Talk:Taxil hoax

A Critical View of the so-called 'Taxil Hoax'
User:Lightbringer tries for some time to augment the article with a very different view of the subject. I've reverted earlier attempts for clearly failing editing guidelines. The last attempt [] is a good deal better, but - even when considering only the formalia - not good enough. Perhaps other editors can help improving it (and decide what's worth saving). Of Lightbringer himself is invited to discuss the points here.

The most strinking formal point:


 * Quite a bit of the addition gives information about Léo Taxil, contradicting our current article. This part should be removed from here and discussed at Talk:Léo Taxil. I assume it would need some reference before claiming he was a free mason.
 * About the half of the additions, starting with The theological dogma of Albert Pike is explained in the 'Instructions' issued by him, is not related at all with the subject of this article. Please bring it to the relevant articles.

Pjacobi 19:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, Pjacobi, that section that says that "Lucifer is God" is the substance of the Taxil hoax.--

SarekOfVulcan 16:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It does say Lucifer is god, on p321 of pikes book, sure there is a line before it, but if you read most of the book you will realize that the line before it is meaningless because Pike constantly degrades Christianity as being no better, and possibly inferior, to the other religions. TheSpaceBetween2 (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it does not, and those lines before it ARE NOT meaningless. Especially, when it says the 19th degree "despises all the pomps and works of lucifer". What Pike goes on, to poke fun at, is the Anglicans trying to say the word, lucifer, means Satan, when it never did. One can look up the word, lucifer, on Wikipedia, and find the truth. The word, lucifer, means morning star, or Venus, and the word is also known as light bearer. Jesus, was even called the morning star, in Revelation.--Craxd (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * But if my confusion is still below the fatal threshold, wasn't it presented as backed by evidence from a completely different source? And the "old part" of the article says fictitious eyewitness verifications of their participation in Satanism. Eyewitness verifications would be something other than statements by Pike. --Pjacobi 16:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Now I'm confused. You mean other than statments by Taxil, right? BTW, I think that the quote was removed from here because it was duplicated on the Freemasonry page.--SarekOfVulcan 17:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What is fatal threshold? The fictitious eyewitness statement is simply wrong, because it can't be proven, with independent non-masonic influenced sources, that the eyewitness accounts where fictitious. Thus "Unverifie eyewitness verifications of their alleged participation in satanism" would give grounds to both sides, would maintain a neutral POV and would solve the problem regarding lack of independent non-biased sources regarding the veracity of the eye witness statments. Masons, or the author of the work, claiming them to be fictitious are not reliable sources as the author may have done so out of deciet or duress. He is of questionable moral character because he was already known to have wrote joke works on the pope thus the veracity of anything he states is open to question. Consensus not reached on the definitive use of the word "fictitious". TheSpaceBetween2 (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, let's try to un-confuse (and keep in mind that I'm not a native speaker of English and sometimes overestimate my language competency)
 * Taxil's books on Freemasonry hold as central motif detailed accounts of satanism
 * There is a quote of Pike saying [...] Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay is also God. [...]
 * 1 and 2 are unrelated (except that both are about free freemasons and satanism)
 * Therefore the Pike quote doesn't belong into the Taxil hoax article.
 * Did I get this right? BTW: Is the Pike quote generally considered authentic?
 * Pjacobi 18:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The quote about Pike, saying that lucifer is Adonai, is not from Pike, but from Abel De La Rive, who knew Taxil, and had a footnote to Diana Vaughn.--Craxd (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * SarekOfVulcan did a good re-edit, I added the info connecting Albert Pikes' letter to the 23 Supreme Councils, Luciferian Doctrine, and the Taxil hoax. I know it is a bit confusing but what we are dealing with is a situation where some of the material both 'sides' agree with, and some they dont'. It probably still needs to be polished up a bit, but the majoy points of the 'critical view' are there now. I guess we could do a seperate page on Freemasonry's alleged Luciferian Doctrines or teachings on Lucifer and that contested quote could be included in it. I would like to add that Dreamguy and MSJapan repeatedly deleted my attempt to post additional quotes, giving book particulars etc.. about this in the 'Satan' section of the Freemasonry page.Lightbringer 18:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Pjacobi, it is not generally considered authentic: supporting details of the Pike "letter" are provably false (the office he is claimed to hold never existed, for example). See http://www.srmason-sj.org/web/SRpublications/DeHoyos.htm#i8 for heavily researched and cited details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) Pjacobi 19:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC) (Thanks, I was about to get that -- Sarek)

