Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry/Archive 10

Discussion of revisions before making them
It is in fact suggested that revisions be discussed in advance. I sincerely hope that all interested parties realize that is the case, and will actually seek to acquire consensus before making such changes again. Thank you. John Carter 18:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We should indeed discuss any addition before we add it.  As a word of explanation... my edit over the "everyone knows" bit was not actually a revision.  I added the quote to the article in the first place (feeling that quoting Whalen's words was better than our summarizing them).  While I over-steped in cutting the words "Everyone knows that..." from the quote, the rest of my edit was simply a further editing my own original edit.  I did not think that would be controvercial.  It obviously was. My appologies.  I will discuss from now on. Blueboar 18:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that this will have the effect of freezing the article in its unbalanced state, but we will see. I will abide with this for the sake of a peaceful life, but that doesn't mean that I think it will improve the article. JASpencer 21:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I misread this. I am far happier with prior discussions on revisions of material which I don't think will have the same dead hand effect. JASpencer 21:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

We need a proper discussion of the anti-clericalism of the Latin Lodges
This is a massive gap in the current article which needs to be addressed. JASpencer 20:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought this was what, in part, the last two days of talk page discussion have been working towards. In any case, I agree that a proper discussion is needed.  To get us started, let's settle a the name issue.  I question the term "Latin Lodges". I realize that a few (I think it's three) scholars have used the term or some variant thereof, but the majority of Masonic Scholars use "Continental" or "Oriental" (or simply "irregular" but that reflects a particular POV that we should avoid).  For one thing, that branch of Freemasonry is found in other areas besides "Latin" countries... it is in Germany and the Netherlands, several African nations, Turkey, and historically was found in Poland and Russia.  It is misleading to call it "Latin".  I have also raise the issue (above) as to whether Anti-clericims is really the right term, or whether laïcité is really more correct.  I do realize that the Church uses the "Anti-clerlicism".  I am just tossing that out for thought.
 * To move us a bit forward, why don't you draft up some proposed language for the rest of us to look at and comment upon. Blueboar 21:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, then don't use the term Latin Lodges (although Latin Freemasonry has been indisputably anticlerical and political and often downright anti-Catholic). The fact of the matter is that much of the incidents of anticlericalism, which was previously arranged in this article by country and which has since been deleted, were actions which Masons took credit for, not as individuals, but as a collective.  Blueboar, you claim that by making the connection between the anticlerical actions of individuals who happened to be Masons and Freemasonry we are dealing with OR and SYN.  But there are actually many instances, reported in reliable secondary sources, of Masonry itself claiming this connection.  Moreover, even if Masons didn't claim or admit the connection, but the Church has, the article should state so.  Mamalujo 18:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is the merge tag still there?
It seems that there is no one who actually says that this is not an article worthy topic, but there are content disputes or as a placeholder to sort out this article. Can anyone suggest why a merger is still on the cards? JASpencer 20:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought this was settled ... An article on Continental/GOdF style Freemasonry is a topic worthy of an article... but the specific article named Latin Freemasonry is not the right article for that topic. As that article stands now, it is a POV fork of this article. And as such, it remains under consideration for merger. And I don't want to focus on that article or the merger issue until we have made significant progress at settling all the problems with this article.  It is a matter of priorities.  I see no reason why we have to rush.  The tag can wait until we have time to properly discuss things.  Let's wait and see what developes. Blueboar 21:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well if no one's focussing on the merger then why don't we remove that and come back to it? It seems like this is essentially a content dispute.  JASpencer 21:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, because I would like anyone who comes across that article to know that it is being considered for merger. Blueboar —Preceding comment was added at 21:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So why should it be merged? Do you really believe that it is the same subject?  Let's put the content dispute aside for the moment. JASpencer 21:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I just said that I don't want to get into a discussion about merger until this article is settled. But to address your question... yes, as the article currently stands, I do think it is the same subject. That may not be the ulimate goal... but for now it is the reality.  Why the rush to get rid of the tag?  Let it sit for a few more weeks. When we are done with this ariticle, we can address the problems with that one. Blueboar 21:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Because the tag was introduced when the article was unbalanced because of the text on there, and it is now considerably different. I don't like the use of tags as placeholders. JASpencer 22:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh... ok, tell you what... go deal with that article first then. If you can get it to a point where it is no longer a POV fork of this article, I will agree to remove the tag.  You can start by changing the name as is being discussed on that article's talk page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 22:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Moved the discussion to the project talk page
 * fwiw I'm still not keen on splitting the problems up, until such time as we've reached a conclusion the association should remain, IMO. I dobn't actually understand the unseemly haste to disassociate.
 * ALR 22:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wholesale deletion of sourced material
While I understand an editor's prerogative to be bold, the deletion of the entire second half of the article was not warranted nor done by consensus. All of the subjects covered were in fact criticisms of Freemasonry by the Church and that is supported by secondary sources. As to the details in some of the sections, some of it may have been arguably improper but that does not mean the baby should be thrown out with the bath water. For example, the Affaire des fiches indisputably involved the French Lodges' participation in discrimination against French military officers who were practicing Catholics. The section is not OR, SYN or POV. Deleting references to the Kulturkampf, anticlericalism in France, the suppression of the Church in Mexico and the like is a highly POV edit. These are in fact very important criticisms of Freemasonry by the Church. Removing them from the article makes it deceptively misleading and factually erroneous by omission. By the way, many of the assertions in this discussion that it was just individuals, who happened to be Masons, and not Masonic institutions themselves which engaged in anticlericalism (hence the claim of OR, SYN and POV) are just plain factually erroneous. The historical records are replete with statements in Masonic publications and statements from the lodges which support the Masonic involvement in anticlericalism. Consider this from and article in the Historical Text Archive: "Historians, especially those who have specialized in ecclesiastical history, are in fairly general agreement that it was during the 1824-1830 period that the Masonic groups began to work on definite plans to remove the Church from its preeminent position in Mexican life. Just as in Europe, properties would be confiscated, the bishops would be exiled, the religious orders of men and women would be suppressed, education laicized, and the government declared free of all clerical influence." I believe the deleted portion of the article should be reintroduced and concerns with the details addressed on an individual basis.Mamalujo 18:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Would only note that the above quote from Paul V. Murray was an addressed delivered at some unspecified location. While I would welcome any reliable verifiable sources to the article, I'm not sure that this individual, about whom I know nothing, qualifies as one, whether the address was delivered at a place where POV statements would be welcome or even possibly encouraged, etc. If evidence suggesting that the source were reputable were produced, that would be different. John Carter 18:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You will note that the article (yes, based on a speach) is carefully sourced and footnoted. It includes sources such as Spanish language histories of Mexican Masonry.  The author was a founder and the president of Universidad de las Américas, A.C..  It is a reliable source.  Regardless, the same can be found in many other reliable secondary sources. Mamalujo 19:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. However, as per the page WP:RS, I'm still not sure it meets the requirements for reliable sources displayed on that page. The citations show that it is verifiable, but verifiability is not the same thing. If other sources saying the same thing can be found, however, that do meet the RS and verifiability guidelines, I have no doubt that they would qualify for inclusion. John Carter 19:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, citations do go to verifiability, but as you will note on the page WP:RS they also play a part in detirmining reliability. Moreover, such an article by a history professor who is was a founder and president of a university in Mexico is a reliable source.  But we are on a tangent.  I had not posted the quoted paragraph in the article but on the talk page to show that the asserted OR and SYN in the section on Mexico were no such thing. The point of my post is that the entire section on "Sources of Catholic antagonism" which was well sourced was completely deleted without consensus or adequate justification.  I know that a portion of that subject matter now appears in the article on Latin Masonry which might be a proper article.  Nonetheless, some reference to those "Sources of Catholic antagonism" is needed in this article.  What I'm trying to discuss is not whether Murray is a reliable source but whether all the sourced matter in the article should have been deleted and whether it shoud be reinserted and any flaws should be dealt with individually. 69.111.85.126 21:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the conditions of reliability which you seem to have overlooked is where and under what conditions the speech was made. Clearly, a member of a partisan assembly speaking to only partisans of a given position will not in any way be counted as "reliable". We don't quote Rowan Williams' sermons in articles as reliable sources, even if he qualifies as a reliable source regarding his published, academically peer-reviewed works. Without knowing the circumstances in which this speech was made, it cannot be said that something similar may not have been the case here. I don't necessarily disagree with you on the later points you make, because I also think such wholesale removal is probably uncalled for without previous RfCs or similar outside input, but my statement above points out the difference between "sourced material" and "reliably sourced material", which is the bone of contention here. The question of the reliability of those specific sources hasn't yet been addressed. John Carter 21:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of the material may have been better removed but there is no bar for re-entering data. This article probably needs a gradual reintroduction of data any way. JASpencer 21:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Remember the comments by neutral third parties such as Jossi?... Remember how he called this article a POV and NOR nightmare? Several people who have no axe to grind on this issue expressed similar opinions.  They thought the choice was between stubifying and simply deleting the article.  I was perfectly justified in cuting so much; I could have cut more.  To explain again, the text was removed because of NOR and NPOV violations, not RS or V violations.   Rewrite the material in a NPOV way that avoids OR and there should be no problem. Blueboar 23:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, there is also the burden on individuals such as yourself to ensure that the countervailing viewpoint is presented as well. I would hardly expect a member of the Catholicism project, like JAS, to go out of his way to try to find information on an organization which he apparently opposes. Also, the comments you appear to be referring to seem to have been made in July? Under such circumstances, with the changes occuring several months after comments, I think an additional RfC might be called for. If such content is not presented over the long term, then it might even be possible to assume that there is no contrary viewpoint, and could even, potentially, be seen as purposefully not seeking to include content for the purposes of thus being able to remove other content. And I do think all such "revisions", even the one you just made today, should have consensus of the existing editors to an article, and any other interested parties, before they are made. Citing comments of months ago regarding the current content could be seen as reaching, maybe? Otherwise, one could give the impression that one has decided that one's own opinion is all that matters, maybe kind of like WP:OWN? A current RfC, third opinion, or otherwise would not be out of line. However, even there, if one side of a contention issue is presented, and no explicit evidence of a sourced contrary position can be presented, then even potentially POV material, if it is adequately sourced, should be included, as there would be no explicit, clear evidence of adequate third-party support for such contentions. John Carter 23:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am referring to the comments made around Nov. 1st... just last week (see above)... I had posted a querry about the OR and POV problems I saw with this article on both the WP:NOR and WP:NPOV talk pages. Several editors took a look and expressed comments like: "This article is a POV and NOR nightmare" (used as a section header on this talk page by one of WP:NOR's more active and respected editors).  It was these comments that caused me to act and do a Major cut of material, not any comments made months ago.  The fact that similar comments were made months ago simply tells me that this was a long standing problem, one that should have been addressed and fixed months ago.  Blueboar 00:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

