Talk:Masonic conspiracy theories/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

First topic for discussion

copied from above:

  • The article uses the phrase "in the broadest terms" which clearly shows intent to diminish or otherwise misrepresent the subject matter.

The exact sentence is: Masonic conspiracy theories are a subset of conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry. In broadest terms, these theories claim that Masonic conspiracy theories are a subset of conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry. This is a statement that summarizes a broad concept that is common to most of the theories. Wikipedia's style guidelines say we are supposed to summarize the article in broad scope in the intro... that is what we do (even a quick look at the list shows that most of the theories claim this in some way. How is it not neutral?

It insinuates that the subject matter does not warrant serious consideration. Besides, that phrase is not only false, but exaggerated Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
False? It's a very accurate description, but the meaning don't change much if we rewrite it to "''Masonic conspiracy theories are a subset of conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry. These theories claim that Masonic conspiracy theories are a subset of conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry. - it just turns the last sentence into a fragment and a repeat of the first. As for being exaggerated... sources please? Preferable realiable ones? WegianWarrior (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity, here is the whole sentence as it currently appears in the article:
  • In broadest terms, these theories claim that Freemasonry exerts control over politics at all levels.
Incidentally, that proposal does not include the phrase "in the broadest terms." The phrase "Masonic conspiracy theories" itself is ambiguous. That usage of the word "involving" is also ambiguous. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And for continued clarity... the passage has subsequently been edited (by Jayen666) so it now reads:

  • Masonic conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry. Broadly speaking, these theories claim that Freemasonry exerts control over politics at all levels.

Does this change in language resolve any of your issues? Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I proposed a change to the title, which ostensibly would also change the first phrase. I propose that the second sentence be changed to something like:
  • Generally, they claim that Freemasons exert overwhelming control over business and politics.
in order to avoid redundancy, and to make the statement more precise. Also, please refer to my changes. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd note that the theories tend not to deal with politics in any other country besides the US. I'm not sure why this is, but if we're going to rewrite the lead again, that sort of specificity might be useful. It's not entirely politics, either, but politics is the vast majority of it. How about instead of that second sentence, we do: "These theories fall into the following categories: political control, occult symbolism," and add a few others to give the gist of it? MSJapan (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Well... some of the theories claim that Freemasonry exerts control over politics in the UK... but I agree that it is rare to find such claims made about other countries. I kind of like the idea of noting that the theories fall into "genres"... perhaps we can echo that categorization by structuring the list into similar "genres"? Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Additional conspiracy theories would be helpuful. Most conspiracy theories are made by Americans in reference to Americans or "supra-national interests" because of the nature of American culture. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm... Thinking about this some more... I think we have to be careful not to be overly Anglo-centric here... could our perception of this being an Anglo/American phenominon be colored by the fact that we are English speakers, and thus only coming in contact with theories written in English about English speaking countries? For all we know, some of these claims could be common in Uzbekistan (just to pick a random non-english speaking country), but because we do not speak Uzbeki, we are not coming in contact with them. Just a thought and a caution. Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
But that is really besides the point... which is to improve this article. I have no problem with MSJapan's suggested change. Uku, would MSJ's suggestion resolve your issues with the passage? Blueboar (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
It may be obvious through word selection and emphasis on particular issues, for example, that the article presents the subject matter through an Anglo-American perspective. Indeed, with more cultural perspectives, the truth may filter through. Symbolism should be described within a context more closely related to conspiracy theory: maybe the entertainment industry. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Having visited brothers and lodges in both Hungary and Ukraine, and having lived in Ukraine, the political conspiracy theories are basically American/British inventions. In those parts of the world, where Masonry was outlawed during Soviet times, they are still dealing with perceptions of basic legality carried over from Communism. "Conspiracy theories" involving Masonry's ties to politics don't exist there. The same is true of Poland. Although I haven't talked to any brothers or visited any lodges there, I have studied most Polish Masonic websites. From what I've read, South America is not rife with anti-Masonic conspiracy theories even though many heads of state and government officials in those countries are openly Masons (much more than in the U.S.). In general, Masonry is much more highly respected and valued in Latin America than it is in the Anglophone world. As was stated above and based on my own reading, the politically-motivated conspiracy theories seem to be a purely Anglophone invention. I think that MSJapan's rewrite works. The list could read: "...political or cultural control (primarily found in Anglophone countries), occult symbolism, anti-religious sentiment", for example. (Taivo (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC))
Several heads of state in South American countries are also openly socialist, which may further tie into conspiracy theory. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
This article isn't about whether or not conspiracy theories are valid, it is about whether conspiracy theories exist and what they are. In that regard, politically-based conspiracy theories do not exist in Latin America according to my reading, whether or not the Masonic affiliations of their leaders tie into American conspiracy theories. The question I was answering was, "Are Masonic political conspiracy theories an Anglophone phenomenon or are they more international?" (Taivo (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC))
It relates to a topic that, hopefully, will be brought up in the future. I was simply noting that. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

first topic - random break

Actually, the question of whether the theories are an Anglo phemomenon is a side issue. What we need to focus on is MSJ's suggested re-wording (amended by Taivo):

  • "Masonic conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry. These theories fall into the following categories: political or cultural control (primarily found in Anglophone countries), occult symbolism, anti-religious sentiment."

