Talk:Freemasonry

Please note there is a scratchpad for this talk-page at Talk:Freemasonry/Scratchpad that may contain proposed changes

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

Discussion

Previous discussions moved to Archive 13.

Unfinished Business

OK... As agreed, I have Archived the previous overly long talk page so that we can start fresh. Please list below any topics or sections that you feel we need to address. Blueboar 14:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You might wish to add an external link: Light in Masonry

Complete rewrite

This article needs a complete rewrite to incorporate the merge suggestions and to overcome the NPOV and factual disputes. Ardenn 17:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't need a complete rewrite. It needs a cleanup. Seraphim 19:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Seraphim, no need to completely rewrite as there is a lot of good stuff in the article as it is. OK, I might disagree with her about which exact parts need a clean up, and how exaclty to word that clean up, but that is how the editorial process works. You debate and exchange ideas back and forth until something can be agreed on. We will get there. Blueboar 19:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the merge tags are for sections, so those sections will need to be worked on. Glad the persons so eager for their merge are so willing to put in all that hard work... ;~D Grye 21:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Merger Tag

It belongs on the top of the article, it is not a simple merger of the entirety of the Anti-Freemasonry page into the Criticism, persecution, and prosecution section. Some of the information there if the merger carries out will be included in the history section here as well. Seraphim 00:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

When last I checked, the discussion on the Anti-Masonry page is that it was a seperate valid article in its own right. This is especially true as people continue to work on the POV parts of that article. Thus, the majority of editors there no longer think it should be merged with/into this article (in fact you seem to be the only one still pushing the merge idea). In any event, the merge idea is likely to be shot down from both sides. So... if you dislike what the criticisms section that exists here has to say, do some editing. As far as I am concerned we can remove the tag completely. Blueboar 00:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not true at all. JASpencer post from this morning "There is still a strong opinion from the non-Masonic editors that this article is a POV fork. I still concur with this. Althought the article has improved and the respect shown to non-Masonic editors has increased markedly, the fundamental flaw in the article is still present.". Just because the majority of people that edit the page are masons does not mean the POV Fork can be ignored. Once all the issues with the POV nature of that article are dealt with, we will see what is left (there are more merge issues going on over there seperate from the main freemasonry page). Seraphim 00:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not belong at the top of the article. a vast majority of it will end up in that section. That section is the basis for the entire article, hence the merge tag in the first place. Leave it in the section, or rewrite the entire article. You may think you will put the article wherever you please, but the reality is it will be edited & re-edited until it is actually apt, & the natural place for the entire article wil be in said section. Grye 00:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

And a resounding "no" to the entire merge idea from me. Improving the section here, sure. But merge, no. Read what I have to say in that Article's Talk pages. It stands on its own as a valid article in its own right.Blueboar 00:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

That section WAS the basis for the entire article, the article is being fixed so it is not. Also it is indisputable that some issues like the Taxil Hoax are parts of freemasonry history, and will eventually need to be adressed in the "History of Freemasonry" section. "History" does not mean "History sans contravercial issues". Seraphim 01:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand that the criticisms section was the origin of the Anti-Freemasonry article. That is besides the point. That was then, this is now. There are two reasons for not having a merge: 1) this article is still TOO LONG. Adding in more information will make it even LONGER. In fact, to shorten it some sections have to be split off into their own sub-articles. The key is to do so in a NPOV manner, highlighting the information here fairly and accurately, and clearly pointing the way to the sub-article that explains it more clearly. The complexity of Anti-Masonry makes it perfect for such a sub-article. 2) Because Anti-Masonry is such a complex and interesting subject, it is worthy of an article on its own merits. Not as a POV fork, but as a companion to this article. Now, if you feel that something vital is missing from the criticisms section of THIS article, then include it. But don't merge the two. Also, as I have stated before, I am working on a new History of Freemasonry article. It is going to cover much more than is discussed here (and it is going to be written as NPOV as I can as an historian. I hope that, when I am done and the first draft is posted, we will shorten the history section here as well. Blueboar 03:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think the debate is moot. Freemasonry is too big a subject to be captured in a single article anyway so there is a requirement for an overarching article supported by a number of companion articles, perhaps in the portal structure used for other areas. Something as basic as Masculine/ Feminine/ Androgynous which is tying Seraphim in knots, whilst there is a co-Masonry article that's not complete either. This is a collection of organisations which are spread globally without a single unifying approach. Merely merging two articles doesn't deal with the problem of scale or complexity.ALR 08:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Moot point anyway. This article is already long, & isn't going to be of an acceptable length after merging the Anti- article. Oh, then, at this rate, the Lodge article, & the Co-Freemasonry article, etc etc. So I'll just wait for the tag to come off. As it should be doing soon...Grye 09:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

PoV issues must be dealt with, article length is only a guideline. Also other sections of this page can easially be moved off to sub pages and summarized. Seraphim 09:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Article length is not only a guideline, it is a significant issue, as many web browsers cannot handle them after a certain size.The POV issues will always be there, as long as critics feel that a Masonic editor cannot write anything NPOV, so I for one am not holding my breath on that one. & ...moved off to sub pages and summarized" is pretty much all they've ever been. It looks like a whole new structure is comming about, & that'll be good, & interesting, & yes like you say this article will change a bit with those changes, but not quite as much, I think, as some editors here seem to think/hope. Grye 09:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

If you read WP:SIZE it states that the size rules are no longer "hard and fast" because people can now edit by section, and the browsers that had issues have been updated. Compare that to NPOV which is "absolute and non-negotiable". I'm not going to debate the merger here or the POV'ness of this page. I'm just trying to make the point that if there is a POV issue with a page, if solving that issue requires a page to go over 50k, the page size issue takes a back seat to the POV issue. Seraphim 09:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism accusations