We can probably reintroduce some of the material with a concern for the objections which have been raised, specifically including Blueboar's and Jossi's, and with all editors making an effort to write for the "opposition". For example, probably in the Mexico section a listing of the number of priests killed and so on, which is appropriate in an article in the Cristero War or on the persecution of the Church in Mexico, might not be appopriate here. The obvious argument being that such events have a much more tenuous connection to Freemasonry than did the not uncommonly admitted anticlericalism and political involvement of the Lodges there. If we reintroduce the matters which are necessary for a complete article on the subject with care to omit matters which can be fairly argued as OR, POV and SYN, allowing for the views of both sides, we can probably reach a version which is acceptable to all editors.Mamalujo 01:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, you cut without agreement and now you wish for every change to be discussed. It may not be your intention but it will fossilize the page into a slightly expanded list of dates making the Catholic case against communicants becoming Freemasons appear irrational.  It wasn't what John suggested and it won't work.  JASpencer 15:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reintroduced much of the deleted text. I know that it may not be acceptable to all editors in its present form, but let's deal with the issues individually.  Blueboar has to understand that an article about Catholicism and Freemasonry is going to have Catholic criticisms.  In a previous editing dispute, the Freemasonry article itself had a comment regarding the Morgan affair that "[d]espite the fact that no evidence was ever brought forward to implicate Freemasonry, these accusations helped an Anti-Masonic movement grow".  Now this statement was patently false, yet Blueboar constantly removed the undisputed fact that three Masons confessed, were convicted and served time for crimes related to Morgan's disappearance (though not his death).  You'll also note that the article today has no reference to Morgan's disappearance nor the convictions but only a oblique reference to the affair in a paragraph beginning in a false light with a discussion of "hoaxes" (Granted the article on Morgan does have most of the facts of the matter).  That kind of white-washing should not happen with this article.  Properly sourced criticisms by the Church, in their historical context, belong in the article.  Mamalujo 01:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear... I NEVER objected to this article containing Catholic criticisms of Freemasonry, or a discussion of them. I agree that this is appropriate to do in an article on this subject.  What I objected to (and still object to) was the manner in which these criticisms and discussions were/are presented.  I especially objected to the amount of WP:Original Research that was (and now, once again, is) contained in the article.
 * Given that I am a Freemason, I understood that I approach this topic with my own POV. And I realized that my objections could be skewed by that POV... so I asked for and recieved neutral third party comments... The comments came from well respected Wikipedia editors (some of whom are Admins) who fully understand the policies and guidlines we all have to follow.  These comments expressed dismay at the amount of OR and POV that was in this article, calling the article a "POV and OR nightmare".  The recommendation of these neutral editors was to either delete this article, or cut it back to a stub.
 * I did neither... instead I cut the article significantly, deleting the areas that contained the worst OR and POV violations. My goal all along has been for us to slowly and carefully replace the deleted sections in a way that accurately and fairly discusses the situation without violating NOR or NPOV.  I do not want to "white-wash" the article... I want to rebuild it properly.  Mamalujo's revision simply returns us to the "nightmare" we had prior to my action.  I am going to let the revision stand for now... but if no progress is made towards correcting the POV and NOR "nightmare", I reserve the right to gut the article again.  I suggest that everyone read up on the relevant policies.
 * Again... my objection is not over what is said in this article... the problem is how it is said. Blueboar 15:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem was, Blueboar, that you called for other editors to discuss any changes on the talk pages while aggresively editing the page. In effect you were freezing the page.  I tried to work with you and if I had any confidence that you would have worked with me I would have reverted Mamalujo.  Aggressive editing is fine, but it doesn't do much to engender trust. JASpencer 19:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed addition
I have to object to JAS's most recent addition of: "Some Freemasons who are aligned to the United Grand Lodge of England believe that the French position was close to being anticlerical", especially in the Freemasonry's position section. First, this is one essayist... not "Some Freemasons". The mention of UGLE makes the sentence sound like they are expressing an official position of UGLE. And the quote that was supplied with the citation does not even contain any mention the French position that was outlined in the previous sentence.