To save some reading from the link I cited above, I'll cut to the chase:

The real evidence of a hoax comes in de la Rive's footnote, which neither Lady Queenborough nor anyone else has ever bothered quoting. The footnote refers to Diana Vaughan, the matchless creation of Léo Taxil's twisted mind, who, despite her illustrious pedigree created by Taxil, never existed.


 * Ce fut la Sur Diana Vaughan qu'Albert Pike,--afin de lui donner la plus grande marque de confiance,--chargea d'apporter son encyclique luciférienne, à Paris, pendant l'Exposition Universelle.


 * It was the Sister Diana Vaughan that Albert Pike,--in order to give her the greatest mark of confidence,--charged to carry his luciferian encyclical, to Paris, during the Universal Exposition.

So, the Luciferian quote is indeed part of the Taxil hoax.--SarekOfVulcan 22:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, as Abel De La Rive had worked with Taxil, for the anti-clerical paper, and knew him, Taxil was able to persuade him that Diana Vaughn was real, so he wrote what he did. Later, it is said, that De La Rive apologized for ever writing what he did.--Craxd (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss changes
@DreamGuy: You can't simply revert
 * The critics of Freemasonry say that although 'The 'Taxil Hoax' was a 'sting' against the Church in France for it's teachings on Freemasonry, it's modern usage by American Freemasonry is in reality an attempt to confound and confuse the issue of Freemasonry and Lucifer, especially in regard to it's appearance in Masonic writings.

with the edit summary
 * revert to the NPOV version - User:Lightbringer's sole agenda is to attack Freemasons on any article here he can, see his edit history and talk comments

This is a non sequitur. The sentence in the article is an statement about critics of Freemasonry, so it is no attack to Freemasons, and Lightbringer's agenda, if it exists (which will be the ArbCom's task to decide) is irrelevant.

@Lightbringer: The above also essentially delimits the possible content of the "critic" section you want to add. It shouldn't be a general Why Freemasonry is evil treatise.

@All: What's about the membership in the Grand Orient of France? References? Is this a widely accepted claim? A minority claim? A fringe claim?

I've tried to edit Lightbringer's addition into a more encyclopedic styla and shortened a lot. Please take this just as an example of the possible direction how to proceed.

Pjacobi 09:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Your edit was not helpful at all, because the section still violated Wikipedia policies on verfiable resources, NPOV and so forth. Leaving the statements there making such unsourced allegations is absurd, and by doing so you give them a legitimacy that the source does not have. You can't treat information from highly biased info like that as if it were real. IT wasn;t encyclopedic in the slight to say "they alleged" in a couple of sentences and then just accept the rest at their word. Lightbringer is here making edits based solely out of opposition to a group based upon rumor and innuendo. That sort of behavior is unacceptable. Compromising with it and allowing policy violations to continue in the process is simply unacceptable. DreamGuy 09:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You don't get it, that the absurdity of claims make it only more pronounced, that the entire section is a statement about the critics of Freemasonry and not about Freemasonry. --Pjacobi 10:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Another example of encyclopedic treatment of rather absurd allegations: Blood libel against Jews. --Pjacobi 10:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Pjacobi you're not dealing with a rational thinking, feeling, person here, you are dealing with a Militant Freemason. Masons simply will not tolerate ANY opinions, histories, truths about their beloved 'craft' that is critical. What he is doing here is precisely what he did to my edits on the Freemasonry page - he deleted them, said the violated Wikipedia guidlines, that the sources 'were not accepted by academics'(but provided no examples other than one url to a Masonic webpage). Again and again and again. He deleted links DOZENS of times, using the same rational. He did it again in the past day also on the link I tried to post on the Jack the Ripper page about the Freemasonry Theory. For heavens sake there was two popular Movies, BBC Documentaries, and books which advocate that P.O.V., but for Dreamguy all it is was the serial deletion coupled with vague caustic comments and a complete refusal to discuss the edit.