SeraphimXI, I'm a little teed off with you. I find your vandalism accusations to be in poor taste. Please be civil. We need to work together to make this article work. Ardenn 01:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I find them to to violate WP:POINT as well. Ardenn 01:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I am being civil. The merger debate is not only about one section, that is why the merge tag has been at the top of the article for so long. I've explained why it belongs at the top, and the responces are that it belongs in a section since the majority of the merger will end up in that section. By admitting that the majority and not the entierty of the change will end up in that section shows that placing the tag in that section is incorrect. After having that explained, after the users admit the merger is not entirely based around that section, and then they still insist on moving it to that section, that is called vandalism. Seraphim 01:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the violator of WP:Point would be whoever moves the merge tag from the top of the page where it has been for weeks. Seraphim 01:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me if i am wrong but arent tags suppose to be a majority decision? Tutmosis 01:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

That is why it is the Disputed tag. Seraphim 01:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Just because it has been in a certain place for weeks does not mean that it hasn't been in the wrong place for weeks. & there's no violation in moving it to the section, but rather in removing it w/o consensus. Another violation would be a 3RR on your part, if someone else were to replace the tag, & you were to edit it agian. Oh, & how are you suddenly such an authority, after making the statement "I came here randomly, not knowing anything about the masons" on 29 January? Grye 01:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

People love quoting that line don't they :) It's talking in the past tense. Also there is no 3rr since it is vandalism. The merger tag was placed on the page in good faith, and the merge discussion is about merging the Anti-Freemasonry page into this page, not the Anti-Freemasonry page into the specific section. Also Consensus involves working together to get everyone's issues addressed. Something that has not been done yet. I'd also like to point out Grye that you yourself said "No, it does not belong at the top of the article. a vast majority of it will end up in that section" you said "a vast majority" which means that you agree that some of it will not end up in that section. Moving the tag from the top of the article to the top of a section changes the meaning of the tag from "It has been suggested that this article be merged with Anti-Freemasonry" to "It has been suggested that this section be merged with Anti-Freemasonry". The second statement is untrue. If you would like to suggest that that page be merged with that section, then you are entitled to do so, but that does not change the fact that it has also been suggested that the anti-freemasonry article be merged with the article as a whole. Seraphim 01:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Yakknow, the flipside to your arguement is that if I'm proven not Vandalist, then your actions are vandalist.
2. your talk is about merging articles, but the article to be merged is a section of the article to be merged into. Hence the statement "Main article: Anti-Freemasonry " right under the section, Criticism, persecution, and prosecution . Fact. Period, the end. Grye 01:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Freemasonry is not simply "Criticism, Persecution, and Prosecution" of freemasons. If that was the case the merger would have been carried out a while ago since it would be an undisputable POV fork. People on the Anti-Freemasonry page are arguing that it is it's own seperate entitity away from Freemasonry much like Anti-Semitisim. According to Chiterrel "This is not a content fork, Anti-Freemasonry is a distinct movement which encompasses alot of different views." according to Blueboar "Anti-Masonry has a long and complex history, just as Masonry does. It has taken many forms over the years, and many different groups (each for their own individual reasons) have come out against the Fraternity. That in itself makes the topic worthy of an article. it is similar in scope to anti-semitism." according to MSJapan "It really is the Masonic equivalent of anti-Semitism. ". If you would like to argue that Anti-Freemasonry is only that then that is perfectly fine, however that argument has not been presented yet, and would problary end up with the opposite effect you are hoping for. Seraphim 01:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what part of "Main article: Anti-Freemasonry" don't you understand? Grye

Oh I understand it perfectly, however if you read my edits, that's what the Anti-Freemasonry article used to be. It's out of date information, if you want to remove it please do so. Seraphim 03:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, uh, what is Anti-Freemasonry, if not Criticism of Freemasonry? Grye 03:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"Anti-Freemasonry is not simply "Criticism, Persecution, and Prosecution" of freemasons." OK... but that just strengthens the argument for NOT merging the two articles... if it is more than just that, then that article is its own thing and not a sub-section of this article. Again, if you feel a section is incomplete, edit it and improve it. But a merge is not the answer. Blueboar 03:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I was just quoting you not stating my opinion, I don't feel Anti-Freemasonry has enough content to stand on it's own and it should eventually be re-incorporated into this article, however that is a discussion that will happen eventually, and not in this section. This section was about moving the tag from covering the entire article to covering just one section, I was trying to point out that grye's argument was actually the reverse of what he intended to argue. Seraphim 03:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

We had this discussion on the Anti-Freemasonry talk page. According to other editors of this page it "is a distinct movement which encompasses alot of different views" ~Chiterrel, it "has a long and complex history, just as Masonry does. It has taken many forms over the years, and many different groups (each for their own individual reasons) have come out against the Fraternity. That in itself makes the topic worthy of an article. it is similar in scope to anti-semitisim" ~ BlueBoar, and "It really is the Masonic equivalient of anti-Semitism" ~ MSJapan, these were all their responces when presented with the same argument by JASpencer. (I also mentioned this in my post a few up) Seraphim 03:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

So... Uh... How is all that not criticism of Freemasonry? Grye 04:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Go read the Anti-Freemasonry talk page for the arguments over there, you're actually arguing that the Anti-Freemasonry page is a PoV fork which I'm sure is not your intent. The only thing relevant to this section is that I feel that some of the content on Anti-Freemasonry will eventually end up belonging in the History section on this page, therefore tagging only one section is incorrect. Seraphim 04:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Scratchpad

Who deleted the "scratchpad"?

There was alot of proposed info with references on that page, what happened to it?

Wasn't the whole point of creating it because the Masonic Editors didn't like to have 'Masonic Secrets' and other criticisms of Freemasonry on this discussion page?