The quote provided was: Bro. Madison is one Mason, expressing his opinion. He is not a spokesman for Freemasonry, and does not represent any Grand Body. He is not a reliable source for any sort of official Masonic position on the relationship between Freemasonry and the Catholic Church. So it definietly does not belong in the "Freemasonry's position" section. I actually have to question (although less strenuously) whether he is all that a good of a source at all? I note that just below the quoted text, Madison states of himself... This addition was clearly taking a source out of context... using it to support a rather POV statement that it does not actually support... which is clearly a WP:NOR violation. It is difficult to assume good faith when such clear violations as this are added to the article. I have removed the objectionable material... and remind everyone (myself included) that this is why things need to be discussed here before they are added to the article. Blueboar 00:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "The fifth point, advocating or condoning overthrow of Church and State, may possibly have some basis if one makes the error of equating the Italian Masonry of the period with the entire Masonic Fraternity. From their founding, the Latin Grand Lodges, if not explicitly anticlerical, were strongly (at times, militantly) political. Thus it is quite possible that there may have been some basis in fact for the charge." (taken from The Miter and The Trowel, by William G. Madison.
 * "I am neither a professional historian nor a profound scholar."
 * I have to agree that the individual's own statements regarding himself clearly disqualify him as a reliable source. John Carter 00:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Madison was quoted as someone who has clearly no axe to grind against Freemasonry, and who wrote a biased but readable introduction to the Masonic v Catholic argument. He has been used in various articles as a source with little complaint.  I took some care not to give any official attribution.  I would also say that there is little serious doubt that Liberal Freemasonry was anticlerical.  It may have died down since the rise of communism and the UGLE may not agree with it, but it was the case.  I don't mind if people want citations, but I do not care for the petulance and name calling displayed here.  JASpencer 15:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No objections seeing him quoted as a non-expert outsider to the discussion. Also, if it can be demonstrated that he was seen as being sufficiently reliable to be cited or quoted in an apparently reliable source, then a quotation citing that he was quoted elsewhere would probably be acceptable, if he's the best quote available there. John Carter 15:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

