Talk:Freemasonry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article Freemasonry is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8
Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12
Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16
Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20
Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24
Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28

Contents

[edit] Charitable Efforts section has NPOV issues

Great article. But:

"There are literally thousands of philanthropic organisations around the world created by Freemasons. The Masonic Service Association[46], the Masonic Medical Research Laboratory[47], and Shriner's Hospitals for Children[48] are just a few of the many organisations and areas Masons contribute to both intellectually and monetarily."

"Literally thousands" and "Just a few of the many" are not NPOV...

The Shriner's Hospitals for Children are a prime example of how Masons internationally contribute to their community. In a recent article by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution Shriners were noted for expecting to save the State of Georgia $1.3 million dollars[51]. By offering no-cost services to children with orthopedic problems and burn victims, Shriners improve the daily lives of millions.

That last phrase is an ungrounded claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.163.104 (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How so? Seems self evident to me... health care at no cost surely improves lives of those recieving it. Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
yeah great job signing that btw. npov is when you use loaded vocabulary and record inaccuracies. those are just summative statements about the numbers which cumulatively represent the individual organisations. i really don't see that argument at all. --InvisibleDiplomat666 21:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I felt that the whole article wasn't NPOV 81.23.49.232 (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] False source

LOL, I checked the source that was provided on the "fact" that Masonry has millions of members.

http://www.ugle.org.uk/masonry/YQA-about-freemasonry.htm

^ they clearly state..."We probably have 5 million members."

PROBABLY?


LMAO are u kidding me? PROBABLY?


The Anti-Vandalism King (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I gather you missed some of the very specifically NONspecific wording that you removed: membership estimated, which is then followed up with reliable sources that provide the estimate.--Vidkun (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Also... you will note that there is a second source, which backs the world wide estimate. Blueboar (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


I PROBABLY own the world. Lets document this. The Anti-Vandalism King (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

MMAfan2007, please note that the material is double cited... Let me quote what the other source (Hodapp) says: "Today there are somewhere between 4 and 5 million Masons world wide, and just under 2 million in the United States." In other words, we cite a reliable source that gives an estimate for the world wide figure that does not contain the objectionable word "probably". While the UGLE website corroborates what Hodapp says (admitedly hedging its statement more than Hodapp does) that website is mainly being used as the citation for the UK estimate (which it does not hedge in any way). Blueboar (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RLUIPA / Scottish Rite case

I am thinking that this paragraph should be taken out entirely. I think it gives Undue Weight to what was essentially an asside comment by one Judge, and making it sound as if it were it were a ruling of law. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re - I've noticed you do a lot of deleting in this article. Although I'm sure some is consensus, you really should take into account the straverse material included. While many things I've seen you delete usually are due to redundancy, I think that this page should have sections which briefly speak about other project articles and provide links. I just don't see the need to go deleting and revising this page so often as you do, that's all. --InvisibleDiplomat666 21:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Although the comment is merely the opinion of one judge, it could serve as precedent for a future court ruling, which is what makes it particularly interesting to me. I hope that the case is adequately documented somewhere around here. Did you leave any reference to the case in the original article? --Alexfoley (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I would say that if it does end up serving as a precedent, and if there is a future court ruling... then it might be worth mentioning... but as it is, No. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charity section

I don't think we need to go into so much detail as to the Masonic Medical Research Laboratory and Shriner's Hospitals... In an article that is a broad overview of Freemasonry, it is enough to mention these charities in passing and provide a link to their websites in the citation. I am not trying to belittle these entities, or say that these entities don't do great work... they do, and Masonry can and should be very proud of them. But we don't need to spend two paragraphs in an already overly long article discussing them.

What really needs to happen is for seperate articles to be written on these entities (if such articles do not already exist) and then we can link to those articles. Blueboar (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I note that the Shriners Hospital does have an article already... I have linked to it. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ideas needed

I would like to ask anyone greek speaking that have contributed in this article to read the greek article el:Ελευθεροτεκτονισμός to give ideas and advices.--Iordanis777listening 10:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I nominated the greek article el:Ελευθεροτεκτονισμός, so anyone greekspeaking or with greek account who would like to help us make it featured is wellcome.thank you in advance.--Iordanis777listening 09:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iordanis 777 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Article watch brigade

