Talk:Anti-Masonry/Archive 4

Page is a joke.

This page is a joke. It is nothing but a propaganda page written mostly by of all people masons. Dwain 21:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree... but from the other side of the coin. I see it primarily as an anti-Masonic rant. Not sure what to do about it though... NPOV says both sides of the issue should be presented. Blueboar 21:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... We know you dwain! The page isnt full enough of the antimason crap like your userpage was huh? Not enough conspiracy theories for you? maybe? What happened to that page of yours by the way? ;)GrandTutonic

It's interesting how he's latched negatively onto something he claimed in the past to have no issues with and know nothing about, despite having "generations of Masons" in his family. Never mind that he thinks Masons got his page deleted (which is amazing, because no one on his "Wikipedia Masons" list is an admin). The problem with this page, however, is that the none of the oft-repeated claims stand up to even basic verifiability from objective (and non-Masonic!) sources. We can't really talk about the claims without elucidating them, and in order to meet RS, the only published sources we can use also refute the arguments. MSJapan 05:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hollocaust edit

HMMM... seems we have had this before... see this edit at the Freemasonry page... and this edit here and this edit, and several others... and now we have this edit ... talk about pattern behavior... do you really think we don't remember. Say good by LB. Blueboar 21:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, BB, as you found it, it's all yours. :) Also, the lack of footnotes in Freemasonry for Dummies doesn't invalidate it as a source by any means. Despite the title, the publisher is mainstream and reliable, and if "no footnotes" were at all a legitimate complaint, we'd have to blank Wikipedia. MSJapan 22:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

too late, it seems - allthought it tells us that the admins are aware of the problem, when a RFCU are 'unnecessary'. I'll add the diffs you dug up BB to the WP:LB page later. The more examples, the easier to prove his MO later. WegianWarrior 04:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Heeeeeeeeeere's Lightbringer: Edit from a Shaw Communications IP in Canada. Again.--Vidkun 15:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

confusion in Social Anti-Masonry section

The section on Social Anti-masonry makes no senses to me...

• Another criticism[43] is that Freemasons practice cronyism, granting favors to fellow members. Masonry has also been criticized for the moral faults of some of its members. Masons respond to these criticisms by pointing out that there are many programs and initiatives sponsored by lodges that do give back to the community at large.[44]

Giving to the community is not a response to charges of cronyism. I think something got lost in editing and we ended up with a response to one criticism being used to respond to another. Can we sort this out? Blueboar 12:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it was something about charity given outside of the Lodge as opposed to being totally inside the Lodge. Throw out whatever doesn't fit, and if you can find why the article has unsourced statements while you're at it, that would be great. I can't figure out where the tag is hiding. MSJapan 02:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think giving back to the community is an answer to charges of cronyism, if cronyism means only caring about one's own group. Throw out the whole paragraph and rewrite it if you like. It could use improvement. :-) Steve Dufour 05:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

intro doesn't make sense

The intro says (in reference to anti-Masons):

Their main goal in the defamation campaign against Freemasonry was the expansion of Liberalism and Socialism, religious tolerance and the enlightening rationalism.

This contradicts most of the article, which seems to be saying the Freemasons were in favor of tolerance and rationalism. In that case, the goal of the anti-Masons was not tolerance and rationalism, but rather tolerance and rationalism were the target of the anti-Masonic defamation.

Perhaps something like:

They accused the Freemasons of wanting to expand Liberalism, Socialism, tolerance, and rationalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikel Ward (talk • contribs) 23:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)