OR danger?
Are editors here getting too close to WP:OR for comfort? Is this article is an analysis of the criticism of the Church against Freemasonry? Is this article a rebuttal of that criticism by Freemasonry adherents? Is this an article on anti-clericalism? Or is it a stew of all of these in an article that does not represent an analysis as published in reliable sources? It seems to me to be the latter... I would suggest that rather than quote this proponent or that critic, that you endeavor in finding literature in which the tension between the Church and Freemasonry has been described, and stick exclusively to that. Otherwise, this article will feature perennial dispute tags. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * WIlliam Joseph Whelan is listed as being the author of the book Christianity and American Freemasonry. Considering he is officially the publications director and associate professor of communications at Purdue University, and one of his works on Quakerism has recently been reprinted by the Quakers themselves, I have to say that his reputation is probably good enough that if any of the content of that book is relevant, it could probably be counted as being from a reliable source. John Carter 15:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * John... I don't think anyone is saying Whelan isn't a reliable source (OK, to be accurate, I did question it... but you convinced me that he was reliable and have dropped that question). In fact, I will go a step further and say that most of the sources are reliable (there may be one or two that are questionable).  The problem isn't with the sources, but how they are used. The problem isn't with WP:RS or even WP:V... it's with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV Blueboar 15:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wasn't meaning to imply otherwise. Was just trying to find a source which might deal with the issues which could be seen as being from a reliable source, as per the first comment in this thread. Unfortunately, I don't know if the book in question actually deals with this subject at all, and that was the one of the few names that seemed to me to have any sort of academic credentials at all. I notice that there are more books by Robert Lomas as well, and an apparent "tell-all" by former Worshipful Master Jack Harris, but I'm not sure about them qualifying as "reliable". Alibris counts Freemasonry and the Vatican as being a 5 of 5 for reliability, but I've never heard of it or the author so I can't say anything about it. Jasper Ridley's book The Freemasons seems to be fairly highly reputable as hell. Just trying to find a few sources which might be agreed upon here. John Carter 16:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Odd article
I first looked at this article a couple weeks ago when Blueboar posted an RfC. I was, frankly, very confused by it. My impression was, "This sure is an odd article." I couldn't figure out why it existed at all. Is the opinion of the Catholic church on every group or religion that is not the Catholic church inherently worthy of an article? Are there articles on "Catholicism and Islam," "Catholicism and Buddhism," "Catholicism and the Mormons"? Should Wikipedia contain an article on each opinion of one group on every other group? To my mind, it seems absurd. It seems like this article should be merged into an article on Catholicism or shortened to a couple paragraphs at most. The only thing I could figure out is that there must be some context that I'm unaware of. If so, seems like that should be included in the article. Is it the book The DaVinci Code or something? TimidGuy 16:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is probably a lot of context of which you are perhaps not aware of. Freemasonry seems to have been almost created to be a voice disagreeing with the presence of the secular power of the Catholic Church, and the Catholics have responded with similar less-than-charitable comments. The recent history of Catholicism and Freemasonry in Italy especially, but elsewhere as well, gives the impression that they're basically at each other's throats as often as not. Particulary in Italy, seemingly, Freemasonry seems to be one of the leading voices against the secular influence of the Church, sometimes to possible extremes. Also, with the exception of other Christian denominations, and not even all of them, the only other groups which I know of which Roman Catholics have considered completely objectionable are witches and Satanists, and I think there is at least content, and probably articles, regarding that antipathy as well. John Carter 16:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * TimidGuy... there is one big difference... Unlike Islam or Buddhism or the Mormons, Freemasonry doesn't consider itself a religion. So, unlike Islam or other faiths, people who join the fraternity don't convert... they retain whatever faith they had prior to joining. A Catholic who joins Freemasonry remains a Catholic. This is something the Church disagrees with.
 * John, I do have to quibble with your statement that Freemasonry seems to have been created to be anti-clerical. First, that statement ignores the very large segment of Freemasonry that does not discuss either religion or politics, and has never been Anti-clerical.  Second, the anti-clerical elements in Continental Freemasonry are a relatively recent development... Freemasonry existed for some two hundred years before the secular power of the Church became a political issue.
 * If you look at the encyclicals, the Church's original objection had more to do with Freemasonry being "secret"... the jist being that if they meet behind closed doors, they must be up to no good. The whole "Continental Masonry opposing the secular power of the Church" thing was a much later developement arising out of 19th Century European politics and nationalist movements.  On that issue, Jasper Ridley has some interesting things to say...  in essence, he feels the Church created it's own nemisis ... the theory runs as follows (I am paraphrasing here):  The Church condemns Freemasonry, which draws the attention of those who for political reasons have issues with the Church. If the church doesn't like it, opponents of the Church want to join it.  As more Anti-clerical opponents join the Fraternity, they shift its focus in more Anti-clerical directions, which then causes the Church to issue more condemnations, which attracts more Anti-clerical opponents... etc. etc. Blueboar 19:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Responses: (1) I never said it was "anti-clerical", but rather that it opposed church intervention in matters of state. (2) Comments about what Freemasons are today have little if anything to do with the foundation of the society several hundred years ago. (3) While I agree with some of the statements to the effect that Freemasonry doesn't consider itself a religion, I would think that if verifiable, reliable third-party sources do make such a statement (I don't know) then the "press release" statement of Freemasonry which might contradict it would take second place to the independent source. Regarding the contention that Freemasonry existed a few hundred years before church power became an issue, I would love to see references to substantiate that, because as a Catholic I know that complaint has been made off and on pretty much since the Crusades, and certainly since the Renaissance. However, I would grant that Freemasonry did seem to for lack of a better phrase arise from the cultural milieu of the Renaissance, and that if we can find sources for phrasing like that such a statement would probably be acceptable to at least some parties, including me. John Carter 20:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And I am saying: 1) The earliest that any branch of Freemasonry could be said to be "oppose church intervention in matters of state" was during the French Revolution... and even that is a stretch, as the Fraternity closed itself down rather than get involved. 2) I agree. that was the point of my comment too. 3) It isn't a "press release"... it is official policy.  4) How can any complaint about Freemasonry be made since the Crusades or the Renaissance?  Freemasonry did not even exist at that time.  The earliest refereneces to Freemasonry, even in its proto-fraternal form, date from the early 1600s (there are some debatable possible references from Scotland that date to the 1500s... but these seem to be dealing with operative stone masons and not Freemasons).  If you have evidence that dates Freemasonry to the Crusades or even the Renaissance, please tell us... you will revolutionize Masonic historiography. Blueboar 20:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (4) was referring to the separation of Church and state being as old as the Crusades, not to masonry in particular. What I was attempting to say, evidently badly, was that the complaints regarding separation of church and state are that old. And regarding (3) official policies are repeatedly found to have several unofficial caveats which aren't directly mentioned in the official policy. Should reliable third-party sources indicate that the policy is dodged or ignored with any degree of consistency, regardless of official statements from what could be called the party with the greatest COI possible, the group itself, then they would take priority. Ever hear how many times the US government has violated official policy? Similar complaints have been filed, and won, against several other organizations and companies for regularly ignoring or dodging their policies, in things like hiring, retention of employees, etc. etc. etc. It happens rather distressingly often, with several groups, not just, ore even necessarily including, the Freemasons. John Carter 20:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. Right now the article basically says, The Catholic church hates Free Masons. And a naive reader's response is, "So what? There are probably many things that the Catholic church dislikes." It just doesn't feel NPOV -- as if the whole point of the article is to kick around Free Masons. Yes, it's sourced, but it doesn't sound encyclopedic. It reads like a litany of dislikes and offenses. If what John says is true, then the lead should be different. Something like, "There is a history of discord between the Catholic Church and Free Masons, though current-day Free Masons accept any religion and see no conflict." If the Masons historically had criticisms, those should be presented from the Masons' point of view. Right now it's completely one sided. I don't think a detailed history of the Catholic ban is warranted. Why not condense that to a paragraph, stating the current position and then stating that this position was originally created xxx and reaffirmed by specific Councils and Encyclicals or whatever? (It pains me to be so freely offering an opinion about something I know nothing about. I only offer it in case the view of a neutral and naive party familiar with Wikipedia is helpful.) TimidGuy 21:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally agree with most of your comments above, actually. Right now the difficulty seems to be that the sources which have to date been available and used have tended to present one side better than the other. However, I think you can understand that however valuable balancing information is, if the sources you've got don't give it you really can't put in the article. On the completion of my own current tasks I'm going to try to find such sources, but can't be sure how many will be available or for that matter even exist until then. John Carter 21:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Tim, Freemasonry is quite different from, say, Islam, in that Islam would ask a Catholic to renounce their Catholicism. Freemasonry would not, publicly or privately.  So there has always been a "danger" to the Catholic Church of Catholics falling away.  This is probably the most troublesome single religious ban for freemasons (it certainly seems to generate a lot of heat).
 * The Catholic Church has also, rightly or wrongly, put a lot of the blame for its loss of influence in Catholic parts of Europe and America on Freemasonry. I personally think there's some merit in some of those charges
 * As to why do an article for the Catholic view on anything important, well it has one billion adherants. So if it is involved in a centuries old dispute it will affect at least hundreds of thousands of people almost by definition, and it is going to be notable.
 * JASpencer 21:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much -- it's rare in Wikipedia to have people actually listen to the points one is laboring to make. I appreciate your cordial and thoughtful responses. John, thanks. That would be great if the article could be more balanced in this way.