It has become apparent that there is an active article edit brigade on here that is actively engaged in stopping anyone who doesn't agree with the hive mind consensus on this topic by reverting them. This is sad, particularly because some self-admitted masons are in on this. Can someone tell me exactly why a link listing of US grand lodges - in an article about freemasonry - should not be here? I will let it go once I see the evidence for it, until then, I'll keep reverting people who are reverting me. AnotherObserver (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's all in the archives. But the case in a nutshell is that we don't link to individual Grand Lodges nor list of Grand Lodges because that would mean we would have to list to EVERY Grand Lodge / Grand Orient (and in fairness, probably every irregular group that calls itself a Grand Lodge too...). If you got a compelling argument why this should change, I'm sure the other editors are willing to listen and discuss. I know I am. WegianWarrior (talk) 09:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I would also add that there is no edit brigade. The link you are putting in, is one Grand lodges list of Grand Lodges, and as User:WegianWarrior put it, if you do that then you need to put everyone. Incidentally, why use Kansas list of Grand Lodges why not use another province/jurisdication? Nobody has mentioned it yet, but you have already breached the Three revert rule which is there to prevent edit wars. Instead of reverting why not look at List_of_Grand_Lodges and ensure that it is accurate and inclusive Boooooom (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
And then there is the fact the link in question was placed on every article that has even a tangential connection to Freemasonry... regardless of whether there was any relevance between the Grand Lodge in question and the topic of the article. Spamming of links is discouraged. Blueboar (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- :Yup, that's pretty much it, and "I'm going to keep reverting people who revert me" is not the best to get anyone to take your contributions seriously. If you are also the IP that originated the link in the first place, you have been blocked for linkspamming before. MSJapan (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Boooooom - you need to stop removing my comments or I will report you. Do NOT do it again, you do NOT have supreme control over the DISCUSSION page of the article. My comment that you removed was: There is indeed an edit brigade. I have been threatened with being banned and harassed for including a list of grand lodges. However, instead of the post gang acting like thugs, I would suggest in the future you respond as WegianWarrior did. Its much better than the hostile attitudes here. Thanks, WegianWarrior, for explaining that. I will leave it alone with that explanation in mind. AnotherObserver (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
AnotherObserver, you are correct that Boom should not have removed your comment (and you should not have removed MSJapan's) ... you are incorrect as to your other complaints. You were not threatened with banning for including a list of grand lodges, you were warned that your repeated reverts were in violation of a wikipedia rule (WP:3RR) and that if you continued you might be blocked from further editing. Giving such a warning is actually standard Wikipedia proceedure. The point of the warning was to inform you of what the rules are, in case you did not know them... so that you wouldn't end up being blocked.
To help you avoid similar warnings in future disputes: the standard on Wikipedia is "edit, revert, discuss" - meaning that if an edit you make is reverted, instead of engaging in an "edit war" by simply reverting it back to your preferred version, you should immediately go to the talk page and discuss the situation. In this case, if you had followed this standard, instead of re-reverting a few times, you would have gotten WegianWarrior's polite explanation (which you seem to accept) right at the start, no one would have turned "hostile" and there would have been no need to warn you about 3RR.
Good luck with your future editing. Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me clear this up for the benefit of AnotherObserver I did not remove his comment BUT reverted back to MSJapans comments that he deleted [[1]] as Blueboar correctly mentioned although he did not identify that my revert was to return MSJapans entry that was removed by AO. I do hope AnotherObserver can now come back to the article a lot calmer and a lot less hostile. If he is a freemason as he claims, then he should show of those truly masonic qualities. Boooooom (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but there you have it. "If" .... docboat (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
In this case, instead of threatening people who edit and revert, the best thing to do would have been to explain the reasoning (as one person did) and this wouldn't be here. The "masons" here are truly lacking masonic qualities if it is necessary to threaten those who attempt to edit articles. I'd also like to point out I tire of masons using this sort of "no true scotsman" logical fallacy to justify working in edit brigades like this. Questioning my masonic affiliation is not a way of ensuring the brethren dwell together in unity, and if you were really concerned about such things you wouldn't say such things in public. However, in the interest of the three tenets of freemasonry, I will not respond to this string of insults anymore. Thanks again, WegianWarrior, for your response. AnotherObserver (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Taking two of your comments, intentionally out of order - I'd also like to point out I tire of masons using this sort of "no true scotsman" logical fallacy to justify working in edit brigades like this. Questioning my masonic affiliation is not a way of ensuring the brethren dwell together in unity, and if you were really concerned about such things you wouldn't say such things in public. vice The "masons" here are truly lacking masonic qualities if it is necessary to threaten those who attempt to edit articles. You basically go and do the same thing you accused others of doing. Is that mature? I'll note that what Boooooom did was to revert YOUR (possibly unintentional) deletion of someone else's comment, which is against wiki policy. The biggest complaint you might have is that you feel threatened, when, in fact, you have merely been warned, in accordance with wiki policy regarding adding inaapropriate material, repeatedly, what the wiki policies have to say about your behaviour. Telling a child that if they put their hand on a hot burner, they'll get burned, isn't threatening them.--14:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
OK folks... let's not escalate a minor issue into something larger than it deserves. It no longer matters who did what and when... both sides in this little debate have added to the hostility. Now it's time back away from it. AnotherObserver has accepted WegianWarriors explanation of why his edits were reverted. I think we should leave it at that, and move on. Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Devoted Editing Brigade