Now someone has gone and deleted it and erased all the material? Real fair and npov situation you Masonic and Masonic-Wannabe Editors are running here.Humanun Genus 02:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the deletion log "18:19, February 11, 2006 Delirium deleted "Talk:Freemasonry/Scratchpad" (content was: '== Crapola by the page full, or when POVs go mad=== Suggested Additions to Freemasonry Page===Criticism of Masonry's Involvement in Politics (Or....') " it looks like vandalism on it by Skulls 'n' Femurs was not removed, and a delete happy admin deleted it. I'd like to point out that the information on that page was created by a banned user (who said that "Freemasonry isn't Satanic, it is Satanism" and he stated that he is part of the very important war against freemason propaganda), and was entirely unverifiable and POV(the contents of the secrets cannot be verified). I will be working on a section to address the masonic secrets in a NPOV way, please check back in here tomorrowish (when i get the first draft done) and join in the discussion about the section, the more editors we have the better the final result will be. I can assure you, I am not a Mason, and I will work to get a NPOV Factual section in the article. If you look on Archive 13 the section called "Masonic Secrets" you can see the start of the discussion on what I intend to do. Seraphim 03:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The situation on this page and it's related side pages is quite unacceptable. The main article is very poorly written and extremely pov towards Freemasonry. There seems to be a clear pattern of abuse and bad faith actions by Masonic Editors on these pages.Humanun Genus 03:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The information you want included is completly invalid and does not belong in this article. Seraphim 03:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Is that you, Lightbringer?

Grye 03:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Do we need a partial lock on the Talk Page too? Blueboar 03:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I had seen the recently-created Freemasonry/Scratchpad, which was an obvious candidate for deletion, and assumed Talk:Freemasonry/Scratchpad was just its talk page (should've checked the history). I've restored it. --Delirium 04:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Status of the Disabled in Freemasonry

The information contained here is misleading. Part of the problem in defining Masonic practices and beliefs is that they vary from one jurisdiction to another. However, there still seems to be some confusion over the general policies of Masonry. This can be somewhat cleared up however in that all regular Masonic Lodges have and publish complete sets of laws. These are voted upon by members in a given jurisdiction at annual legislative sessions.

With regard to the disabled in Freemasonry, we have a clear example of a published law stating exactly what the rules are. In the California Masonic Code, as an example from one jurisdiction, an applicant is required to be free of a physical or mental impairment that would keep him from learning the principles of Masonry. There is nothing about someone simply being disabled. In fairness, such practices may be included when discussing Masonry's historic practices, but not modern ones. --Cauil 07:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Alot of the information on the scratch pad came from a anti-mason fanatic that is banned from editing mason related pages. However apparently deleting false information on a scratch pad is not proper wikiettiqute. I know from personal experience that both colored people and disabled people are allowed to become freemasons. Seraphim 07:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

...& women, regular Freemasonry, & Co-Freemasonry...

And women, despite your continued assertions in the face of the evidence. http://www.hfaf.org/ 82.109.66.151 08:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that was meALR 08:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Alr we have gone over this too many times. I cannot become a member of the same masonic body that this page describes. I can become a member of a copycat organization with alot of the same teachings and ideals. However I can never be considered equal to someone in say a UGLE lodge, for example there is no possible way for me to go sit with you in your lodge. OES may be closely related to freemasonry, but the fact is it is not freemasonry. Seraphim 08:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not suggesting OES, whilst I am not a member anything I've seen of it doesn't strike me as interesting. I also wouldn't recognise OES as Freemasonry anyway. However there are both feminine and androgynous forms of Freemasony which I would recognise as being Freemasonry in terms of their core content and that is what I would recommend. HFAF is Feminine and on their links page is a link to two forms of androgynous Masonry, in the UK. I know that Androgynous FM exists in the US as well and whilst I don't have access to the information would suggest that Feminine xists as well. User:Vidkun has already said that he has access to appropriate contacts in the US for at least the Androgynous form. Your persistence in asserting that OES is in any way comparable is obstructing the debate.ALR 08:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, what group can I join, so I can go sit in with you or Vidkun at lodge. Seraphim 08:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a wholly different issue. Should you wish to become a Freemason, there are routes which are open to you. Should you wish to sit in lodge with Vidkun or I then that would assume either of us wish to sit in lodge with you. Since neither of us wish to sit in androgynous lodges then it's a non-starter.ALR 08:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Why can't I sit with you in your lodge? Seraphim 08:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Because I chose not to join an Androgynous orderALR 09:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I never said anything about an Androgynous order, I want to go sit with you in your lodge. Seraphim 09:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Why?ALR 09:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not? You are claiming that I can join Freemasonry, part of freemasonry is the ability to visit other lodges. I want to go visit your lodge, what group can I join. Seraphim 09:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

How much do you understand about initiatory traditions and the effect of the initiatory experience, and how that is affected by the nature of the participant group? What does 'sitting in lodge' actually mean to the participants? FM is not a social club, until you stop thinking of it as such then I can't make clear to you what the issues are surrounding the experience. You can become a Freemason, you just can't attend a Masculine Lodge. Compare with Catholicism and Protestantism. I am a member of a Protestant chucrch, I take communion there but am not permitted to take communion in a Roman Catholic Mass, because I haven't been 'initiated' into the RC tradition. I am considered a Christian by the RC church, but not admitted to the full range of their ritual. This is really the point where banging on about the mechanics of FM really misses the point, and the reason that the 'Secrets' can't be articulated in an article.ALR 09:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to get the point accross that what you are describing is "Seperate but Equal" however it is not equal because I will never in the eyes of your lodge be considered equal. Even the article says it Women cannot be a part of regular Freemasonry. Seraphim 09:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

And you are getting caught up in the mechanics. Merely 'sitting in lodge' does not make one a Freemason. The view of UGLE, as stated in the declaration, is 'equal but separate'.ALR 09:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