JASpencer, I feel like you're exactly making my point. When I first read this article, I felt like I was reading Catholic doctrine. And Wikipedia just didn't seem to be the right forum for that. I felt like I was reading a Catholic web site (which may be the appropriate venue). Yes, this issue is indeed relevant to hundreds of thousands of people, but Wikipedia is supposed to be relevant to the general reader. This article needs to be cast in a way that it's relevant to a general audience. It seems like the way to accomplish that would be to shorten it, put it in an appropriate context, and present both points of view according to Wikipedia policy on NPOV.

Looking at the history of this article, I see you've done a lot of work on it. Apologies for my pointed comments. I'm just trying to articulate how it appears to the fresh eyes of an experienced reader and writer. TimidGuy 12:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

De-indenting so as to not lose this in the other comments - JohnCarter, you said Freemasonry seems to have been almost created to be a voice disagreeing with the presence of the secular power of the Catholic Church and I wonder what your source for that claim is.--Vidkun 17:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that sources had to be supplied for comments on talk pages. The statement was intended as a simplification of the more complicated history, and by definition all such simplifications are to at least some degree inaccurate. Having said that, the Englightenment out of which Freemasonry often tries to trace its roots very much included opposition to secular power of the RC church. I do however think that requesting sources for comments on talk pages which are not apparently intended for inclusion in the article itself is perhaps being a bit too excessive? :) John Carter 17:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Citation aren't required for talk pages. But it's an extraordinary claim that FM was created in opposition to the secular voice of the RCC.  In fact, it's so extraordinary a claim as to be almost a conspiracy theory - FM designed to destroy the RCC's power.  The Enlightenment had a lot of foundational idea, opposition of RCC secular power was neither the only one, nor the greatest one.--Vidkun 17:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is, and actually it isn't a claim I even made. I did say, to quote the statement you quoted above, "seems to have been almost created to be a voice disagreeing with the presence of the secular power of the Catholic Church". Granting a little rhetorical flourish, please note that the statement did not rule out the possibility of other concerns, or even the possibility of those concerns being of greater weight. And I would think that overreacting to a simplification made for the purposes of brevity is probably a much more likely cause for conspiracy theories than the statements themselves. Having said that, I thank you for having indicated just how readily and easily such simplifications can be misinterpreted, and for giving me the opportunity to claify. John Carter 17:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Folks, let's not start playing the conspiracy card... Assume good faith. John, may I suggest that rehtorical flourishes and simplifications for the purposes of brevity do not help when discussing this aritle.  This is a very complicated subject, from both points of view... and trying to oversimplify things will not help clarify this complexity.  Such comments come across as being blindly POV.  I know that wasn't your intent, but that is how it reads.
 * Let's focus on what TimidGuy has to say... the article suffers from extreme Undue Weight problems. It is very heavy on the Catholic view point and it needs some sort of balance.  Unfortunately, I am not sure if that balance is possible. During the centuries that the Church has been issuing increasingly harsher condemnations of Freemasonry, the fraternity has simply not responded.  It is difficult to write a NPOV article when there is a ton of documentation presenting one POV, but so little representing the other.  Can anyone suggest a solution to this problem? Blueboar 19:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it's not one that may appeal to a lot of people. One approach would be to say in the opening that the one side has repeatedly issued statements regarding the other, but that the other has not responded in kind. That might technically meet undue weight restrictions, if such is said before any of the arguments themselves are presented. Also, of course, if various individuals who could be seen to at least potentially speak for Freemasonry made comments regarding Freemasonry's views, they could be included as well. I know that many of these might not meet the standard of "official statements", but if they come from someone who is potentially in a position to speak for the group they could reasonably be included. Alternately, it might be possible to separate out some of the content into a Roman Catholic statements regarding Freemasonry or something similar. If that article were to link back to the main article, and make it clear in the article itself that what is being presented is only one side.
 * Like I said, they're not necessarily going to be solutions that will please everyone, but I think they might be the best options available. John Carter 21:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Blueboar, for getting things back on track. It may go beyond UNDUE. Seems like the article needs more context. The background explanations in this discussion have been interesting and meaningful, and are the sort of context that would help -- if it can be sourced.