Before my comments have been deleted also (by MSJapan) and I have been threated claiming I have no rigths to comment on freemasonary. Sorry but this seems quite like an order with profoundly isolated extremist community with ties that cannot be anticipated as there are no transparancy predicted by Masons themselves. In addition (not expecting an order to expose itself) no inquirity been made on by govermental authorities, which arouses question marks for me at last. I think this strongly extremist tie between the order and the aspostles causes such an aggressive editing page.(cantikadam (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)).

Let us be clear. Your comments, my comments, anyones comments on Freemasonry have absolutely NO PLACE on Wikipedia. Facts are what we need, not personal opinion. And from your edits we can see that you are dealing with personal and uninformed opinion, so it has been deleted. docboat (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, you might want to review the policy on No original research. The personal views of Wikipeidans are not reliable for inclusion. If you wish to add something, you need a source for it. Blueboar (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ofcourse I see what you mean, this is an encyclopedia and every data must be cited and credited but it does still exist subjective comments as they are called NPOV that I have been reading through the most articles on orders, politics, religions and dynasties. The comments or let's say declarations on articles have been cited or they make references which are basicly comments actually in its own sense. So citing sounds merely a judicial reference which inables the sourse to be taken formal, indeed does not change the essence of what is being claimed. I personally do not believe that the author of the article cannot be objectiive at all if he or she is a freemason. I ll check the policy. (cantikadam (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)).

So you would also suggest that it would be impossible for a Turk to be objective on an article about the Turkish genocide of Armenians? I think - and hope - not. You might also be confusing WP:NPOV and fact. NPOV is the manner in which facts are represented. The facts themselves are citable, reliably referenced. You could, however, take a look at the articles on masonic conspiracy theories and add your citations to that list? God knows, enough lies have been told against masons in the course of history, and the ideas you have referred to make interesting reading, and add to the list of unfounded allegations. docboat (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Folks... PLEASE let's not make personal comments or assume things... Having dealt with John before, I agree that he does not let his religious beliefs affect his editing. No... if I were to make assumptions, I would assume this has more to do with the fact that I deleted the tag for John's latest pet project, and John took offence. If anything this has more to do with WP:Own than religious belief. What explains my actions?... a deap understanding of Freemasonry, gained from both being one, and from long study. All of which tells me that Freemasonry isn't a secret societey... no more no less. Blueboar (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC) GOOD POINT, molto buono(cantikadam (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)).

Let's not take comments out of context, please. My comment about John, which you quote, was related to a different issue.
To move on: let's assume you can find sources for the critizisms you you discussed back in Sept. 2006 . The next issue is whether these criticisms are unique to Turkey ... or are they criticisms that are made in multiple contexts? In other words, are your criticisms already discussed in the article in a more general way? Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is called Mafia

<comments deleted> - no personal attacks please. If you wish to discuss the issue, keep it civil and continue the above discussion. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry I have seen the general criticisms already been discusse..but nothing much have changed so far I suppose. (cantikadam (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)).
If the criticisms have already been discussed in the article, then there is no point discussing it further is there? To do so would be a violation of WP:POINT. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So discussion makes sense when ends with a solution. (cantikadam (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)).

Are you saying we have a solution? Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No, if you look at the disputes made on the article. It is good if we get a solution, I am for the solution, I take no sides. (personally I am for the most plausible and logical, I migth be pragmatic in some cases.) (cantikadam (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC))

OK... what needs to be changed in your view? Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you (as an example) see the things as a mason fostered individual. I mean you could have good times at Mason summer camps or so on, I also did anyway, but now I see things different, wider and broader. First you guys have to be less defensive towards the critics, and be more "tranquilo" and pragmatic. What have you been doing (trying to defend your position rigidly) does not help you, so far you guys have responded rather offesively to the critics, just be cool, be sure I do not care who believes in orders or religions or whatever, I am just against that discussion be cut with a "knife". You guys gonna get more strenght if you can look to a mirror in a more pragmatic way that would be plausable also for all who are aggresive towards masons which will lead a solution for "win and win". (cantikadam (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)).