How is it equal for me to not be allowed to join "regular" freemasonry. I don't see how treating women seperatly, and preventing us from joining "regular" lodges can be considered equal. In various article's i've read that this page uses as references, it says that part of being a freemason means that you can go to any other lodge and be included there as a fellow brother, that is not the case for women. Seraphim 09:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The operative word there is "brother". & do not even imply that equality has anything to do with it. Go out & ask your local Lodge (&/or OES if you're in the USA) & ask them why women are not allowed. Do your homework, don't demand that we do it for you. & in doing your homework, if you get some "Oh, because they're a bunch of raciest woman-bashing bigots, then you get an F-... ;~D Grye 01:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I never ever implied that I feel that the exclusion of women from the fraternity is a bad thing. That is what a fraternity is, I wouldn't expect sororities to admit guys either. I just don't like the fact that people keep insisting that women can become freemasons, and then in the next sentence they say we can't become "regular" freemasons. Seraphim 01:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think each gender needs it's own organizations. Ardenn 01:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I once met a married couple that had both been Grand Lodge Officers. They knew the same ritual, but did nonetheless sit in different Lodges. I wouldn't say one is better than the other, or that one gets a better Masonic experience. I think it's what you put into it and a Lodge that is active in ritual and the community is going to have the same experiences as another Lodge that does the same regardless of the membership details. There is nowhere in the world that I would be able to sit in a Lodge with a woman, maybe that will change someday, but the way things are now wouldn't, I hope, interfere with the ability of people in a co-Masonry Lodge to fully enjoy their Masonic experience. Just my two cents. --Cauil 08:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I know a number of people who are Co-Masons, or couples who are seperately members of Masuline and Feminine Lodges. Each has it's own attractions and features. It's a question of selecting what's appropriate to the individual and their relationship with their own Supreme Being and their fellow sentient beings. The initiatory experiences are different, but their value is comparable.ALR 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

In Colorado, USA, a Regular Freemason cannot sit in Lodge with an irregular Freemason, be it the Regular Lodge or the irregular; nor Discuss private Masonic information with same. To willingly do so would be to bring Masonic charges against oneself, & almost definite disassociation. Oh, & Disabled: "...free of a physical or mental impairment that would keep him from learning the principles of Masonry" is pretty close to CO USA's policy too. I think it says something more like "free of a physical or mental impairment that would keep him from Practicing the principles of Masonry". Grye 09:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Suppose we better throw out the Pro Grand Master then :) http://www.canonbury.ac.uk/ ALR 09:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I wanna say that while I agree with what Cauil, ALR and Grye are saying here, I must throw in that "seperate but equal" is never truly equal. They use that argument to discriminate against gay people to deny them marriage rights. Ardenn 17:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it has nothing to do with that. Nothing. Women are inherantly different from men, & I don't see where anyone but the critics here said anything at all about equality or inequality. ALR quoted UGLE, who said they are equal. I said it really isn't a matter of equality, at all. Women cannot be included in Regular Freemasonry. There is Freemasonry of one form or another out there for you. It isn't a bad thing, it's just the way it is. Cars have wheels, & those wheels are round; etc. 3/4 of this page's length has become about Seraphim's questioning Women in Regular Freemasonry. This issue is several centuries old. We cannot tell you anything better than someone more adept at answering your question. Especially when we are going to be quoted. Besides, no-one here speaks for all Freemasonry. Lovingly, I ask for this issue here to end here. Grye 01:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As everyone keeps saying "Women cannot be included in Regular Freemasonry." that is my entire point. A seperate irregular version of Freemasonry is not "Freemasonry" it is a Masonic-like or Masonic-Inspired group. Saying that women can become freemasons is just incorrect. I like the version that is in the article. Seraphim 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Freemasonry, which is Regular Freemasonry. Your point is valid, of course, but Regular Freemasonry is what it is. Period. You & I simply are not going to change it significantly. & remember, What is today called Regular Freemasonry is the original Freemasonry. There is an entire section, w/ a corresponding article, about Co-Freemasonry. By all of your arguements, That entire section should go away, with a simple link to Co-Freemasonry. This article is about regular Freemasonry, & that is about Co-. This article in & of itself is the history of Co-Freemasonry. So, the alternative is that pretty much the entire Freemasonry article should be replicated as the Co-Freemasonry#History section, & any statements made here about women in Freemasonry should be changed to reflect men in Freemasonry, & replicated there. So.... Are you game for all that work? Grye 01:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to respectfully interject something into the discussion of "regular vs. irregular". I am a Freemason within the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Texas. While I certainly cannot begin to speak "for" Freemasonry (which, indeed, is outside of the ability of any one person or group), I can speak "about" Freemasonry. "Regular Freemasonry" is not an absolute. It is subjective and will depend on where one stands. When one speaks about a lodge or jurisdiction being "regular", one must also ask, "Regular according to whom?" For example, my jurisdiction would not call Co-Masonry "regular", but there are other jurisdictions in the world which might. Of course, those other jurisdictions which DO recognize Co-Masonry as "regular" also run the risk of being thought of as "irregular" by my jurisdiction. Another example is that of the three Grand jurisdictions which operate in France, only one of which is considered "regular" by many Grand Lodges in the United States. However, there may be plenty of other jurisdictions around the world which would consider one or both of those other two Grand jurisdictions to be perfectly "regular". It would be correct to say that women cannot become Masons in any lodge or jurisdiction which my own would consider "regular". It would be incorrect to say that women cannot become Freemasons at all. ~Ken Dickinson~ 22:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That's probably the most useful contribution to the debate thus far, thankyou Bro Ken. ALR 22:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It is very useful, i'll support saying that women cannot become Masons in any lodge or jurisdiction that one would consider "regular". However listing off the ways that women can become Irregular Freemasons is outside the scope of this article in my opinion. Seraphim 23:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Ardenn 23:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Depends what one considers Freemasonry to actually be, for many it is more than the mere mechanics of organisation. the topic is Freemasonry which is a vehicle for developing ones' relationship with ones Supreme Being which leads to the mildly philosophical point about the nature of this article. Is it intended to talk about the mechanics and structure, or Freemasonry itself? In that sense there is probably an argument for a numnber of sub-articles rather than trying to blob up a complex subject in one. The point about regularity is a trivial little rabbit hole.ALR 08:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I do have a question for you. Since sharing the contents of the teachings with non-brothers is forbidden, how do these other "irregular" lodges claim to have the same teachings? Or are they claiming that they are based on the ideals of freemasonry... in which case what are those Ideals? On another note, obviously you cannot define Freemasonry as a vehicle for developing one's relationship with one's Supreme Being, because you could easially attribute that to any religion(which freemasonry is not). Seraphim 08:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've asked this question before, but to have a meaningful discussion then it's something that you need to think about. how familiar are you with the concepts underinning Initiatory traditions and the related experience. We need to understand what is meant by 'teachings' and 'secrets', compared with the experience undergone by the individual. Once we have that understanding then we can appreciate how that might translate. As to your latter point, Supreme Being is a generic term, FM works in parallel with ones religion/ faith/ belief system; complementary to it rather than replacing it. It does not carry its own religious teachings but uses those of the individuals nomination; Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or whatever.ALR 10:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Status of Negroes in Freemasonry