Does anyone object to this change, or wish to amend it? Blueboar (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe changing "occult symbolism" to "occult symbolism or belief". That will encompass the Satan worshiping conspiracies. (Taivo (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC))
Agreed Blueboar (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, earlier: "Symbolism should be described within a context more closely related to conspiracy theory: maybe the entertainment industry." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
But the conspiracy theories state that Masonic occult symbolism extends far beyond the entertainment industry such as the street layout of Washington DC. "Cultural control" entails the entertainment industry. (Taivo (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC))
Ok. For the record, it seems as though you have chosen "occult symbolism" because Freemasons did not invent it, rather they got it from the pagan (occult) faiths. "Occult symbolism or belief" should be changed to "the occult" for the sake of brevity. There should also be some connection between the occult and Freemasonry being based on the mystery religions. I prefer "social engineering" over "political or cultural control." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Uku, how would you word the passage? Blueboar (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Taivo, that symbolism is not limited to the entertainment industry. We could start by making the two substitutions I suggested. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Two comments: First, I'm not sure whether just "occult" realy encompasses the range of things we want it to. It's just too general. There are conspiracies involving Masonic symbology and conspiracies involving Satanic worship. Are these two really collapsible? Second, "social engineering" is not the same thing as political and cultural control. Why does Uku prefer "social engineering" rather than "political and cultural control"? (Taivo (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC))
Satanic worship is usually associated with ritual, which emcompasses symbology. "Political and social control" to me implies popular influence through overt restraint. I use the term "social engineering" in a pejorative sense, implying popular influence through a combination of bottom-up "astro-turfing" and misuse of legislative process. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Uku, would you write up the entire passage with your proposed wording, so we can see how your ideas compare with ours? Blueboar (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Your request is understood, but in the interest of efficiency I instead propose this re-write of the introduction:
I object to the use of "involving" because it is ambiguous in this context. I used "conspiracy theorists allege that Freemasons ..." for the sake of variety. I replaced "anti-religious sentiment" with "heresy." I reordered the list of items because it seemed like a more natural progression (from least emotionally-evocative, to most). It feels like there should be one more sentence before introducing that list of items, in order to smoothly transition towards the phrase "the occult." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
That wording is not neutral and you have said so yourself. There is no "subset" here, there are just one set of conspiracy theories regarding Freemasonry. "Social engineering" is a pejorative term in your own words and is therefore unacceptable as NPOV. "Heresy" is also not a neutral term and is therefore unacceptable. We are not trying for "emotionally-evocative" language in Wikipedia, but neutral language in order to meet the requirements of NPOV. I will counter-offer the more neutral wording:
  • Masonic conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories specifically focused on Freemasonry. Generally, these conspiracy theories allege that Freemasons exert both overt and covert political or cultural control, engage in anti-religious ceremonies, or practice the occult.
This wording covers the issues you addressed, Uku, but without the overly emotionally-charged wording that you suggested. (Taivo (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC))
I have proposed a change to the name of the article. Maybe that topic will come up in the future? Words don't allege, people allege. Instead of "specifically focused on" I propose "specific to." Instead of "anti-religious ceremonies" I propose "ceremonies which mock Christianity" unless conspiracy theorist say that the Shriners are mocking Islam. If conspiracy theorists themselves use words such as "heresy," they should be attributed. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't buy "cultural control." If the idea is entertainment industry-based, it's really the vision of the creator of the work, and most people who write works on Masonic themes aren't Masons themselves, so I have no idea what they would seek to control by creating a Masonically-related work. I do agree with the wording regarding politics and religion, although the phrasing on occult seems somewhat pejorative. There is also some debate on what "occult" refers to, too (see the article), so on second thought, we might want to be more specific as to what is defined by occult. Also, I'd point out that "anti-religious" claims are, in the main, limited to anti-Christian statements, so it might be good to specify there as well, as there are many world religions which simply have no issue with Masonry.
How about: Masonic conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry. Generally, these conspiracy theories fall into three distinct categories: political (usually involving allegations of control of government, particularly in the US and UK), religious (usually involving allegations of anti-Christian or Satanic beliefs or practices), and cultural (usually involving popular entertainment)." MSJapan (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
We have concluded that Freemasonic symbolism is not said to be exclusive to the entertainment industry. The word "occult" has been proposed to mean Satanic practices. I have proposed against the use of the word "involved" in this context. The phrase "these conspiracy theories" can be changed to "they" because that is the only plural noun to be used so far. The rest of that sentence seems fine.
As for your concern that conspiracy theorists target only Americans, they don't, but maybe that topic will come up some other time. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I like your wording, MSJapan. It's good and covers all the bases. Uku, the comment about the U.S. and U.K. refers to the fact that these theories of political control are only found in the U.S. and U.K., not that they only refer to U.S. and U.K. politicians. I like it, MSJapan. (Taivo (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC))
That conspiracy theorists themselves tend to live in the US or the UK? There certainly must be conspiracy theorists from every corner of the globe. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I too prefer MSJ's latest. My problem with Uku's suggestion of "focussed on Freemasonry" as opposed to "involving Freemasonry" is that there are a lot of theories out there that primarily focus on something else (such as the illuminati), but where Freemasonry is a key sub-plot within that theory. As for the inclusion/exclusion of potentialy non-neutral words like "occult"... we should save these for the list, where their use can be directly supported by a citation. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec response to Uku) Conspiracy theorists who focus on the political/cultural aspects of Freemasonry are pretty much confined to the U.S. and U.K. (see my extensive comment above). The U.S. and U.K. have a lion's share of the crackpots [perhaps well-intentioned, but uninformed webpage authors] because of those countries' relative wealth. Poorer countries have fewer people with time to waste on nonsense such as Masonic conspiracy theories (most people haven't even heard of Freemasons in the Third World). Outside the U.S. and the U.K., the Masonic conspiracy theories tend to focus on the religious myths of Freemasonry. (Taivo (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC))
Some of this also has to do with Freedom of Speech... not every country allows one to criticize the government or claim that a conspiracy exists. The US and UK do. But I don't think we should speculate in the article on why the majority of the theories center on the US and UK... or why they originate from sources based in these two countries. (in fact adding such speculation would be original research).
Getting back to discussing the article and away from discussing the theories... I think MSJ's language is accurate... his parentheticals don't say that all allegations are US and UK centered... his words are: "particularly in the US and UK". I think this is an accurate statement. The large majority of politically oriented Masonic conspiracy theories do originate from US and UK sources... it does not matter why they do so. Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
British culture relies more on democratic consensus that in the US, which is probably why people like David Icke have been funded by American interests. BTW I did not propose "focused on Freemasonry." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
People who live in 3rd world countries are more likely to join a secret society, so probably do not harbor negative prejudice towards Freemasonry. Those who have not heard of the Freemasons must have heard of the IMF or UNICEF. In addition, there is conspiracy theory suggesting that Freemasons control the Islamic states, and indeed Islam itself. Other theory suggests that they have engineered every major war since World War I. There are Colombians who claim that FARC is an arm of the Colombian shadow government. Similar claims are made about MS-13, the Zapatistas and the Medellín drug cartel. There is also conspiracy theory regarding the Yakuza, Russian organized crime, and the Italian "Black Nobility." This discussion should probably be moved to another location. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I did not propose to use the word "focused." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to go back to the cultural aspect, I would gather that Uku is making some sort of connection between symbols and culture, but I don't see it. To have a "cultural impact", something must have an effect on everyday life, like the TV dinner, or electricity. Nothing symbolic mentioned in this article (like the dollar bill or the All-Seeing Eye) has been shown to either do that or imply that.