 * This is why I phrased the para additions I did in the framework 'of the critics say this' or 'the opposing view of this is'. It didn't make a stitch of difference to him, he deleted it entirely just the same. There is no middle ground with him. The longest I have been able to keep an edit up on Wiki is three hours before Dreamguy deletes it. The others just follow his lead and join in 'reverted to last edit by Dreamguy' etc..Lightbringer 18:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If editors by consensus are removing your edits as a violation of policies here, maybe that should give you a clue that you need to stop your agenda-pushing strategy here. DreamGuy 22:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Pjacobi, the Blood Libel allegations are citable. Where are the credible citations for some critics of Freemasonry say?  Are there any, that are documented, other than one wiki-user's claim that there are, which would be original research, and pretty much unusable in the article.  Vidkun 19:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments copied from Talk:Freemasonry
I copied the following two comments from the Talk:Freemasonry page as they are highly relevant here:


 * However, if the paragraph is the same one that was there before, the one negating a provable fact with a conspiracy theory by saying - (to paraphrase) "Some claim that Taxil, who wrote material discrediting the Masons, was in fact an invention of the Masons" is once again not a question of POV, but rather verifiability and believability. 


 * Just because some people believe it doesn't make it true, such as the world being flat, or the Moon being made out of green cheese. There is factual evidence disproving those statements, and anything in the same vein is really not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry.  IIRC there is a Wiki policy on "relative weight" that should clear this up.  Even if that policy doesn't convince you 100%, the fact that Wikipedia is not democratic and is edited by consensus does cover it.


 * Is it too much to ask to quit all the nonsense until ArbCom deals with this and either work on the article or do nothing? MSJapan 20:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * To clarefy, the relavant policy is found at WP:NPOV. It is also usefull to look at the policy on WP:NPOV. Actually, all of the Category:Wikipedia official policy is interesting reading, and I recomend everyone to look throught it. WegianWarrior 21:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Simply put, having some fringe group claiming all sorts of weird things does not make it encyclopedic. The information must meet Wikipedia guidelines on encyclopedic sources and its coverage must not be unbalanced, giving it the appearance of more validity and acceptance among scholars than it really does. A long, rambling multi-paragraph statement from the anti-Freemason conspiracy theorists based upon bad sources and so forth is absolutely not encyclopedic. It should be given a brief mention, if at all, because I think it's safe to assume that the anti-Masons dispute the factualness of anything and everything they can if they think they can try to use it as "proof" that Masons are corrupt and ruling the workd and blah blah blah. Of course the anti-MAsons are going to come up with some bizarre story, that's nonnotable. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for every fringe theory to get more space than expert opinions back up with sources and qualifications. DreamGuy 22:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

What's with the new section added here recently? Why on earth would you give so much space to that? It's like handing half of the Evolution article over to creationists. Victrix 06:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Lack Of NPOV
What is fatal threshold? The fictitious eyewitness statement is simply wrong, because it can't be proven, with independent non-masonic influenced sources, that the eyewitness accounts where fictitious. Thus "Unverifie eyewitness verifications of their alleged participation in satanism" would give grounds to both sides, would maintain a neutral POV and would solve the problem regarding lack of independent non-biased sources regarding the veracity of the eye witness statments. Masons, or the author of the work, claiming them to be fictitious are not reliable sources as the author may have done so out of deciet or duress. He is of questionable moral character because he was already known to have wrote joke works on the pope thus the veracity of anything he states is open to question. Consensus not reached on the definitive use of the word "fictitious". Also dream guy verifiable include "when reliable sources disagree, their conflict should be presented from a neutral point of view, giving each side its due weight." and "Even when information is cited to reliable sources, it must be presented in accordance with the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV). All articles must adhere to NPOV,  fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources , in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are  not neutral . Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say" — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSpaceBetween2 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

