Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Freemasonry

(Freemasonry | talk)

RFC closed. Position 1 is endorsed by a vote of 9-4. MSJapan 06:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users should only edit one position or view, for each dispute, other than to endorse.

Dispute 1

There is a dispute regarding the inclusion of the content of Masonic secrets in the article.

Position 1

The Freemasonry article is meant to be a general and universal introduction to Freemasonry. However, the content of the secrets section is completely at odds with this. The only sources available for the secrets date from 1826 (William Morgan's Illustrations of Masonry) and 1866 (Duncan's Masonic Monitor) which are both from New York. Morgan's sources are not verifiable, and are also at odds with the statements made in Duncan's. It has been factually proven that not only ritual, but secrets, differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (Christopher Hodapp's Freemasonry for Dummies). It has also been shown that the oaths contained in the section do not have any meaning save psychological impact, and are no longer in use (also cited in the article, from hodapp, but there is also an official statement from UGLE on their website). Therefore, there is no informational value for the purposes of the article in having the material included - the article is meant to be universally applicable and useful for the casual reader. Given the lack of universality of secrets and ritual, to say that something is true when the only sources apply to one jurisdiction 150 years ago is factually inaccurate. However, the simple statement of the existence of secrets as stated previously is universal, and it should be left at that, as that is as far as one can go without dealing with jurisdictional issues. MSJapan 04:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this position (sign with ~~~~)

ALR 08:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WegianWarrior 08:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC) (see below for a suggested solution)[reply]
Imacomp 11:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chtirrell 15:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MSJapan 16:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blueboar 16:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jachin 01:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Avador 17:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vidkun 16:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Position 2

There is no reason not to include neutral, verifiable cited information about what two books published in the 1800s say. The current paragraph is clear that current masonic writers assert that these secrets are no longer relevent. I do not agree that it has been proven that anything is true - what has been proven is that party x says x and party y says y. Wikipedia endeavors to describe both sides of a disagreement - in this case, one side is "here's a bunch of exposes' of masonic signs from the 1800s" and the other is "it is not certain that these are still in use." The article does an admirable job of explaining this in my current preferred revision [1].

Users who endorse this position (sign with ~~~~)

Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JASpencer 18:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphim 20:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keystrokes 16:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)~~ -- Comment:user blocked as sockpuppet MSJapan 20:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JJay 13:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jacobcolbert 00:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC) 'Comment:User's fourth edit. MSJapan 05:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Arcadus 02:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Comment:User's third edit. MSJapan 05:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Ardenn

1. This article used to be a Featured Article, a true pillar of editing and contributions on Wikipedia.

2. In the immediate past, this article has been subject to vandalizm, sock puppets, and POV pushing, on both sides.

3. This article can be cleaned up to again be a Featured Article.

4. Sources from the 1800's need to be treated equally and fairly with other sources.

5. Information in the article itself needs to be neutral and verified.

6. A compermise on the inclusion of masonic secrets can be reached by all parties for the best interests of Wikipedia.

7. Wikipedia is not censored.

8. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.

9. Wikipedia is not a battleground.

10. Wikipedia isn't a junkyard.

11. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

12. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

13. You must use reliable sources in the article.

Ardenn 00:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this position (sign with ~~~~)

Alternate Solution

(add neutral suggestions for a solution here)

A possible solution might be to add the information in question to a new article named something like Historical exposés of alleged Masonic secrets, and to make sure it is made crystal clear in that article that the information in it is outdated, possible unverified (ie; not verified by sources other than Duncan and Morgan, and these two is AFAIK not 100% in agreement with eachother), likely not to hold true in other jurisdictions (ref Hodapp, Freemasons for Dummies) and that the so called penalties are meant symbolicly (in the say way kids in Norway say 'Ten knifes thru my heart' when they really, really means something). WegianWarrior 08:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

g Users who endorse this suggestion (sign with ~~~~)

Ardenn 00:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat to alternate solution

The extant article William Morgan (anti-Mason), which leaves a lot to be desired in both readability and presentation, would seem a natural home for extracts from his book since they are of little notability in their own right and only make sense when understood in the context of his relationship with his local Lodge.ALR 08:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

g Users who endorse this suggestion (sign with ~~~~)

Discussion

There is a dispute regarding the inclusion of the content of Masonic secrets in the article.

In actuality the dispute is a tactic by Masonic editors to blanket delete a section they intensly dislike, a tactic they have used previously on numerous occasions. Blanket delete to 'talk' page then ignore the talk. After a few days declare the talk complete and delete from talk page to the archive. Of course when it is their material they want included the material is allowed to remain on the main page until discussion 'is complete'. Of course discussion never takes place and section on talk page related to evidence of the dispute is quickly moved to archive as in tactic #1 and the material is deemed 'permanent' on Freemasonry page requiring lengthly 'discussion' in order to remove it. The Masonic runaround. ~~Keystrokes 16:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)~~ -- Comment:user blocked as sockpuppet Imacomp 22:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]