However, there is a lot of pop culture stuff (various films, books, and cartoons) that make little references here and there, so maybe we're not talking about culture per se, but popular culture? If so, I would amend my wording once again, but I'm not going to do that until we figure out exactly what the "culture" thing is all about. MSJapan (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The key here is whether anyone claims that all these (pop) culture references are part of a conspiracy or not. Remember, this isn't an article about "Masonic cultural references"... this is an article about Masonic conspiracy theories. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec)To get a handle on the cultural issues, we probably need to distinguish between two types of "conspiracy theory". First, there are the "embedded symbols" theories which seek to establish some sort of Masonic coding in physical objects--the street plan of D.C., the Great Seal of the U.S. (commonly known as the "dollar bill"), etc. Second, there are the "entertainment symbols" (for lack of a better term) theories which seek to establish a Masonic connection between prominent figures in the entertainment industry--the James Cameron/Leonardo di Caprio Masonic affiliation, the Walt Disney Masonic affiliation, etc. The theories seem to focus on the former as more benign--just a physical trademark on a product, so to speak--while the latter are treated as something more subtle, perhaps as a means of "indoctrination". These are just some random musings on how to organize the cultural issues to consider in our wording. (Taivo (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC))
They both fall under symbology, which is encompassed by the phrase "the occult." I think MSJapan prefers the phrase "Satanic practices." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The dollar bill is part of US culture, since the US government accepts it as payment for taxes. As the article itself suggests, graphic design often incorporates Masonic symbology. This would have an impact on culture since they are propogated in the public view, including entertainment. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

first topic - random break 2

Don't know if it should be mentioned in the article, but nearly every one of the "embedded symbols" that are mentioned in conspiracy theories were placed there by non-Masons. When Masons place symbols, they are nearly always quite overt--a square and compass on a cornerstone, or (as I saw on the gate of the offices for the Hungarian Grand Lodge) a square and compass motif worked into flatiron grillwork. The same goes for "entertainment symbols", they almost always involve attributing some Masonic reference to a non-Mason. (Taivo (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC))
Well, that gets us into the issue of the "truth" or "falicy" of the theories... and for that we would need to start evaluating which sources pass WP:RS... which definitely would skew the neutrality of the article, since most of the sources that present the theories are not reliable for anything other than a statement of opinion (ie that the source makes the given claim). Conspiracy sites tend to be personal webpages, blogs, and other self-published material. Blueboar (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
So there are three of us who like MSJapan's wording. Uku? (Taivo (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC))
I !vote for MSJapan's wording above, too.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
As I mentioned earlier: "I have proposed against the use of the word "involved" in this context. The phrase "these conspiracy theories" can be changed to "they" because that is the only plural noun to be used so far. The rest of that sentence seems fine." This should stay as the start of a rough outline before finalizing out any minute details. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
If that point is mentioned by conspiracy theorists, I have no problem with including it. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
OK... I have added MSJ's language to the article... I know Uku continues to have a problem with the word "involve", and we can continue to look for a better word... but there is no reason not to integrate the rest of the change since we agree on that.
Uku... I think you proposed "focus on" instead of "involve"... and I objected to that wording as it would omit theories that focus on broader conspiracy, but which clearly mention Freemasonry as a significant sub-plot. So can you think of another alternative word? Blueboar (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
This is the wording that I proposed:

I definitely would not approve of that wording... first, I think the slashed link is rediculous... "Freemasonry|the Freemasonic faternal order"? ... please! It's commonly referred to as Freemasonry (or just Masonry). If a reader does not know what that is, they can click on the link. no need for slashed links. Second... what are "conspiracy theories specifically describing Freemasonry"? no... Masonic conspiracy theories are theories that say Freemasons are involved in a conspiracy. It's that simple. Blueboar (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

hmmm I actually like that better... I hereby propose that we change the first sentence to:
  • "Masonic conspiracy theories are theories that claim that Freemasonry is involved in a conspiracy".Blueboar (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
That's a very intriguing encapsulation. The only problem is that phrasing seems to eliminate the "non-conspiratorial" conspiracy theories, such as embedded symbology. That is, unless embedded symbology is itself "conspiratorial". I guess that anything is conspiratorial if a conspiracy theorist has proposed it and it includes Masons :p If the others like the new wording, I could live with it. It is certainly very, very clear. (Taivo (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC))
The longer I think on it, the better I like it. There is just an incomprehensible elegance to it. (Of course, the sentence is perfectly "comprehensible", but off the top of my head I couldn't think of another modifier for "elegance" that sounded quite so....elegant.) (Taivo (talk) 06:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC))
The "embedded symbology" (especially the theory that there are Masonic symbols in the street plan of Washington DC) is certainly seen by many theorists to be conspiratorial... these symbols are seen as "clues" and "messages" left by the Masons for future generations, and are frequently pointed to as "proof" that the Masons are secretly controling the government. So, I don't think my suggested wording eliminates "non-conspiratorial" theories. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
As I already said, the word "Masonic" is ambiguous. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Why "no need for slashed links?" I simply changed the second use of the word "Freemasonry" in the interest of avoiding repetition. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar's latest un-approved change to the article