His real intent
I want to make it clear that I'm not one who is predisposed to conspiracy theories, including those concerning Freemasonry; I don't think Freemasonry is a conspiritorial organization, and I think most POV issues concerning Freemasonry come from the anti-freemasonry editers (as they tend to be conspiracy theory quacks). That being said, there is atleast one POV issue with this article. Does anyone have a reference for the following sentence:


 * His real intent, however, was to publicly slander the Freemasons (who had rejected him for membership), and simultaneously embarrass the Roman Catholic Church.

I don't think the author of that sentence intended to make a POV statment, but it seems pretty silly to claim one knows what the "real intent" was of someone who died long before the author of the sentence was born.--Brentt 07:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * When reading Taxil's confession, from the Le Frondeur, he claims he joined Freemasonry with the intention of quitting, and that he staged an altercation, which had him expelled. Is what Taxi says true, or is he trying to save face? This could be either or, and it is best to list what is real; that Taxil was expelled shortly after being made an EA.--Craxd (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, you can find his intent at http://altreligion.about.com/library/texts/bl_confessiontaxil.htm, http://altreligion.about.com/library/texts/bl_confessiontaxil2.htm, http://altreligion.about.com/library/texts/bl_confessiontaxil3.htm, http://altreligion.about.com/library/texts/bl_confessiontaxil4.htm, http://altreligion.about.com/library/texts/bl_confessiontaxil5.htm, and http://altreligion.about.com/library/texts/bl_confessiontaxil6.htm (I pasted all of the links because there's a misspelling in the "Next page" references). It's the full text of the April 19 press conference referenced on the main page. Seems clear enough.
 * Last comment was me. Sorry.--SarekOfVulcan 23:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * SarekOfVulcan, I concur. Mousescribe 00:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

So why are those links allowed and freemasonrywatch.org is not? For the record I don't believe in iluminati. I do believe pikes work claims lucifer as their god and that freemasonry is a religion, I can quote from it, from sacredtexts.com. And about morals and dogma that is a published secondary source right (as it sums up his views on religion based on other religions dogma)? Its 3rd party too, on any article on freemasonry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSpaceBetween2 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, those links could be shown, however, it would also have to be shown that what is there is in fact from the hoax, and wrong. Those sites are not credible--Craxd (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Question
the list of titles of leos writings interested me. is there a website i could read some of those writings?

umm this needs more of a tgop summary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.133.71 (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

New citations needed
The link is broken for the citation called ""The Confession of Leo Taxil". April 25, 1897. Retrieved 2007-10-25.".

I wasn't able to quickly find another citation for the specific claim mentioned in the text.

However, I found a link to the supposed full text of the supposed translation: http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/taxil_confessed.html However, it IS on a page published by Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon A.F. & A. M.

In addition to the Footnotes found at the above link, this next link includes two interesting, related lists:

"SOME OF THE ACCOUNTS OF TAXIL'S HOAX ABOUT FREEMASONRY AND LUCIFER" and "SOME ANTI-MASONIC BOOKS USING TAXIL'S HOAX ABOUT FREEMASONRY AND LUCIFER"

These are on Page 6 of "The Confession...".

http://reocities.com/lionelboxer/Freemasonry/taxilconfession6.html

Page 1 of that says:

"Later Taxil, in an interview, says: "The public made me what I am, the arch-liar of the period, for when I first commenced to write against the Masons my object was amusement pure and simple. The crimes laid at their door were so grotesque, so impossible, so widely exaggerated, I thought everybody would see the joke and give me credit for originating a new line of humour. But my readers wouldn't have it so; they accepted my fables as gospel truth, and the more I lied for the purpose of showing that I lied, the more convinced became they that I was a paragon of veracity.""

http://reocities.com/lionelboxer/Freemasonry/taxilconfession.html

What interview? Published where?