This section is not accurate either. The Alternative Version is on the right track, however a comment added about recognition is not correct. In California, Masonic Code includes a section that maintains the Grand Lodge of California and the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of California have concurrent jurisdiction and recognize one another.

The title which includes the word "negro" may not be the best choice. It is often thought of with a negative association, even if that was not the intent of the original writers. I suggest "African-Americans". --Cauil 08:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No kidding it's not accurate :). None of the "Status Of" sections are correct, and most GLs in the US recognize PHGLs now, as does UGLE. I believe Paul Bessel has a page on this at his website.

Masonic Secrets

I would also like to address information contained within this section. There are really only three aspects that should be discussed here. First, is the secrecy of business transactions within a Lodge. That is to say, a Lodge, in many areas, is a legal entity, such as a corporation. Information that is voted upon by members is proprietary and no different from rules governing other businesses and corporations. Second are pieces of ritual. While all of this can be found if one spends enough time in a library or online, the value of the ritual is enhanced when the candidate is experiencing it for the first time, and is therefore kept secret. With this there is a tie in to the third issue, which pertains to modes of recognition. As part of the history of Masonry, they are ways to identify one’s self. These are introduced in ritual, and are kept secret. The final two, of course, differ little from the secrecy surrounding a college fraternity.

As an aside, I see no academic value to including details on oaths, signs or penalties. However, I doubt they will be removed so I would suggest, in the interest of accuracy, that these sort of things be put into context. For example, one might add that Freemasons are bound to obey the laws of their country and cannot inflict bodily harm to another. The only enforceable penalties Masonry has involve suspension or termination of membership in a Lodge.