This is the diff. He has NOT applied MSJapan's wording to the article, and instead has changed "conspiracy theories" to "theories," which was not agreed upon. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct, if petty... as you had suggested changing "conspiracy theories" to "they" (which I find a bit blunt and awkward), I thought "these theories" might split the difference. But if you insist on MSJ's exact wording, I will amend my edit and return the missing word. Blueboar (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Is the language now acceptable to you? Blueboar (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe in cutting the baby in half. Please tell why you decided that way. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · logs) has reapplied the undo, in order to "rm unneccessary clarification." Here is the diff. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Uku, Blueboar's latest change was approved by the majority of the editors here and your differences are quite minor. I object to your use of the phrase "a subset of". That is needless wording. "Masonic conspiracy theories are theories" plain and simple. No one thinks that they are the complete set of conspiracy theories or are a subset of something else. The "subset" phrase is totally unneeded. Your quibble about "they", "conspiracy theories", "these theories" is really kind of silly. The three phrases are completely equal to one another. If you want us to take your contributions seriously, then it is important that you carefully distinguish between comments of substance and nit-picking trivial issues. Remember the story of the little boy who cried wolf. Blueboar had the complete agreement of me, MSJapan, and Sarek. We incorporated your serious considerations. I also disagree with your list of terms since, by your very words, you were using emotive words, which is a direct violation of NPOV. We're shooting for neutral terminology here, but you have overtly said that you are looking for visceral reactions and pejorative terminology rather than objective writing. In this case, we are not going to use your version, but a compromise version that incorporates your major concerns. (Taivo (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC))
Don't talk to me about "majority of the editors." When you all agree unconditionally, then the weight of each in the "majority" is practically decimated, and more so every time you continue to unconditionally agree. I ALREADY SAID THAT I WAS FINE WITH MSJAPAN'S WORDING EXCEPT FOR ONE PHRASE WHICH I THOUGHT WAS REPETITIVE. IN ADDITION, BLUEBOAR MADE A CHANGE THAT WAS NOT EVEN DISCUSSED ON THE TALK PAGE. DO YOU GET IT NOW ??? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The point I am trying to make with you is that you were quibbling over an insubstantial change in wording for stylistic purposes that meant exactly the same thing that the version here said. You started a whole subsection here on the Talk Page for a totally inconsequential reason. That is a waste of time and effort. Like I said, when you focus so much effort on trivia, you lessen your ability to influence us to your point of view in more consequential areas. It is also considered to be bad style here in Wikipedia to use all caps. It is easy to see how your "agreement" was lost in 1) a new section titled "Blueboar's latest unapproved change", 2) a quibble over the inconsequential change of a single word, and 3) a complete reiteration of your pre-compromise wording just before the new section. It's like putting a feather on a porcupine and saying he's soft and cuddly. (Taivo (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC))
Style is subjective. More bullshit. "Soft and cuddly" people get treated based on their actions, in my book. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Uku, to answer your question as to why I wrote it the way I did... I thought it read better. I was essentially agreeing with your comment that the phrasing was repetitive, but at the same time disagreeing with your suggested change to "they" (which I found to be too blunt and awkward). I floated a compromise that I thought would be acceptable. I thought it was a minor change that no one would object to. Obviously I was wrong. Blueboar (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought that my changes "read better" as well, but I didn't go applying them to the article. AFAIK, on Wikipedia minor changes consist of things like spelling and grammar correction. Removing even a single letter for only an æsthetic improvement counts as a major edit. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"When you all agree unconditionally" Can you stop saying that please Uku. Just because they agree with each other does not mean they are doing so unconditionally. Theresa Knott | token threats 10:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree "unconditionally"... as the very edit that you so strongly object to shows (I removed the repeated word "conspiracy" in part because I saw no need to repeat it). For future reference, when I say "I agree" with a suggested wording, that means I have no serious objections to that wording... not that I agree to it "unconditionally". I reserve the right to have minor quibbles with the exact wording. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
There is no reason to re-state another person's position, other than to force that position down somebody's throat. I'm sure we can all fight our own battles here. Taivo has asserted that "insubstantial" edits are ok. How about we all make our own "insubstantial" edits? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean by re-state another person's position. I was stating my position. As for making insubstantial edits... I have no objections to people making minor edits as we go along, and I don't think we need to discuss every minor change (such as writing "these theories" instead of "these conspiracy theories")... after all, if someone really objects to the change, they can simply revert it (at which point we can discuss it on the talk page if needed)... that is how Wikipedia works. Edit, revert, discuss. Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
That is the problem. You don't see the potential for revert wars. That was not a minor edit, and edits can be overlooked, especially when they are compounded in a short period of time. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
How was removing one repititious word not a minor edit? Blueboar (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
This article uses the phrase "conspiracy theory" as an idiom that does not literally mean "a theory of conspiracy." The two words must not be seperated. You can say "a horse buggy is a buggy that ..." but you cannot say "a punch buggy is a buggy that ..." unless you are talking about something different. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Whah???... um, this article does use the phrase "conspiracy theory" to mean literally "a theory of conspiracy"... and it uses the expanded phrase Masonic conspiracy theory to mean literally a theory of Masonic conspiracy. Blueboar (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
"Theory" is a scientific term. "Conspiracy theory" is not an established science. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
"Conspiracy theory" is not an idiom. An idiom is a phrase that means more than the sum of its parts. A "theory of conspiracy" is exactly what "conspiracy theory" means--it is the sum of its parts and therefore is not an idiom. Idioms are things like "more bang for the buck", "shooting the breeze", "keep tabs on", etc. (Taivo (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC))
The word "conspiracy theory" is used to reference statements that are not "theory" in the scientific sense. In addition, it's not used to describe every manner of "conspiracy" in the legal sense. Therefore, the phrase is not necessarily a sum of its parts. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, "theory" is not restricted to science at all. It refers to any idea put forward to explain something subject to testing and argumentation. It is not restricted to strictly science. (Check out any dictionary.) We don't talk "legal sense" here, but common meanings. The phrase "conspiracy theory" is entirely the sum of its parts without any additional meaning that would make it either an idiom or a unique usage. (Taivo (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC))
The popular usage of the word "theory" means "a general principle" which is not consistent with conspiracy theories (eg: "Alice did it under the theory that you should look both ways before crossing."). Use of the word "theory" meaning "explanation of observations" occurs only among scientists, albeit informally. It also occus in popular usage in a tongue-in-cheek manner (eg: "Alice has this theory that Bob didn't look both ways before crossing."). The word "conspiracy" is not common in the popular lexicon. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