Here's an idea: I did a search on "Freemasons Catholic Church" in Google News archives. There has been much coverage in the media of the conflict. Media typically try to give both sides of a story. For example, a controversy in Nebraska in the 1990s when some Catholics were threatened with excommunication for being Freemasons. There was some criticism of the Catholic church being heavy handed in proscribing association with a wide range of groups. Most of the articles were pay per view, so one would likely need to go to a library to use an index like Lexis/Nexis to get quick access to the full text of numerous articles. TimidGuy 21:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Might work, although the problem which might arise there would be the possibility of laying too much emphasis on the more recent incidents. Personally, I think it might work best to put a section on the "History of relations" or whatever directly after the intro. This could indicate the causes of tension from the beginning, and include references to the various official, unofficial, and semi-official statements which might be available in basically chronological order, perhaps up to the original ban. Then discussion of the ban and its effects on both sides, ending the article with the most recent incidents. Such a format might be most likely to indicate how both sides responded to incidents, even if all that is stated from the Freemasonry POV is something to the effect that "no official statements were made". Having said that, though, I do think that if any recognized leader of Freemasony made statements relative to particular developments as they were made, those statements could be included in lieu of "official statements" per se. John Carter 21:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, John. These are some good ideas. It just occurred to me that there are other important viewpoints that also might be represented. These could include Catholics who are also Freemasons and don't see a conflict. It's likely that their viewpoint is represented in these articles. Also, as with everything else within the Catholic church, there are probably liberal priests and bishops who are on record as disagreeing with the church's position on Freemasons. That could go in as well. I don't think we'll want to go into a lot of historical detail but, yes, the reader is curious what's going on and what the causes of the tensions are. TimidGuy 22:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the problems which should be addressed is the apparent fact (I'm not a mason, I don't know directly myself) that one has to take some sort of oath to the effect that one will accept death if one reveals secrets of Masonry. Like I said, I don't know the exact quotes used, although I can probably find sources which indicate it. Making a solemn oath of that type, particularly if it isn't meant completely, is a sin, and demanding someone commit such a sin to join is reason enough for the Church to oppose joining a group you have to "sin" to enter. John Carter 22:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually that isn't a fact. There is something that can be considered an "oath" (we call it an "obligation"), sworn on whatever holy book is appropriate for the member taking it... in which Masons promise to keep the secrets of Freemasonry (which are things like the "secret" hand shakes and passwords) and to support poor, distressed brothers in need and stuff like that.  But, as a Mason, I can definitely reassure you that these obligation definitely do not involve swearing to accept death if one violates the obligation.  Blueboar 02:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Granted. I do wonder about the phrase which I have heard, even in reference to Propaganda Due and other branches of Freemasonry, where one indicates that one will accept being hanged with stones in one's pockets (or some similar phrasing) if one violates the oath. I do remember specifically how some party whose name I can't remember right now was hanged from a bridge in London with stones in his pockets and that it was reported in several sources that such a hanging was in accord with an oath of the Freemasons. And, in any event, many religious groups would indicate that whatever the Masons call it, the specific phrasing of the oath might be such as to seemingly place undue importance on the oath, which could itself be considered a violation of some commandment or other, probably a variation on the commandment on swearing false oaths, on the basis of ascribing undue importance to this particular oath. And, while not disagreeing with you regarding your own oath/obligation, I have to wonder whether, given the various sources which have indicated the existence of such an oath at some time, whether it might not simply be a peculiarity of your own lodge and/or a comparatively recent development that such phrasing has been removed. Like I said, though, right now I'm still working on tagging the seemingly endless number of articles about rodents, and it'll be awhile before I can find the sources again. John Carter 14:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's more a case of "I'd rather have such and such done to me than reveal the secrets..." And there is never a command to perform any such penalties on someone else. Suspension or expulsion from the lodge is the highest penalty that lodges can inflict.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 15:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * These could include Catholics who are also Freemasons -- not only am I a Catholic and a Freemason, but I'm also a member of the Knights of Columbus. Before joining, I asked if it was acceptable, and the answer was given at the state level that there was no bar to my becoming a Knight.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 15:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just for the purposes of clarification, I'm assuming the "Knight" in question is a reference to the Knights of Columbus. Thanks for the clarification. By the way, I finally figured out what your signature is. I can't believe it took me this long, though. And I have noted elsewhere that there seem to have been significant loosening on the restrictions on Catholic involvement in Freemasonry within the US, because the disputes in this country aren't as hot as they are elsewhere. I'm not sure whether such applies elsewhere as well, thinking particularly of Italy here. Whether the same holds historically and elsewhere could potentially be a different matter.John Carter 15:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus emerging that this article isn't in accord with Wikipedia policies. I really hope that JASpencer will share his thoughts.

It seems like we agree, so far, that there are issues of NPOV. Also, those who've offered helpful explanations of the background of the tension between the Church and Freemasonry seem to share the opinion that the article could use more context. On the other hand, this article has an integrity of its own, and John's suggestion that the current article could be moved to a subarticle titled Roman Catholic statements regarding Freemasonry definitely merits consideration. The current article would then be a more general, and not necessarily long, treatment of the historic and ongoing tension between the Church and Freemasonry. Sources could be media coverage of the conflict, commentary by heterogenous voices within the Church (but perhaps avoiding apostate POV, since that's often more personal than meaningful), and also possibly commentary by academicians (historians, sociologists?) who are neither Catholic nor Freemason but who've studied the situation. There must be a body of such commentary. It may also be interesting to include reference to the Da Vinci Code. But I'm getting ahead of things. If we have a consensus for some kind of change, then we could start a new thread to discuss the next steps. TimidGuy 16:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure what Dan Brown's agenda-driven distortion of Christianity would have to offer on this already odd subject. I've said it above and I'll say it again: This article is going to be POV by its very topic, which is the Catholic POV on Freemasonry, which is simply that the two aren't compatible. The Catholic Church has no power to prevent a man from becoming a Freemason -- it just says that if one makes that choice, he revokes his status as a Catholic in good standing -- this is its well-documented stance. Masonry has no publications on its stance, other than any man is free to join without having to revoke membership in his religion. We certainly don't want the article to become a gossip sheet. LotR 18:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think everyone agrees with what LotR just said... and if that was all the article said, we would not have any arguments. But in the attempt to write a good article that does the topic justice, we include discussion of why the Church holds this view.  This is where things get tricky, and we get into the POV and NOR issues.  The Church has reasons that are valid from its viewpoint, but are not valid from the viewpoint of Freemasonry.  Blueboar 19:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Lot. Yes, maybe not appropriate to include Dan Brown. But any general reader coming to the article would sure be curious how that fits in. It would be great if it could be acknowledged in some way -- given that it's been such a huge cultural phenomenon -- even if we just find a source saying that it doesn't have any relationship to fact. (I haven't read the book nor have I seen the movie, and don't really have any interest in it.)

Regarding POV, I feel like I've given a number of examples of how this article need not be constrained by Catholic POV vs. Freemason POV. There a range of metasources that could be tapped that represent multiple points of view. I feel like if I spent an hour or two using standard and online reference tools, I could quickly turn up a lot of material. I'm starting to find this to be a fascinating topic, thanks to the background information people have been offering. It could go quite a bit beyond a list of Roman Catholic statements on Freemasonry. And it would, I believe, give a fuller picture and would be more fair to all points of view. TimidGuy 19:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Tim, you said you wanted some comment from me on an emerging concensus. What sort of concensus do you perceive?  I'm not really sure that I see one apart from let's not deal with Dan Brown for the moment.  I do accept that OR has developed over time, and the subject is a POV minefield (neither of which are themselves reasons to ignore a subject) but I'm not sure if there's any concensus beyond that. JASpencer 20:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't get me wrong, TimidGuy, I can understand the reasoning for tying pop-culture into an article (many articles even have sections along these lines), but in this case I just think it could only be counterproductive. Your proposal to find 3rd party views on this topic also sounds reasonable and may help. I don't disagree with Blueboar either, as well as most of the thread here. The Brown novel just raised a red flag. LotR 03:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Lot, for your positive feedback regarding my suggestion on third-party views. I agree, let's drop the idea of Dan Brown. TimidGuy 12:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving things forward
I think we are moving in the right direction... and I would like to thank TimidGuy for his willingness to help us sort out the NPOV and OR issues... I think his comments helped break some of the deadlock. It is my opinion that while this article's topic is indeed valid and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, it essentially needs a complete rethinking and rewrite.... or at least a draft of one that could be integrated and merged with material currently in this article. I am going to attempt such a draft on my user pages. What with the Thanksgiving holiday coming up here in the US next week, this may take me a while... but I will try to have a first draft for people to look at and think about sometime shortly after that. Keep moving things forward in the meantime. Blueboar 18:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Blueboar, for working on a draft. TimidGuy 19:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I may also try to draft a couple sections in the coming week or two. I feel like I need to give an example of what I'm saying. TimidGuy 15:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Name Change?
Do people think that a name change to, say, "Roman Catholic statements regarding Freemasonry" will quieten some of the POV issues? I think that there are a couple of issues - not necesarily problems.