Finally, secrecy as trying to keep non-masons from knowing about Masonic activity in their area is not correct. Some Lodges have signs at city limits indicating there is a Lodge in town, and most have clear signs on the outside of the building identifying a Lodge. In fact, if you want to know where a Lodge is near you, try the phone book. --Cauil 09:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Phonebook: Usually in the yellow pages, under "Fraternal Organizations"... ;~D Grye 09:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that I want to be included in the article, is the mention of what the secrets are (not their contents). I want it to be adressed in it's own seperate section, that would have statements explaining how what is considered secret changes from lodge to lodge, that the contents of rituals are kept secret because masons feel if the contents of the rituals were public knowledge the experience would be lessened, and that masons swear secret oaths to eachother, and have secret ways of identifying themselves as masons to other masons. I can see no reason or way to include the inherently unverifiable content like "in the ritual for this intiation they say this word and stab themselves here", to me that is all both out of the scope of the article, and rubbish. Seraphim 09:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The assertion that masons swear secret oaths to eachother is inherently non-verifiable anyway, since elements of ritual are secret. Those aspects which are publically available do not support the assertion. And I still don't see what is wrong with 'Elements of the ritual are considered secret' since that is all they are. ALR 82.109.66.151 09:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not entirely correct ALR. Since I can use sources already used on this page to prove the existance of the oaths. I'd also like to point out, just because something is done during the rituals, doesn't make it fall under the umbrella term "ritual". When people think of "rituals" they think of ceremonies or scripted events, ways of identifying eachother and oaths do not fall under that umbrella term. Even though the oaths are only mentioned during rituals, and the secret identifiers are only used during rituals, that does not mean they are the same "rituals" that are kept secret so people don't have the experience lessened for them. They are part of those rituals i'm sure, but they are seperate things. The oath that doesn't allow Masons to discuss private Masonic information with non masons, obviously does not only apply in the "rituals". Seraphim 09:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll try again, I'm having connection problems, hence the unsigned comment. The nature of an initiatory ritual is such that everything falls under the umberella term 'ritual', we've already tried to make clear to you that recognitions are part of the ritual and the obligations are part of the ritual as well. You need to understand where ritual starts and finishes, if indeed it ever does (cf the Zen meditative experience threading through our daily experience), to appreciate how the obligations and use of mvoement and physical symbology constitutes part of the ritual. With respect to the extracts used by Lightbringer on this page, you can't have it both ways. His/ her motivations have been made clear and you yourself have highlighted that in two discussion sections above. One might take the view that in discussing this then one can neither confirm nor deny the accuracy or otherwise of the assertions. I would re-iterate that the source cited applies to a limited geographic area and is 140+ years old, hardly a credible source. With regard to your last, an interesting dichotomy: how do you define Masonic information? Look at all the web sites, I have a number of links on my user page as well as the ones in the article. How do you reconcile the wide, and official, availability of non-ritual information with that assertion?ALR 10:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I completly understand that you consider all of the secrets to fall under the umbrella heading "ritual". However I feel that since we are an encyclopedia, our audience is people coming here to be educated on the subject. I know when I first got here I didn't understand that you consider all of the secrets to be part of "ritual", and I doubt anyone else coming here with the intention of learning about Freemasonry would understand that either, when people see the words secret and ritual together they think of an event not a group of ideals. What they would understand is a section, explaining all of this, "masons consider all of the masonic secrets to be part of masonic ritual" or something like that. My main point is, people should get the information they need out of the article, not be learning things by talking to masons here on the talk page, currently that is not the case. Also i'd like to point out once again, I feel that none of the information that lightbringer has presented was valid. My only defence towards that information, was when people were wrongly arguing that it cannot be used in the article since it is still under copyright. My feeling is that if you are going to do something do it right, don't just take the easy way out, and saying "removed - copyright infringement" in that case was not the correct way to deal with the information. Seraphim 10:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The oath that doesn't allow Masons to discuss private Masonic information with non masons, obviously does not only apply in the "rituals" I'm not sure, but do you think that this is not a part of ritual? because it is. Grye 10:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I mean that the oaths you take, do not only apply when your in your lodge taking part in a ritual. It still applies to you, say when your editing this article. Seraphim 10:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Your point isn't clear to me either. Of course an obligation, taken in the name of ones' own Supreme Being, applies at all times.ALR 10:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I was digging around on the internet and found this page http://www.masonicinfo.com/secrets.htm obviously it is POV and in first person, but I really like how he words the part about the recognitions. This is a pretty good example of how I feel a masonic secrets section should look, if anyone was wondering. Seraphim 10:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I admire your persistence, the majority of that page talks about the outward form, which we've already demonstrated isn't secret (indeed I have a Masonic ring on my finger right now) and the latter part is about the outcome of an initiatory experience and hence not verifiable.ALR 10:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I realize alot of the page talks about the overtness of the masons, however I was referring to the middle paragraph "But there are some Masonic secrets, and they fall into two categories. The first are the ways in which a man can identify himself as a Mason--grips and passwords. We keep those private for obvious reasons. It is not at all unknown for unscrupulous people to try to pass themselves off as Masons in order to get assistance under false pretenses. " Seraphim 16:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that it will almost definitely be different in the next GL jurisdiction... Grye 10:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd argue that the outcome of an initiatory experience is different for every individual that goes through it, never mind jurisdictions. No ritual will eer be the same since the participants might change, my own ritual work evolves each time I deliver it so everyone I have taken through a ritual has had a different experience.ALR 10:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

There really needs to be a section on Masonic Secrets within the article. I understand Masons trying to protect their organisation, but I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why there should not be a section on Masonic Secrets here. Nobody is asking for specific examples of what constitutes Masonic secrets as far as I can see. Just an admission within the article that there are secretive behaviours within the article would suffice for me. This talk page appears {I stress APPEARS} that Masons have something to hide. I'm sure that is not the case, so why not allow Seraphim to draft a section on Masonic secrets? I'm confident that she will adhere entirely to the guidelines and POV policy here. The obstinance on this issue - and the lack of reasons to omit aforememntioned section - is frustrating. Let's break this impasse soon - by allowing the section or putting forth a compelling argument on why it should not be there. Deucelow 15:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to write something up, i've been putting it off for a while while lightbringer was having his fun. I'm just trying to take some baby steps, make a few points, and explain to everyone where i'm going with it to prevent what I post immediatly getting flamed and shot down. Seraphim 16:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we flame and shoot you down anyway... it's so much FUN! (Seriously, I took a look at the site you mentioned above, and I would have no objections to something similar.) Blueboar 16:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with a section of this, so long as no actual secrets are revealed/spoilers. I'd hate to ruin the experience for anyone who is not a mason and reads the article, but is considerng it. Ardenn 17:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not acceptable. WP:NOT censored for the protection of prospective Freemasons. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Then you have to verify it. Which you cannot, and if you can, it's under copyright. Ardenn 17:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyright does not protect information from being revealed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

But it does prevent some of that information from being used on Wikipedia. Im not saying anything you may wish to use for this article falls under Copywrite, Only that it does restrict what can be used. Blueboar 18:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

If you look in archive 13 under the copyrights section, I believe I showed pretty clearly, that as long as the article is properly cited and not plagarized, quotes from it can be used on wikipedia under fair-use criteria. From WP:FAIR "Brief, attributed quotations of copyrighted text used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea may be used under fair use. Text must be used verbatim: any alterations must be clearly marked as an elipsis ([...]) or insertion ([added text]) or change of emphasis ([emphasis added]). All copyrighted text must be attributed." Seraphim 22:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