to put us back on track

Uku... I think we have resolved your issues in requards to the "in the broadest terms" language (as the article no longer contains language even remotely similar). Can we move to your next talking point, or do you still have issues with the opening paragraph? Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Undo the change that SarekOfVulcan made. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I will be happy to do so if you really insist... but, before I do, I have to ask why you would want to change it back to something that you stated a problem with in the first place? Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Also... I have proposed yet another version that may resolve the issue...
  • "Masonic conspiracy theories are theories that claim that Freemasonry is involved in a conspiracy".
Would this be acceptable?Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The word "Masonic" is ambiguous. I would also change "a conspiracy" to "conspiracy" which is more encompassing. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem with just "conspiracy"... but what is abiguous about "Masonic"?... it is a common word that has a clear meaning ("relating to Freemasons or Freemasonry").Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing at all ambiguous about "Masonic". We interchange between Masons/Freemasons, Masonry/Freemasonry all the time. We never use, however, the term "Freemasonic", always substituting "Masonic" instead. In the context of conspiracy theories, there is no context in which an operative Mason could be confused with a speculative Mason. If the reader is confused, all they need do is click on the first link to enlighten themselves. (Oops, I forgot myself and used the word "enlighten" in public.) If you are speaking of the fact that in English a noun modifying an adjective can either be the proponent or the victim of the nominal, the context once again disambiguates. The subordinate clause makes it quite clear that it is the theory that claims that Masons are involved in a conspiracy, not that Masons are propounding conspiracy theories. "Disambiguating" the noun phrase "Masonic conspiracy theories" is unnecessary and stylistically awkward when the clause is immediately disambiguated in the following subordinate clause. There is absolutely no semantic difference between "Masonic conspiracy theories that claim that Masons are conspirators" and the awkward phrasing that you offered above. (Taivo (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC))
"Of or related to ..." is ambiguous in this context. That would be like saying "American conspiracy theories." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The words "of or related to..." do not occur in the initial sentence proposed by Blueboar above. They don't even occur in the whole first paragraph. Please stick to the topic for now. (Taivo (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC))
You are being facetious. Incivility. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing the whole POV tag issue so we can focus on the topic under discussion. (Taivo (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Bad idea, Taivo. Restoring.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The POV issue seems to be resolved, and at this point it's just taking up space. I propose that it either be deleted or archived. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Taivo on the abiguity issue... OK, there are two (and only two) possible topics that the article title could refer to... "Conspiracy theories that involve Freemasonry", or "conspiracy theories that belong to Freemasonry". But, I do not think it is even remotely likely that anyone would ever think that we are referring the latter of these two possibilities (can you think of one single conspiracy theory would fit that meaning?) But even if someone did think that it might refer to the latter meaning, they would learn otherwise... by reading the opening sentence of the article (in which we clearly explain what we mean by the title). A reader would have to be a complete idiot to miss that.
So, while I will concede that the article title could be ambiguous, if unexplained... because it is explained, there is no ambiguity. It is obvious what we mean by the phrase "Masonic conspiracy theories". Blueboar (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The title should explain the article, not vice versa. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Huh? I find that to be an absolutely rediculous idea... of course the article explains the title... if the title explained the article, there would be no need for an article. Furthermore, there are often slightly abiguous titles... look at the article on An-Nasr Mosque... a quick glance at the article (specifically at the disambig note at the top) tells me that there is more than one mosque by that name... In other words, the article title is abiguous. However, the first line of the article tells me which An-Nasr mosque the article is talking about. The ambiguity is resolved. The same it true in this article. While there could be ambiguity to the title, any ambiguity is resolved by reading the first sentence of the article. Blueboar (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The title does explain the article without real ambiguity. Is the first paragraph satisfactory to you, Uku? If so, then we can move on. (Taivo (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC))