Firstly this page at the moment is not simply about RC statements. There is also the reasons for the Catholic view on Freemasonry, the Masonic response (which is severely underdeveloped), the effect on Catholic fraternal societies and the rather special cases of the Latin lodges.

I'm sure other issues would arise. However if a name change would help cool things down then I'd be interested.

JASpencer 20:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that isn't quite what was proposed. What I thought I was saying was that much of the content regarding the specifically Catholic responses to Freemasonry might be moved to a separate article, and that the article here be reconstructed to basically present the history of the relationship between the two groups, indicating how the disputes between them arose, later developments, and so on. The other article would primarily cover the specific RC documents and responses to Freemasonry, as it seems that there is much more potential content relating to that subject which might create an unbalanced perspective within the single article. John Carter 20:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. That makes far more sense. JASpencer 21:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Make it a subarticle associated with this article. Then, as Blueboar said, a rethinking and rewrite of the current article. But I think it could go beyond presenting a history, as I've indicated in my other posts. There is other material and other viewpoints that could be brought to bear. Will be eager to hear what Blueboar thinks about this division. TimidGuy 22:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about a split ... From a Masonic POV, this topic is already over covered. The issue of Catholic opposition to Freemasonry is dicussed at Freemasonry, at Anti-masonry, at Christianity and Freemasonry and since JAS is starting to create articles on various Continental/Liberal lodges, I am sure it is going to be discussed there as well. Do we really need yet another article about the simple fact that the Church says "Catholics May Not Join Freemasonry"? However, I won't say an absolute no to the idea. I'll have to think about it. Blueboar 23:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, if the separate article were created, it would probably at least ensure that the content it contains wouldn't be repeated in any of the other articles. It might link to them, but there would be no purpose in repeating content across multiple articles, and creating one centralized place for much of it would probably reduce the content in the others to a simple summary section. John Carter 23:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Mexico... revisited
The section on Mexico is much better... but still has some fundamental problems. For one thing it lumps all of Mexican Freemasonry together... a serious error that blurs the facts, because it takes things out of context. During the time period we are talking about, there were at least four Grand bodies in Mexico (The Grand Orient, the York Grand Lodge, the Scottish Rite Grand Lodge, and the Rectified Scottish Rite Grand Lodge)... and several small schismatic bodies that split off from these. These all took very different political positions. So when we say that a given politician was a Freemason, I think we have to ask which Freemasonry are we talking about? To give you some idea of what I am talking about... this history of Mexiscan Freemasonry is posted on the web page of the York Grand Lodge. Blueboar 23:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I started to read this, but could not get through more than a third. Perhaps I'm too tired. JASpencer 23:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah... it is heavy going... but that goes directly to what I am trying to say... Understanding the twists and turns of Mexican Freemasonry is not an easy task, and yet it is an important factor in understanding the situation and presenting it with a neutral point of view. Our article only tells part of the story. For example... do we know which branch of Mexican Freemasonry wrote that July 12, 1926 communique we quote... did they really have authority to speak for "International Masonry", or were they only speaking on behalf of a small splinter body that did not represent the majority of Mexican Freemasons. In fact, the question has to be asked, are we even sure it came from Freemasonry?  I don't doubt that the communique appeared in the paper ... but do we know who actually wrote it?  Did any Masonic body ever claim to have authored it? Without knowing these things, we skew the article by mentioning it.  Blueboar 03:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's correct to say that we skew the article by mentioning it, as it seems to have had a notable impact, although it might be reasonable to add that it might not be possible to confirm that the statement came from who it said it did, if that is true. Regarding the official positions taken by the various bodies, they should be mentioned, as should the actions of any of the various members of those bodies, if those individuals exact membership can be determined with any reliability. Regarding the statement's "official" status, I once again note that official statements are not the only sources, or even best sources, for wikipedia content. If the content is included in reliable, verifiable third-party sources, those are the best possible sources. As noted before, "official" statements from any body are very often themselves deliberately misrepresentative of the facts for various reasons, either because of confidentiality of information, potential legal liability, attempts to influence public opinion, etc. Overreliance on such generally acknowledged not wholly accurate "official" statements from any organization is probably at least as skewing as anything else. John Carter 16:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not saying we should delete it (at least not without knowing a lot more about it)... but we should try to attribute it, or in the event that it is unatributable, we should comment on that fact.
 * My point is that without attribution, the communique is a bit suspect... It could have written by a legitimate Masonic source... it could have been written by an "illegitimate" Masonic source (ie someone who did not have the authority to speak for "international Masonry") ... or it could have been written someone with no connection to Freemasonry at all, someone trying to discredit the Fraternity. We may never know which is the case... but it is worth looking into.
 * I think I need to go and do more research on this communique... since the quote comes to us second hand (ie we are not directly citing the July 12, 1926 article that appeared in La Tribuna, but are actually quoting F. M. Algoud's "1600 Young Saints, Young Martyrs" which in turn quotes from La Tribuna) I need to find out a bit more... there are always potential problems with quoting second hand. Did Algoud quote the communique accurately?  Did we quote Algoud accurately?  Is there any context to either quote that would be relevant to our discussion?  Until I know a bit more, I have questions.  I don't think those questions rise to the level of legitimately basing an objection on them... we do have to assume that Algoud is a reliable source and got things right... but for me to be happy, I need to answer those questions... essentially I need to find out if we are telling the full story.  That's all. -- Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Considering the document is almost certainly a translation anyway, it would be nice to know if the translation could be faulty, particularly the phrase "International Masonry". Also, if the press using the statement indicated that they considered the source reliable, or if they made no such statements regarding their perception of the validity of the source, that would reasonably be included as well. Another matter would be in what kind of press the statement appeared. If it appeared only in Catholic press, for instance, I would think that might make it rather more suspect. Sorry, I don't know what "slant" La Tribuna might have had. -- John Carter (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good points... looks like I'll have to schedule a trip to the NY Public Library and do some background research. -- Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, the quote comes from an article in the Angelus, which in turn is the English language magazine for the Society of St. Pius X, a large - mainly French - Catholic traditionalist group which is in impaired communion with Rome. The article itself is here although you will need a free subscription to get in.  The article follows from a lecture given in French, and although the article does not say that it is translated from French there is nothing to indicate otherwise and I think it is safe to assume that it is a French translation.  Thus the " 1600 Young Saints, Young Martyrs," is likely to be a translation of a French title.  I think the next step to tracking this down will be to find either the book in question (which is probably French) or the French original article which will almost certainly have appeared in a French SSPX publication between 1997 and 2002.  JASpencer (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ain't Google wonderful. The title of the book in French is "1600 JEUNES SAINTS, JEUNES TEMOINS : DE LEUR FOI, DE LEUR IDEAL, DE TOUJOURS ET DE MAINTENANT", the link is here. JASpencer (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, the New York public library has this book in its research section : http://catnyp.nypl.org/record=b4008952 JASpencer (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So we are actually getting it third hand? If I understand what you are saying, we actually get this from the Angelus, which got it from a book in french, which in turn gets it from a spanish language newspaper?  This does not make me happy.  I am leaning more towards challenging it.  At minimum, we should include the Angelus in our citation, and note the chain of translation.  It affects the reliability of the quote. Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I included the Angelus in the citation earlier. I've tidied up the citation, which hopefully makes this clearer and added a note about the translation. JASpencer (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is better. I'm still not fully happy, but I can leave it be for now. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it because of the lack of context, the fact that it is a dual translation and the fact that we don't know who said it. I'm sure that someone did say something like this but I don't think that the quote is safe. Here's the text:


 * On July 12, 1926, the following communique appeared in the press: "'International Masonry accepts responsibility for everything that is happening in Mexico, and is preparing to mobilize all its forces for the methodic, integral application of the agreed upon program for this country.'" —Preceding unsigned comment added by JASpencer (talk • contribs) 16:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Mexico, yet again
I have a question as to whether the first part of the first sentence of this section (which reads "The Mexican government's campaign against the Catholic Church after the Mexican Revolution coincided with a succession of presidents who were strongly anticlerical freemasons."). I think it is overly POV and OR ... Upon what basis are we saying that a "government campaign against the Catholic Church" actually existed? I think we need to establish that there was in fact such a "campaign". Is the "fact" of such a campaign simply a "view point" of the Church, or something that non-Church historians agree occured? Assuming that there was in fact such a campaign, I think we should discuss it in context of Mexican History. What caused such a "campaign"? Was it directed at the Church as an institution, or at the Church's influence in temporal society? As it is, the statement just hangs out there with no supporting source or background discussion. Blueboar 15:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The citation is for the Oscar J Salinas article, a Masonic historian who seems quite sympathetic towards the revolutionaries:
 * After the defeat and exile of the dictator in the 1910 revolution, a succession of Presidents who were Masons and strongly anticlerical ruled the country under the 1917 Constitution that maintained substantially the same liberal principles of 1857. In the late 1920's a new crisis arose with the Church when it publicly repudiated the Constitution. In retaliation, the government attempted to fully enforce the anticlerical measures of the Constitution. A bloody rebellion arose in central Mexico by bands of Catholic sympathizers, known as Cristeros, often led by gun-toting priests, until a negotiated peace was eventually arranged with the Church.
 * At least the quoted text seems to be a fairly orthodox reading of the revolution (although no mention of the Calles Law). JASpencer 20:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * But Salinas does not talk about a "campaign against the Church" by the Mexican Government. It is that phrasing that I am questioning and saying needs more discussion.  What is this "campaign"?  Blueboar 21:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So "the government attempted to fully enforce the anticlerical measures of the Constitution" was not a campaign against the Church? JASpencer 21:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily... I think it is a matter of one's POV and interpretation. I can understand that the Church might have felt that enforcing these provisions in Mexico's Constitution demonstrated that there was a "campaign" against it.  If so, we can say that, and source it.  Liberals no doubt had a very different take on things... they probably saw it as a "campaign" in favor of democracy and freedom or something.  We should state that and source it. On the other hand, there are probably people who don't see any "campaign" happening here...  Constitutional Scholarship would probably say they were simply enforcing the "Law of the Land".  Indeed, I am sure there are many ways to look at the situation.  My point is that we only present one of them, and do so without any context. We only present one POV.  We also present it in a rather blunt statement, and I think we need such a statement to be supported better... the interpretation that enforcing these laws constituted a "campaign against the Church" needs to be supported ... otherwise it is OR.  Blueboar 01:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that there is not so much an issue with the detail, but with the entire section. The implication that the political activities of individuals reflects the position of any masonic body appears to be OR.  The present representation of the situation is quite skewed, it makes no explicit recference to a source indicating that a FM organisation held a policy, but rather allows the reader to infer such from the wording.
 * Slightly disingenuous, although unsurprising, IMHO.
 * ALR 21:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So what happened in Mexico's history after independence had nothing to do with the Masonic allegiances of its players? JASpencer 19:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is that you haven't managed to demonstrate a causal relationship, if you can do so then that's fine. At the moment the wording resorts to implication.
 * ALR 19:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The the Masonic membership of influential Mexican politicians may or may not have played a role in Mexico's history (my personal feeling is that it did, but not nearly to the extent you seem to feel it did, there were other factors involved as well.) ... ALR's point is that we can not assert such a connection in a Wikipedia article without citing reliable sources that directly make the connection. To do so constitutes Original Research. Blueboar 23:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I've set down an introduction here with the Cardinal O'Connor "Masonic conspiracy" statement, do you think we can build round that? I know it's not the direct causal relationship, but there was a strong feeling (still is) among Catholics that the Masonic affiliations of various revolutionaries inspired their anticlericalism.  JASpencer 09:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is certainly an improvement... you have improved things on two fronts: first you tone down the "campaign against the Church" language (it was a bit hyperbolic), and second you have attributed the view point. Instead of bluntly saying that there was a connection between the anti-clerical actions of various Mexican politicians and their membership in the fraternity (a statement which would need a very solid source to keep it from being overly POV and OR), you now state that it is the opinion of prominent church officials that this was true - a very different kettle of fish, and not OR as an individual statement.
 * The article still suffers from WP:SYNT in general (taking a bunch of previously unrelated items and grouping them together to make a point)... but we can deal with that in a seperate thread. Blueboar 13:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)