However the source also needs to be reputable and comprehensive to be of utility in an academic context, and the source used by Rathbone was neither current nor comprehensive.ALR 22:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Inorder to claim a resource is not current you need to beable to show a source that proves that the information in the other resource is infact out of date, as far as Duncan's goes the text of it was last updated in the late 1970's and no newer resource that shows that the information in Duncan's is out of date was presented, if the information he was trying to add was not outside the scope of the article it would meet all WP:V standards. I agree Basil's stuff was junk and doesn't belong in here, I just feel that all this debate should be had so everyone knows the issues before I post what I am working on. Seraphim 22:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Duncans was last published in the 70's, there is no indication if the content was updated. As MSJapan has mentioned a couple of times, it is an item of historical interest. It was one of the earliest attempts to promulgate a form of ritual in one Jurisdiction. Merely because it was published doesnt actually make it current, reliable, comprehensive etc. My own ritual book was last published in the early 2000s, my copy is from 1996 :) But it only applies in some English Lodges, hence thats not comprehensive either. The one thing that stymies any citation is the comprehensive issue. You're not going to find a single source which covers universal Freemasonry. Indeed, I belong to 4 Craft Lodges and each has a different ritual. And you've been 'working on something' for how long now?ALR 23:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand completly that ritual and the secrets change from lodge to lodge, and that will be noted. However as I have pointed out since the information in Duncans is still undercopyright the fact that the content was updated is indisputable, since you cannot just extend a copyright on a written work as long as you want. If you want to prove Duncan's wrong and obsolete you are more then welcome to provide information from your own ritual book that does so and cite that. I am working on a section, I stopped working on it with the basil issue, and I really haven't touched it from a writing perspective in the last few days, as you can see by me posting that link last night, I am actively researching it. I'd rather read alot of material and then write the section instead of write the section and then try to find references. I actually do need help on one thing. Can you find me a resource that I can use for the line about how what is considered secret changes from lodge to lodge. Since that line is going to be rather touchy i'd like to have a really good approved resource for it, and sadly the only library I have access to only had one book on freemasonry and it's pretty much rubbish. Seraphim 23:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You could ask Quator Coronati Correspondence Circle, an organisaiton of which both MSJ and I are members. QC is the premier Lodge of Masonic Research. There's a link on the HFAF and UGLE websites. You could also ask UGLE for a formal comment on the number of rituals in use in the lodges under their direction. I can think of at least four but there are more. There may not be a single source, but you'd need to do some original research, query a range of GLs and compare and contrast the responses. Some of it is on the web, I think GL of Texas is one of the ones where the entire ritual is secret, since there is no one voice for FM then you'll be stretched to find something which applies globally. As far as Duncans is concerned. The ritual need not have been updated, but the contents of the colume may have been, something as simple as changes to the introduction allow that which leaves the main content unchanged, you need to be able to establish that before you can cite it as a valid source, and it still falls at the 'comprehensive' hurdle. If you look through the archive pages you'll find an ISBN for my own ritual book, you're free to compare that with Duncans and identify where there are differences, your library can order on the basis of the ISBN. I get the impression that one of the points you're not taking in is that whilst Freemasonry is Universal, there is no universal authority for Freemasonry, notwithstanding the Supreme Being to which we all aspire.ALR 23:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't allow editors to include results of original research. Obviously if that line isn't included people will object to the section, however I can't find a resource for it so I can't add it and was hoping you could find one for me. Otherwise there will always be a dagger hanging over the section once it is added. The duncan's issue is moot since I dont' plan on using it anyway so i'll just stop the duncans discussion before we end up repeating a discussion that already took place. The ritual book you use is available for non masonic reading? Can you tell me the ISBN on my talk page (the talk pages for this article make finding anything almost impossible) i'd be very interested in reading that. I can find the resource about Freemasonry not having a universal authority easially in the references for this page. The thing that I can't find is a resource to back up the claim that "what is considered secret varies from lodge to lodge, and in some instances the contents of the secrets themselves also differ" which has been pointed out to me over and over on this talk page. Seraphim 23:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Makes your motivations reasonably clear. However I would tend to agree, if the material is verifiable from a comprehensive, reliable and respected source then there is a level of legitimacy in its inclusion should that inclusion actually be useful in terms of the article. However finding a comprehensive, reliable and respected source will prove to be tricky and I'm not convinced of the value of the inclusion of the secrets in the article, for the reasons I gave above. The secrets are so personal to the individual following the initiatory experience, their import cannot be described in an article.ALR 21:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hodapp's Freemasonry for Dummies has a story in it that validates variance in secrets. I haven't got it in front of me, but I'll get the page when I do. Also, ritual books are sometimes freely available, but whether you can read them without knowing the content already is debatable. Ritual books also do not have ISBNs, because they are privately printed by the various Grand Lodges. MSJapan 04:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no way of getting my hands on the book, so just put up here the respective quote and the correct cite for it if you can thanks :p Seraphim 04:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"Freemasons who go traveling may visit Masonic lodges all over the world, but not every lodge uses the same methods of recognition." (Hodapp 18) "Making matters even more confusing is the fact that one jurisdiction may use different ritual ceremonies, different passwords, and different grips than another." (Hodapp 18) Freemasons for Dummies, Christopher Hodapp, Wiley Publishing, Indianapolis, Indiana, 2005 (ISBN 0-7645-9796-5) Chtirrell 04:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Works for me :p Will problary post this on... wednesdayish. Seraphim 04:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Expect tomorrow night, got sidetracked with Grye trying to delete the Jahbulon article. Seraphim 00:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Latest Lightbringer sockpuppet

Humanun Genus (talk · contribs) had the same edit pattern as Lightbringer and - woohoo! - edited only using open proxies. Blocked. Please keep me up to date on my talk page, he's making a very useful open proxy canary ;-) - David Gerard 14:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, DG (or anyone) isn't there something about removing banned Users/Sockpuppet's edits & statements, even something about ripping them out of page historys? Somewhere? Grye 06:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No that would destroy the page. Seraphim 07:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No, there is something about it somewhere. I don't see how it would actually destroy the page anyway... Grye 07:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

They can make it so flood vandalism is removed and doesn't show up in the page history. If they were to remove all of his edits, you would still see all of our edits that were responses to him. It would not look pretty. Seraphim 11:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I wouldn't remove the edits from the history - that isn't generally done except with grievous libel or personal information that may put someone in danger (phone numbers of editors, etc) - David Gerard 12:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

OK yeah that answers my question, that's where I saw it refered to. Thanks. Grye 12:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

ANTIENT CHARGES OF A UGLE FREE-MASON

File:Political enemies repeaters.svg

Brethrens’ Red Delta

Back, after the latest blocking…

(Concerning Wiki Users in general) VI.4. BEHAVIOUR IN PRESENCE OF STRANGERS, NOT MASONS You shall be cautious in your words and carriage, that the most penetrating stranger shall not he able to discover or find out what is not proper to be intimated; and sometimes you shall divert a discourse, and manage it prudently for the honour of the worshipful fraternity.