Nope. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Expand please? I know we are still dealing with the title... but is there something else?Blueboar (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Taivo must state his position. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I will start a !vote poll (below) so everyone can state his/her position. Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The word "Masonic" refers to Freemasonry, that is well-known. The issue is not with that, rather with the grammatical context. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean? Blueboar (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I think you understand, but I will repeat myself yet again. The word "Masonic" could mean "about Freemasonry" but it could also mean "belong to Freemasonry" or "originating from Freemasonry." The article should not have to disambiguate that. I know that my proposal is not elegant, but it does not share this problem. Maybe someone can suggest a better name? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Articles disambiguate all the time (as I showed with my An-Nasr Mosque example)... but in this case, I don't think it needs any disabiguation. I don't think there is a real ambiguity here... can you think of a single conspiracy theory that would fit the definiton "belonging to Freemasonry"? I can't. So, I do not think this is a real problem. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean "disambiguate" as a function of Wikipedia. The Freemasons have a vested interest in creating their own conspiracy theories, with the intent to spread disinformation. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I take your point, Uku, but I really don't think that that distinction needs to be drawn here. If someone creates an article about conspiracy theories originating from Freemasonry, then the distinction is relevant. Google "Masonic conspiracy theories" (no quotes) to see that it's probably this topic that's meant by the use of the phrase.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
There's another article in Wikipedia called UFO conspiracy theory. Are you seriously suggesting, Uku, that anyone thinks this is a theory propounded by UFOs? No. (Taivo (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC))
The word "UFO" is not in the genitive case. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing to preclude the Freemasons themselves from creating conspiracy theories. The phrase "Masonic conspiracy" is all over Google, but not "Masonic conspiracy theory." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Sareck makes a good point about google... I did a search (here) for "Masonic conspiracy" with the quotation marks (which looks for that exact sequence of words) and got 27,000 hits. Even accounting for mirror sites it is clearly a very common term... I then checked the first 200 hits and not one of them used this term in the context of "belonging to the masons". I suspect that if I searched the rest, I would not find any. No, the term "Masonic conspiracy" is only used in one context... so "Masonic conspiracy theories" can only have one realistic context. Blueboar (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, "conspiracy theory" is an idiomatic phrase. You can't seperate the words and have it mean the same thing. BTW the phrase "Masonic conspiracy" should further illustrate my point. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Let's see if I understand your logic here... we can not separate "Masonic" from "conspiracy" (becuase "Masonic conspiracy" is an idomatic phrase) and we can not separate "conspiracy" from "theory" (same reason)... gee... I guess it has to remain "Masonic conspiracy theory" as we can not separate any of these three words. Blueboar (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
"Masonic conspiracy" is not an idiom. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
27,000 google hits say differently. Blueboar (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The phrase "Masonic conspiracy" means a conspiracy of or related to Freemasons. That makes it not an idiom. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Then neither is "conspiracy theory"... in any case... I strongly oppose any change to the title of this article. So we are at an impass. How do you propose to resolve this conflict?
See my argument that "conspiracy theory" is an idiom, and sign your message. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Let's look at some references to see if your notion that "Masonic conspiracy theories" means theories propounded by Masons. I'm just perusing Christopher Hodapp's Freemasons for Dummies in the section entitled "Ten Amazing Conspiracies, Anti-Masons, and Hoaxes". (Pg. 299) "conspiracy theorists". (Pg. 300) "the Illuminati conspiracy theorists" [referring not to Illuminati who were conspiracy theorists, but to conspiracy theorists who accuse the Illuminati]; "the Illuminati conspiracy claims". (Pg. 302) "In 1976, Stephen Knight published Jack the Ripper...in which he theorized..." ["theorized" not in terms of a scientific theory]; "according to the theory"; "Knight's theory". (Pg. 303) "No serious researcher believes the William Gull/Freemason theory"; "this theory". So there you have a book published 4 years before this discussion (2005) and probably written a year before that using "Illuminati conspiracy theorists/claims" in exactly the same way that we have formed "Masonic conspiracy theories" and using both the noun theory and the verb theorize without the word conspiracy as a modifier in exactly the context that we have here--non-scientific formulations. Masonic conspiracy theories is not ambiguous in this context any more than Illuminati conspiracy theories is ambiguous in its context or UFO conspiracy theories is ambiguous in its context. (Taivo (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC))
Please post whole sentences. The words UFO and "the Illuminati" are in the nominative case. If those references are valid, then they can be added to the references in this article. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no "nominative case" in English nouns. There is only the possessive case and the unmarked case (which is used for everything else). When used adjectivally, that is they are in the adjective phrase slot of a noun phrase, nouns are simply unmarked. As such, they can take a preceding determiner such as "the", "that", "many", "Bill's", etc. When they are in the determiner slot they are marked as possessives and cannot take another determiner. But here are the two complete sentences for your pleasure. "The latest incarnation of the Illuminati conspiracy theorists is what's been labeled the American neoconservative movement." (pg 300); "This is really a continuation of the Iluminati conspiracy claims." (pg 300). As you can plainly see, Illuminati does not mark the proponent of the conspiracy theories or claims, but the object. So far, we've beaten this horse multiple times and no one is buying your ambiguity argument. It's time to graciously move on to issues where you might have something more substantial to contribute to the article. (Taivo (talk) 06:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