That's not really a problem with the article (which is the purpose of this talk page). Is there a problem with the article that you would like to discuss? Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no real criticism for the article, there is some critics on the hoax criticisms and so on. If this article be more acceptable there must be a wide criticism section as this article is about an order, an order which has many question marks hanging over, even to answer the so called hoaxes there should be a broader section of criticism or contravcy section. The criticism part should be without NPOV. (cantikadam (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)).

It is a problem with the article as it affects the articel in a subjective way, se tu non vuoi vedere l'evento ti vuoi sullo specchio ed accade nulla. "seeing the big picture". (cantikadam (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)).
What about the criticisms section is POV? Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"There have been many disclosures and exposés dating as far back as the eighteenth century. These often lack context,[56] may be outdated for various reasons,[33] or could be outright hoaxes on the part of the author, as in the case of the Taxil hoax.[57]

These hoaxes and exposures have often become the basis for criticism of Masonry usually religious (mainly Roman Catholic and evangelical Christian) or political usually Socialist or Communist dictatorial objections. Why hoax? Any proof? I cannot see any proof against. (cantikadam (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)).

Many of the criticisms that come from Evangelical sources are based upon the Taxil hoax... stuff like the claim that Freemasons are Satan worshipers originated with Taxil and dispite the fact that Taxil admitted it was a hoax, keep getting repeated. That isn't a POV statement, it is a simple statement of fact. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] i have a quesstion about freemasonary.

What does it mean when a mason "rides the goat".??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.241.82.230 (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon website has an excellent page that explains all about the history of this expression. Check it out. Essentially, "Riding the goat" was a common expression used by many fraternal orders in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries... it was used in a light hearted way to "haze" potential candidates, by telling them that they would have to ride the goat during the initiation ceremony. The term is rarely used today... but where it is still used, it is in that context. It may have originated from members wanting to ridicule the claims that Masons (and other, similar fraternal groups) worshiped the Devil.
And, no... a goat is not actually used or mentioned anywhere in the ceremonies of Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category for freemasons

I think there should be a category for members in the freemasons. Is there? I know there has ben before. Has it ben deleted? How strange, if that is so. --85.226.235.208 (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming a perennial question (perhaps we should post a note at the top of the page about this).
Yes we had such a category about two years ago. It was deleted, and changed to a list (see: List of Freemasons). There were several reasons for deletion. The first related to BLPs... there are still a few places in the world where Masonry is illegal, and accusations that someone is a Mason can endanger their life and/or freedom. Second was the issue that people were being constently added into the category for whom there was no evidence that they actually were or are Masons. That was un-managable. By listifying, we are able to insist that some sort of reliable source be provided to back the claim. The final factor was that, for most of these men, The fact that they joined a Masonic lodge is essentially trivia... not at all related to what makes them notable... categorizing them implies that being Masons was/is in some way an important defining characteristic, when it really isn't. Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. I certainly respect the first named reason. However, they must be numerous other things which are banned in some countrys and allowed in others, so surely wikipedia must have guidelines to handle such a scenario? As for the second, articles are always being categorized wrong in wikipedia, and categorys are not (or, they should not be) deleted for such a reason. As for the last reason, you are right about that, but that's still not a proper reason, as it's a reason based on how people are expected to react individually, which is impossible to rely upon (some might think it more than trivia), and people are categorized to all things which aplies to them. But, anywhy, the question isn't really that important to me, so I'm not going to get more involved, but if people ask about it so often, there seems to be a need for the category, so I'm sure it could be solwed. Best wishes!--85.226.235.208 (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Authentical female freemasons

Though Freemasonry is banned for women, I know they have ben exceptions in history. Elizabeth Aldworth is the most known example, but if I remember correctly, (it was some time I read about this), there have ben more than her, though not many. There was a Hungarian Countess- I don't remember her name, perhaps Esterhazy?- who was given male status as she had became the head of her family after having inherited the title, and thereby elected into the order. This was in the reign of Empress Maria Theresia of Austria, in the 1750s I think. Her membership was soon declared invalid, but it should still be mentioned, if this is correct. I really don't know much about this, but if this is true, it would be interesting to read about!--Aciram (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it would be interesting to read ... unfortunately, with the notable exception of Elizabeth Aldworth, the membership of very few women Masons can be verified, and in order to mention any specific women we would have to do so. Indeed, Verification is one reason why we don't even list famous male Masons in this article. All we can (and do) really say is: "Yes, women have been made Masons." We know of at least one in a "Anglo-tradition" lodges (and probably a few others), more that a few in "Continental-tradition" lodges, and very many in Co-masonry or Women Only Masonic Lodges." Whether these women are "irregular", and thus not "real" Masons depends on jurisdictional definition... but is not really something that Wikipedia gets into. Blueboar (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)