(Concerning Wiki Users who say they are Freemasons) VI.6. BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS A STRANGE BROTHER You are cautiously to examine him in such a method as prudence shall direct you, that you may not be imposed upon by an ignorant, false pretender, whom you are to reject with contempt and derision, and beware are of giving him any hints of knowledge.

• Ref: BOOK OF CONSTITUTIONS UGLE, 2005 [1] in the public domain.

My actions have been quite consistent in upholding the “ Antient Charges”. I am not a “sock”. Several Mason users have been blocked, on the same IP address, and have been called “socks”. This is a lie – as they are different people. Doh! “S&F” is short for “Sincerely and Fraternally”, not Skull ‘n’ Femurs, at the end of a message. Any true Mason (or “knowledgeable” nosey ant-Mason) knows this. Skull 'n' Femurs 09:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Might I also refer you to page 158 of the Craft rules at the reference, namely 'And sometimes you shall divert a discourse, and manage it prudently for the honour of the worshipful fraternity', which would suggest that attempts to derail civilised discussion may not be in the best interests of the fraternity. Notwithstanding that the latter pages of the Craft Rules at the reference make interesting reading with respect to the rest of the discussion here and undermine a number of the assertions made by Lightbringer and his assorted socks and camp followers. Page 150 onwards, page 153 specifically addressing the nature of who might be made a mason.ALR 10:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Skull 'n' Femurs' rant

I've restored it as it demonstrates his bad faith toward Wikipedia. I'll be blocking him and putting a notice on WP:ANI about his stated intent (and actions) to systematically remove referenced information - David Gerard 12:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Notice on WP:ANI and on User talk:Skull 'n' Femurs - David Gerard 12:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User:SeraphimXI is (not) User:Mahabone

Funny thing is, it's also a sockpuppet of another user, I just haven't recognized & documented which. Look & yee shall see. Grye 10:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking, but I don't know what I'm looking for... since accusing people of sockpuppetry is a rather serious thing, might you be more spesific? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just afraid we're starting to see socks where there are none. WegianWarrior 11:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

And? So what? Whilst the style and empty 'I'm working on something' is frustrating, some of the resulting dialogue has been useful. And as with WW, I don't see what your getting at with those links.ALR 11:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I did the checkuser to calm people's minds. They're not related in the slightest :-) Please try not to get too jumpy! I know how it can get after a long and horrible floating-flamewar type article with a sockpuppet or two involved, you do start seeing socks under the beds ...

I think I'll be asking other admins for help on this one - I only have close knowledge of Lightbringer, and seem to find myself cleaning up a mess I don't quite know the Wikipedia history of well enough ... - David Gerard 11:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL this is great. For the record, I have a static IP on a campus network that's specifically for me. Another user on this IP is physically impossible. It's also impossible for another person to use this network that i'm on without being a resident here. Thanks for accusing me I guess, now that that's cleared up we can move on. Seraphim 16:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to thank WegianWarrior for actually posting this to get a checkuser result. Grye decided to post these accusations on my user-page this page and talk:Jahbulon and then dissapear, without posting a checkuser request. Seraphim 16:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that one of Mahabone's first edits was requesting that his old userpage as an anon user be deleted. That IP tracert's back to a Greek ISP, accusing me of being a sockpuppet of him was simply rediculious. Seraphim 00:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, kitten. I'm sorry, for only & of all, that I had to pass out tired get some sleep before a checkuser was already performed like 6 hours later. but hey, you're cool with like 6-12 hour timespans, right? I mean, you learned all there is to learn about Freemasonry in less time than that... & go ahead, keep talking like I didn't clarify that it was a circumstantial mistake that I tagged you a sockpuppet. you know otherwise, based on your diatribe hear, so keep talkin. Meanwhile, I'm out. Have fun with your little world here you've created for yourself, & all of us. Grye

Comment

This is to all the editors on the page, since this line has been tossed around at me many times now. Yes my first edit to this page I commented that I came to this page without knowing anything about freemasonry. Yes 12 hours later I added a POV warning tag to the article. If you read the section I added to the talk page, none of the points I made required any knowledge about freemasonry. The fact that I tagged the article when 12 hrs before I didn't know anything about the subject in no way is "suspicious" or proof that I have an anti-freemasonic agenda. It is very easy to detect bias in writing, and in this case the puffery line in the first paragraph and the edit history defending that line was enough to justify adding my tag. Now that I know more there are even more reasons I can list off(which are being dealt with), however at the time I posted it my reasons required no knowledge of the material. Seraphim 00:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Your edits, all, of them, with video game consoles, proves you capable & right. Grye 09:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems that there is a whole lot going on here other than writing an article on Freemasonry. Talking about various topics is fun, but I don't see much progress being made. What are typically the issues that hold things up? Do they all stem from genuine disagreements or what?

As a side note, I see several users have a Square and Compass icon on their user page. I assume this is just something people decide to put up on their own. Is this assumption correct?

Thanks, --Cauil 10:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, good point, I made more obscurely elsewhere: write the friggin article. stop with this. Yes, that's been bad here before, & recently with other related articles, but so be it. At this point, the edits are going to be made. fine. edit them then. Methinks that's how all this will play out: the article will basically be destroyed, & reincarnate. The light will shine again. later. Grye 10:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)