The nominative case is merely identical (or abstracted) to other cases in English, as with many other types of inflections. Anyway, the words UFO and "the Illuminati" are not in the possessive case. For example, the phrases aren't "UFOs' conspiracy theories" or "the Illuminati's conspiracy theories." Please provide whole sentences for the examples with the words "theory" and "theorize." Ukufwakfgr (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say that UFO and Illuminati were in the possessive case. They are in the unmarked case. I'm not going to write long sentences here, just the relevant clauses or phrases. The rest of the sentence doesn't matter. (pg. 302) "According to the theory, [X] went about killing [Y]....Y"; "Knight's theory hangs on the allegations of [X], who..." (pg. 303) "This theory would have died out in the 1980s after..." The relevant part of a sentence containing "theorize" is above. We've spent enough time on this now. You have evidence for the use of "theory" outside a scientific context. You have evidence of the use of the phrase X conspiracy theory where X is the object of the conspiracy theory. No one else agrees with you that the title needs to be changed. It's time to graciously move on to issues where you have something more substantial to contribute. (Taivo (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC))
PS: I'm a Linguist by profession, you don't need to give me grammar lessons. Your linguistic theory is a bit outdated, but at least it's not completely 19th century. (Taivo (talk) 07:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC))
You may be a "linguist," but you're certainly no grammarian. Citing your credentials has very little bearing on this dispute, and you should know that ... Tell Noam Chomsky I said "Hi." The subjunctive mood is also identical, or abstracted, to other inflections in English. Is that outdated as well?
Anyway, to clear up my point, let's take, for instance, the phrase "UFO hoax." One can say that it means "a hoax regarding UFOs" or "a hoax originating from UFOs," but there's no clear explanation for how a UFO may originate a hoax (except passively, which is besides the point), so that point is dismissed. Let's also take the phrase "Illuminati hoax." There is reason to believe that "the Illuminati" may themselves originate a hoax, assuming that (1)the Illuminati is a group of people, and (2)a group of people is liable to originate a hoax. If everyone assumes that the Illuminati cannot originate a hoax, then the second point is dismissed. There is no dispute, however, that the word "Masonic" is indeed in the genitive (or possessive) case, and that the Freemasons are liable to originate a conspiracy theory. BTW I've searched through multiple sources. The word "Masonic" is only used to signify "originating from or belonging to Freemasonry." Those phrases don't specify what type of "theory," so that's why I asked for full sentences. I'm assuming all of those quotes are from the book Freemasons for Dummies. In due time I will look for that book at the bookstore. Meanwhile, you should search through other sources as well. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
LOL. You disagree with the conclusion of a specialist in the field and so now you make light of his qualifications. Classic. No, there is no subjunctive in English verbs except for the verb "be". No one talks about subjunctive and it is not included in the Mood node in generative theory. Your use of the word "abstracted" is totally nonlinguistic and is completely outdated and inaccurate. You clearly learned your grammar from a neo-latinate source that has been reduced to the dustbin of linguistic history. Sorry, but "Masonic" is not genitive. There is no such usage in English grammar. Blueboar (below) is correct, there is no meaning to "Masonic originated conspiracy theories". Find us one single conspiracy theory that originates within Freemasonry and you might have a point, but there is no more meaning to "Masonic originated conspiracy theory" than there is to "Illuminati originated conspiracy theory" or "UFO originated conspiracy theory". Below, there was an uninvolved party who looked at this page and agreed with the majority of editors here that the title is perfectly normal and unambiguous. You need to learn when to gracefully bow out and begin focusing your energy on other issues. You will not win every discussion on this page. We have already adapted the wording of the first paragraph to address your concerns. Leave the title alone and move on. (Taivo (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC))
You have provided a number of logical fallacies. Read up and read up well, and don't cite Logical Argumentation For Dummies. I never made light of your accomplishments, it's just that specialists are not infallible. Remember that when the doctor recommends chemo. Examples of the subjunctive mood in English:
  • "Alice wants Bob to remember"
  • "Alice tells Bob to remember"
  • "Alice doubts that Bob would remember"
  • "Alice calls Bob so that he would remember"
  • "Alice will stop calling Bob when he remembers"
  • "Alice should tell Bob something he could remember"
He provided no rationale for his assertion, which is what other people have done as well. Suggesting that I "bow out" and that I "will not win" are off-topic discussion. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Not a single one of those sentences are subjunctive. They are all declarative (indicative). They may be subjunctive in Latin or Greek, but there is no subjunctive in English. If they were subjunctive, what is the marker of the subjunctive? There isn't one. No marker, no subjunctive. If you want to actually learn a little English grammar, then I suggest Richard Veit's Discovering English Grammar. It's the textbook I use in the Syntax courses I teach. But we are far afield now and I will make no more comments on your antiquated knowledge of English grammar. (Taivo (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC))
Correction, "not ... one ... is subjunctive." Maybe the subjunctive mood does not exist to you just because there is no noticeably distinct inflection for it in English. Your argument about subjunctive markers is not invariably true. The "subjunctive marker" is nothing more than an auxiliary verb. According to that argument, the perfect tenses do not exist in English either. I don't have that book in front of me, so I can't read it for myself. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
"There is no dispute, however, that...the Freemasons are liable to originate a conspiracy theory." On the contrary, I would definitley dispute that. In fact, I doubt there is one single reliable source that says Freemasons originate conspiracy theories. Can you name one conspiracy theory that originates from the Freemasons? Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
For Freemasons to openly attribute a conspiracy to themselves would be detrimental, because the phrase "conspiracy theory" is most commonly used in a pejorative sense. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
So what about non-Masons?... Can you come up with anyone who says that a conspiracy theory originated with the Masons? Blueboar (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Not exactly, but:
  • The rationales for many of the wars throughout history, including the US invasions of Iraq, were conspiracy theories.
  • Simply look at the numerous false flag operations throughout history.
  • The rationales for disarming Iran and Pakistan are conspiracy theories.
  • "Star Wars" missle defense is based on a conspiracy theory.
  • The "war on terror" itself is just a big ol' conspiracy theory.
  • Richard C. Hoagland alleges that the US government itself originated the Apollo moon-landing hoax, as a cover-up.
  • There are claims that a certain conspiracy website (forgot which) is actually contains disinfo.
  • Alex Jones has been outed as a Zionist. There are claims that his websites contain disinfo.
Besides that, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Uh, Uku, not a single one of these conspiracy theories originated with Freemasons. So your answer to our question is, "No, there is not a single conspiracy theory that originated within Freemasonry." Not a single one of the above has any bearing on the issue at all. You've proven over and over that you don't have a single shred of evidence. There is not a single outside editor who has come here and agreed with you. The issue is settled. You can either continue to beat on this dead horse or you can join our discussion about the next of your issues with the article. (Taivo (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC))
You can't say whether or not Freemasons were involved in creating these conspiracy theories without some really in-depth detective work (eg: obtaining and then cross-referencing membership and employee lists). This is simply to illustrate that the concept is not "paranoia" or "far-fetched," and to support my claim that Freemasons may engage in such activity. Yes, the issue is settled that my claim is valid. Please cease your off-topic ranting. You don't want to be uncivil, do you? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick poll #1: Is the article title too ambiguous?

