering a question that could lead to a resolution of this dispute so I will ask it again: Could this proposed compromise work for you? --Loremaster (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that I don't think there are many statements that can apply to both forms of Freemasonry. They really are very different animals. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. For example, one could argue that, although some forms of Freemasonry are political, a totalitarian one-world government is inconsistent with Masonic principles, etc. So, an argument that takes into account the political activism of Continental Freemasonry can easily be applied to all forms of Freemasonry. --Loremaster (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that not all Freemasons would agree with your assertion that a totalitarian one-world government is inconsistent with Masonic principles (Masons disagree on just about everything... especially politics). Granted, it would probably cause yet another schism in Freemasonry, because lots of Freemasons would agree with you (including me)... but I could easily see it happening. Blueboar (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, that's exactly what the last paragraph of the Freemasonry section already says so we already have an argument that applies to all form of Freemasonry. That being said, when writing a Wikipedia article, the only thing that is important is reporting what notable Masonic writers have to say as well as what notable non-Masonic scholars have to say on the subject. The opinion of a non-notable Freemason doesn't matter even if it proves the point that not all Freemasons believe XYZ. --Loremaster (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Loremaster needs to do homework on Freemasonry, and not edit another article about it until caught up. Freemasonry is more than petty nonsense about symbolism on the Great Seal, etc Lung salad (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that many reliable sources state that symbolism on the Great Seal is a major obession of modern New World Order conspiracy theorists, you need to remember that this article is NOT about Freemasonry. It is about New World Order conspiracy theory. Therefore, this article contains a section dealing with New World Order conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry and criticisms of these theories by Freemasons and/or non-Masonic skeptics. Details about the nature and history of Freemasonry that is not directly connected to this specific focus is superfluous and should not be in this article. So, although I have done more research on Freemasonry than you can imagine, extensive knowledge of Freemasonry is not necessary for someone to contribute to this section. One only needs to find the most reliable sources on New World Order conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry and criticisms of these theories by Freemasons and/or non-Masonic skeptics. Nothing more. Nothing less. --Loremaster (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Judeo-Masonic Plot has no link with New World Order Conspiracy Theory! Lung salad (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Lung, are you being serious here, or sarcastic? There is definitely a link... In many ways the Judeo-Masonic Plot theory was a historical forerunner of the NWO theory (not the only forerunner, but a forerunner never the less). We can trace many of the claims that modern NWO theorists make about Freemasonry directly to claims made by Judeo-Masonic Plot theorists of the early 20th century. That said... the J-M Plot theory is not the same as the NWO theory. The two overlap in many places, but there are also differences and places where they don't overlap. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

So you do agree that where they DO overlap pertaining to NWO that should be mentioned within the article? The Protocols are after all mentioned in this article Lung salad (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. That's never been an issue. The problem is the superfluous content you wanted to add and the clumsy way you add content even when it is good. So can we please get back to discussing the compromise I suggested? --Loremaster (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No one is denying that many conspiracy theorists believe that a New World Order is the ultimate goal of the judeo-masonic conspiracy: Some (but not all) of the content you suggested dealing with French Freemasonry and anti-Masonic/anti-Semitic conspiracy theories is legitimate and should be added. The problem is the clumsy way you tried to do it. That's what I am objecting to. --Loremaster (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)