 * National Magazine, an Illustrated American Monthly, Volume XXIV: April, 1906 - September, 1906, (NATIONAL MAGAZINE for MAY, 1906, pages 228-229), An interview with Leo Taxil mentioned under Muck Rakes. Magazine at Archive.org: Full Text Click Here Taxil died the following year. I have photos of both pages that can be posted to this article.--Craxd (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

More new citations:

Can we please find the original document (in French), and even a photo/photocopy of its original source? (Le Frondeur?, April 25, 1897)

Can we find 1987 articles about his admission of the hoax? One would think it was in various newspapers.

This has done a ridiculous amount of damage for over 100 years now.

It would be great to know for certain that Leo Taxil really did admit to the Press and to many others that he did this hoax.

Thanks!

Misty MH (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not quite sure what it is you are trying to achieve here, I am especially wondering about your comment "This has done a ridiculous amount of damage for over 100 years now". The hoax and his confession of it is genuine and was widely reported in the press at the time of his admission of it, not only in France but abroad as well. I am in possession of a Danish newspaper from 1897 containing a lengthy article on the whole thing. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think what the author was saying is that the hoax was so good, it is still propagated, not only by Chick, but by others. Just like the fake Protocols of Zion, which continually has to be refuted. (However, the latter was done with malice aforethought and not as a satire).


 * I don't remember this name at all (Taxil hoax) in relation to the hoax. I thought the alleged Masonic organization was named something catchy (in English anyway) - which is the reason why the hoax still persists in people's memories. Someone sent me an email on a related topic and I had trouble finding this article. The name isn't quite right IMO. Maybe need "alternate name." Student7 (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the name I was looking for was "Palladium, High Luciferian Masonry". While I didn't get many hits on this on the web, you can sure find it in email! Student7 (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding your first post about it still being propagated. Well, that may be true, however I think this article makes it rather clear that it was a hoax, and I can't see what else should be done in connection to Wikipedia. We are not a soap box after all, so other than conveying the correct information we can't really do anything else or we lose our NPOV.
 * I am afraid as a non-native English speaker I can't really chime in on the naming of the article. It isn't impressive hits Google brings up even for a search on "Taxil hoax". However I would think that the subject is not widely known, so it is a question whether there actually is a common English name besides the one produced by the title of this article. In fact I suspect this article may have contributed more to the establishment of a common English name than anything published in English about it in the last 100 years. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You may be right about propagating the wrong name (Taxil hoax) with Wikipedia. Without quotes got 37,000 hits with Luciferian Masonry. It's the "Lucifer" that grabs the reader! The sites are not reporting a hoax, of course, but reporting that Mason's have this secret rite! :( Student7 (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Student check out morals and dogma by Albert pike, they do worship Lucifer, just this incident is alleged as being false yet no evidence not from a masonic perspective exists that it was a hoax. They claim lucifer is not satan — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSpaceBetween2 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That is because the word lucifer describes the morning star, or the star of dawn, which is Venus. The word, lucifer, was never intended to describe Satan, and what you mention is only used in the Bible to describe the fall of the King of Babylon, not Satan. Even Christ was called the star of dawn. The protestants are who corrupted the word lucifer, into meaning Satan, and even Calvin and Luther, who started protestantism, scolded the ministers who did it for not translating and using it correctly. Albert Pike mentions the word lucifer being used in the Bible, as meaning the morning star, not Satan. The true description of lucifer can easily be looked up here on Wikipedia, so what you say has no merit.--Craxd (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Taxil is mentioned in The Psychology of Conviction, by Joseph Jastrow, published in 1918. This isn't a Masonic source (as far as I can tell), so it might be useful.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Newspaper photo
I added the photo, of the Parisian newspaper, Le Frondeur, which has the transcribed account of Taxil's confession. It is the newspaper that anti-Masons claim doesn't exist. --Craxd (talk) 09:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's a collection of additional newspaper articles reporting on Taxil's confession in 1897. Perhaps you can add these to this entry if you're so inclined?
 * https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DUNST18970618.2.19
 * https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18970604.2.4
 * https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/OAM18970607.2.5
 * https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GRA18970726.2.20
 * https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS18970612.2.53.8
 * https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH18970605.2.69.10
 * https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NEM18970729.2.25
 * https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NOT18970615.2.2
 * https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/LT18970612.2.60
 * https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP18970610.2.3
 * https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HBH18970608.2.5 103.101.202.58 (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's a high resolution scan of Le Père Peinard N°27 - Série 2 – 25 Avril 1897, which reports Taxil's confession in detail on the same day as the article in Le Frondeur was published. Story begins on page 3.
 * http://archivesautonomies.org/IMG/pdf/anarchismes/avant-1914/leperepeinard/1897/pere-peinard-serie2-1897-n027.pdf 103.101.202.58 (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Abel Clarin de la Rive
I believe it would be better, to explain A C de la Rive's association with Taxil better, where it mentions what he wrote. A C de la Rive was a staunch anti-Mason that worked under Leo Taxil, who was the manager at an anti-Masonic magazine, French Christian Antimasonry. A C de la Rive was a friend of Taxil. Here is where Taxil told him of Diana Vaughn, and probably where A C de la Rive got the ideas for what he wrote, since not only does the footnote say that is the source, but A C de la Rive says that everything that had been written, by him, was from Taxil's hoax. Taxil had quit the magazine, around January of 1896, and A C de la Rive took over as manager. Later, when the hoax came out, in April 1897, A C de la Rive wrote, in the April 1897 issue of Freemasonry Unmasked, that "With frightening cynicism, the miserable person we shall not name here, [Taxil], declared before an assembly, especially convened for him, that for twelve years he had prepared and carried out, to the end, the most extraordinary and most sacrilegious of hoaxes. We have always been careful to publish special articles concerning Palladism and Diana Vaughan. We are now giving in this issue a complete list of these articles, which can now be considered as not having existed." I think that quote should at least be listed with the explanation. The source is: Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry? by De Hoyos and Morris, and the French Wikipedia article on A C de la Rive. It is also described in chapter 4, of the book titled: Rene Guenon and the Future of the West, 1987, by by Robin Waterfield.--Craxd (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I wrote an entire article on AC de la Rive, which is now published. I would like to ask some of the better known Freemason editors on here, to clean it up of the mistakes, and keep an eye on this article too.--Craxd1 (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