  • No as it is explained in the first sentence of the article Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Hell no--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not, it is crystal clear in the first sentence exactly what it means. (Taivo (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

These polls illustrate clearly an appeal to the majority. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No, they indicate an attempt to determine WP:CONSENSUS.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Bullshit: "Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority. ". Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you need a civility reminder, Uku? (Taivo (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC))
Your lying constitutes a greater incivility than vulgar language. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Lying? Do you need a civility reminder, Uku? (Taivo (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC))
Flamebait. Consistently off-topic. Incivility. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Note the word "typically" -- it doesn't say "invariably". Considering you haven't gotten a single WP:THIRD opinion to agree with you yet...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you've gotten a third opinion to agree with you either. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Ahem, Sarek is the third (or fourth or fifth) opinion. No one who has entered this discussion has agreed with you, Uku. And Theresa is not the only admin who is looking here and noticing what you are doing. (Taivo (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC))
One person does not constitute one opinion on this talk page. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Should we treat you as less than one person then? No, sorry, it does not work that way. Each editor is entitled to have their opinion heard and factored into the equation... even those who happen to agree with each other. And even those who disagree with you. Blueboar (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
When people agree too much, their weight in the argument decreases; it appears as if one individual were speaking through 2 people. Of course, creating phoney disputes in order to avoid this kind of situation is not valid either. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
And who determines if they agree "too much"? You? Sorry, I can not buy that. It sounds too much like you want to WP:OWN this article. Blueboar (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I guess that too many people voted for Barack Obama so their votes only count for 1/2 a vote each. Your position is untenable, Uku. If logic and sound argument fail, then calling the other editors names, accusing them of conspiracies, and trying to make your vote count for more than it is will not succeed either. A good editor knows when his arguments will not carry the day and it's time to compromise and move on to other issues. There are, indeed, times when a minority view is sound, and a good editor can convince the other editors by sound arguments, logic, and reasoning. That is not the case here. (Taivo (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC))
No basis for comparison, because Barack Obama is part of a conspiracy as well, but then again maybe that is off-topic. Of course it's not the case here -- irrational people cannot be swayed through rational appeals. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
well... to quibble, Wikipedia runs on consensus, which isn't based on a simple majority the way a presidential election is... however, when multiple people tell you that you are wrong, you usually are. And ignoring their arguments is called tendentious editing. Blueboar (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
They must have a good reason for accusing me of being wrong. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, because you are wrong. (Taivo (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC))
irrational people cannot be swayed through rational appeals -- *sigh* Believe me, we've noticed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Too much is when people start agreeing on things that turn out to be patently wrong, like that an article wrought with errors, rated as stub class and seen as POV by an outsider should not be changed ever in the history of mankind, because vested contributors believe it to be "excruciatingly" NPOV. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
You have yet to prove a single item in the article to be wrong. You have spent 90% of your time here whining about the process and only 10% actually engaging in discussion. You will not always be right in discussions, but you don't accept any other point of view and act like everyone else is out to get you. This isn't personal. You will be wrong here, you will be right here. But the only way to tell is to discuss the issues, not just state your POV and expect everyone else to buy it lock, stock and barrel. (Taivo (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC))


You guys ALWAYS go off topic instead of responding to my comments. If you are intimidated by me, just say so and maybe we can work out something. That doesn't mean, however, that I will abandon my position and throw up my arms in resignation. I asked Blueboar to undo a reasonable change and he has not done it, saying that he will only do so when some agreement has been reached. It seems as though it will never happen. I might have to get this article protected if you -- ALL OF YOU -- insist on talking in circles about the same irrelevant side issues over and over instead of responding to my comments about the topic(s) at hand. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, excuse me, but who goes off-topic? We are continually trying to drag you back on topic from your excursions. We have asked you point-blank several times whether we have addressed satisfactorily your first concern of "broadly speaking" or "in the broadest terms", but have yet to receive a response. That was our first topic of discussion. Instead, you wander off into a discussion of the title of the article. You haven't even said whether the first point we were dealing with was answered to your satisfaction. Bring on the article protection. The article as it now stands is extremely NPOV. (Taivo (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

Quick poll #2: Is the article title POV

  • No, it accurately and neutrally discribes what the article is about.Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • No. It doesn't say "crazy theories" or "crackpot theories", just "conspiracy theories" -- which is exactly what's alleged in most of them, so we're set.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • No. It's totally neutral. If it meant "conspiracy theories propounded by Masons" don't you think that I would object? Of course I would. The title is unambiguous as clearly defined in the first sentence and is neutrally worded. (Taivo (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

This poll is for a non-issue. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrapping up the first topic for discussion?

We have gotten away from the talking point that started this topic for discussion... which centered on Uku s objection to the use of the term "Broadly speaking". Can we at least call that issue resolved? (as the objected to phrasing is no longer in the article.) We can continue to debate the article title as a second topic for discussion if needed. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the first paragraph should be labelled as "fixed" and we should move on to the next topic. (Taivo (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC))
Taivo is misrepresenting the discussion. It is clear that the phrase "broadly speaking" does not exist in any of our proposed changes. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, Uku, but you need to read more carefully. Blueboar made the comment about "broadly speaking", not me. This is not the first time that you have misattributed comments or positions and made accusations of ill-intent based on the misattribution. Please be more careful. (Taivo (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC))
The second sentence wasn't about you. Don't tell me to "be more careful." It seems like I know what I'm doing better than you. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Without an overt actor in the second sentence, the only grammatical interpretation in the context is that "Taivo" is the underlying actor of the second sentence. If you did not intend that, then you need to be more careful with your grammatical wording. (Taivo (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC))
Nothing in my sentence describes anything you said, and you did not cause "it" to be clear, so you were neither an actor or a patient in my second sentence. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The question you have not answered, however, is "Is the first paragraph 'fixed' and can we move on to another topic?" (Taivo (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Taivo... I am not asking if the first paragraph is "fixed"... I think it is obvious that Uku does not think the first paragraph is fixed... (in that he still has an issue with the name of the article, which impacts on the opening sentence.) I am asking if his first talking point (which we got sidetacked away from) is resolved? Blueboar (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
My mistake for interpreting more broadly. (Taivo (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

OK... in the absence of a reply, I will call this talking point addressed and slap a "DONE" stamp on it. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hooray! So pick another of Uku's points (the title issue is dead even though Uku keeps doing CPR) and we'll tear into that one. (Taivo (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC))
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Masonic_conspiracy_theories/Archive_4&oldid=270364660"