Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-30 Freemasonry

Who are the involved parties?
Blueboar & ALR. Against adding a reference to sectret Masonic words.

Dr who1975. Added a reference with a citation to a book on Amazon.com.

What's going on?
Blueboar claims this is not a valid source.
 * First, I said nothing of the sort... that was another editor. However... second, I agree with that editor.  The citation is not a reliable source. It is a) to the Amazon.com web page and not the book itself and b) even the book is apparently written and published by "annonymous".
 * I also have to question why this editor did not raise these issues on the article talk page and ask why his edits were being reverted prior to jumping immediately to Mediation. Blueboar 18:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not required to put it on the talk page, however, I'll be happy to raise it on the talk page. I'd still be curious to see what the mediator says here before I do that.--Dr who1975 18:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The information that Dr who1975 is adding is old information, and not applicable in most instances of freemasonry. The article on freemasonry is a hotly contested article often resulting in edit wars over content, and pages of discussion on what should be included. The current consensus is to keep the article on freemasonry as a global topic, not an individual topic. The information that Dr who is adding is only locally pertinent information. There are many many citations that explain through the evolution of freemasonry, how each jurisdictions grand lodge can do whatever they want with the rituals, pass's and signs. It is my belief that the more recent citations should take precedence of something that was historically accurate (it was probably accurate at the time of writing hundereds of years ago), however has changed today. Dr who1975 as far as I know made no formal attempts to discuss this on the talk page before bringing this here. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * yes... but we've discussed in great detail since you posted this haven't we.--Dr who1975 19:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I still agree with what I have said above, along with most other people participating in the discussion. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I just don;t want people reading this to think that I'm unaproachable for discussion... that;s all.--Dr who1975 19:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, about that, I agree Drwho 1975 has made great strides in attempting to discuss this after it was brought up on his talk page. He has made every effort to be civil and discuss. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. I give up. I will no longer attempt to put the secret masonic word Mahabone on that page.--Dr who1975 19:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?
I would like my source to be accepted as valid and for the information to remain. Third party recommendation. Altenratively, I'd like to know more about what would constitute a valid source so that I can locate one.

For the time being, I have given up this cause so I guess this issue can be closed. I would be curious to see what happened once I find an acceptable source. Maybe we can discuss hypotheticals but if you prefer... we can close this dispute. Mahabone to you.--Dr who1975 23:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Administrative notes
Closing this case as the requestor has withdrawn the request. It appears the disputants have already agreed to a solution.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)