A later interview with Taxil
I added the section from the National Magazine, about the quotes from Leo Taxil, before he died. I added a link to the magazines record at external links. If any want to clean this up, please feel free to.--Craxd (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a Wikipedia reviewer, changing these articles at his whim, and they are all on Freemasonry. I advise you to watch this article. If they keep it up, I myself will report them to Wikipedia, and see about having these pages locked. I just had to revert this article, which he has tampered with, regarding the quote from Leo Taxil in National Magazine.--Craxd1 (talk) 10:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The Luciferian quote
I added a link to the new Wikipedia article on Abel Clarin de la Rive. I just finished writing the article, completely sourced. It explains AC de la Rive's direct involvement with Taxil, and the entire truth about what happened.--Craxd1 (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Taxil hoax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070509073926/http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/tv_guide/full_details/World_history/programme_3234.php to http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/tv_guide/full_details/World_history/programme_3234.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060815093041/http://www.srmason-sj.org/web/SRpublications/DeHoyos.htm to http://www.srmason-sj.org/web/SRpublications/DeHoyos.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

This article needs polishing
The section "Taxil and Freemasonry" and its sub-section "Palladists" are a confused mess of redundant information. In the first, it's said "Taxil wrote another book called Le Diable au XIXe siècle (The Devil in the Nineteenth Century), which introduced a new character, Diana Vaughan". First of all, what does "new character" mean? New compared to what? Then the sub-section introduces again a "1892 French book Le Diable au XIXe siècle (The Devil in the 19th Century", 1892)". Now the article starts referring to Taxil as Jogand-Pagès, which is just confusing. Later it references "A supposed Diana Vaughan", which was already introduced before. And now her name links back to the article itself. It feels like these parts are the result of different texts having been patched together. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)