Jump to content

Talk:Masonic conspiracy theories

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archived

[edit]

Discussions from 2/6/09 - 2/7/07 moved to Archive 6

Title

[edit]

The title may or may not be NPOV, but I think it's too ambiguous. However, I don't know much about conspiracy theory. What does everyone else think? Rustyfence (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title is neither POV, nor ambiguous in a practical sense. It means theories about Masonic conspiracies since Masons don't have conspiracy theories. It's like "presidential assassination theories"--presidents don't have assassination theories so it must refer to theories about presidential assassinations in any neutral reading. (Taivo (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Agree with Taivo. This has been discussed before. While the english phrase "masonic conspiracy theories" could mean either "theories about a Masonic conspiracy" or "conspiracy theories belonging to the Masons", the opening sentence of the article quickly establishes which of these possibilities we are talking about. The only reason to disabiguate would be if someone wanted to write an article on the second meaning ("conspiracy theories belonging to the Masons"). Since that is highly unlikely (as there are no conspiracy theories belonging to the Masons), we don't need to worry about disabiguating. Blueboar (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the title suggest that the theme of this article is conspiracy theories about masonry, than it describes an actual criminal conspiracy that happened in italy (propaganda due) and that the italian masonry lodge participated in.188.129.83.114 (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC) 17.9.2015[reply]

Conspiracy theorists love the P2 scandal... because it does involve an actual conspiracy ... onto which whole bunch of unsubstantiated claims (mostly of the NWO variety) can be grafted. Separating what is fact from what is unsubstantiated claim can be difficult... which means it is fertile ground for conspiracy theorists. Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

cutting the M-A-S-O-N image

[edit]

-

Illustration showing the reverse of the Great Seal of the United States found on the $1 bill - with lines linked to read M-A-S-O-N, although it can just as easily be read as one of 120 possible letter combinations.
Illustration showing the reverse of the Great Seal of the United States found on the $1 bill - with lines linked to read M-A-S-O-N, although it can just as easily be read as one of 120 possible letter combinations.

I am cutting the image of the reverse of the Great Seal of the US with the red hexogram on it... there are just too many errors. It simply does not illustrate what the caption claims it illustrates. Note the lines going down the sides of the pyramid (especially the one on the right side)... they had to fudge them to make it even come close to the designated letters... heck, even as drawn, the vertexes come closer to other letters than the ones stated in the caption. Try it with the official version of the seal and it does not work at all. Blueboar (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't noticed that. That is pretty bad - the only reason A and S line up is because they're on the same plane, and the circled letters are way out of alignment with the triangle. Fundamentally speaking, if you draw lines like that on a real dollar bill, you could cross any ten letters you wanted because of the relative size of the pen and the dollar. MSJapan (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be merged with Freemasonry

[edit]

This article is not very long, and I think it would be better to merge it with Freemasonry than have an entire separate article for it. All it consists of is a list of different conspiracy theories relating to the Masons. It would definitely help the Freemasonry article if it were merged into it, though. Xhaoz Talk 23:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merging. The main Freemasonry article is overly long as it is (which was why this sub-topic was split off from it). Also, if this article was to be merged with anything, I would think it would be the article on Anti-Masonry. However, I would resist that as well. I think this is a valid topic in its own right. Blueboar (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. The conspiracy theories are not part of Freemasonry, they are a separate and notable cultural artifact. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If merged with anything, they should be merged with other conspiracy theories since they share the same origin. (Taivo (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
What other conspiracy theories are you talking about Tavio? Blueboar (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "generic" non-Masonic theories like "The moon landings were faked", "The Air Force is hiding UFOs", etc. (Taivo (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Xhaoz, what do you think is poorly presented? We may be able to help resolve your issues. Blueboar (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's going to be a case of adding "this is really true because...", and I really don't think we want to get into weighing pros and cons in here. We should only be presenting the existence of the theories, not why they're right or wrong. MSJapan (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Xhaoz... If your idea of "somewhat more presentable" is to add this, we have a problem. The material is cited to a personal webpage and there is no indication that anyone but the author believes the theory. While this article is, in many ways, about Fringe theories, WP:FRINGE indicates that to include a particular theory it does have to be at least somewhat notable. That means demonstrating that more than one person actually adheres to the theory. I have reverted the edit. Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, what I MEANT was that we could perhaps make the article longer and not just one opening paragraph and one section with three bulleted subsections. There isn't a whole lot of information in this article. But whatever, give me a little while and I might be able to either expand the article or get someone to help me expand the article.
And to Blueboar: No, adding that source was not my idea of expanding the article. I just thought it might be a good addition. But if not I'll leave it out (I'm a little new here, so I'm still in the process of learning about citing sources and what not to include in articles, because up until now, all I've been doing is reverting vandalism). Xhaoz Talk 23:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification Xhaoz. Expanding the article is a laudible goal... however, it does have to be done with care. Before you start, please take some time to read through the archives of this talk page and to look through the article history. There are reasons why this article is as short as it is, and why it takes the structure it does. This is a conrtovercial topic, and those of us who have worked on the article have struggled for a long time to achieve a neutral presentation of the material. We don't want to lose that. So... please feel free to suggest additions or changes, but also don't be offended if someone objects. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, no problem. Well, the first thing I can suggest is that it needs more information related to the history and origins of these theories. There isn't very much right now, except for a few mentions in the opening paragraph. Xhaoz Talk • Contribs 23:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The hard part about that is finding reliable sources to support such information. But you are welcome to try.Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemian Grove

[edit]

I took out the bit that says Freemasons meet at the Bohemian Grove for two reasons:

To me, either of these is enough to dump that bit. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Bohemian Grove is not the same as the Freemasons... but the theory is that they are connected. the theory is that freemasons use the meetings at BG to contact and influence politicos. Whenter that is true or not is irrelevant. I happen to agree that the websites are created by wackos... most conspiracy sites are. That is irrelevant as well.
This article is about the various conspiracy theories in existance that involve the Freemasons. This is one of them (a fairly common one), so it is appropriate to discuss it in this article. Conspiracy theories don't have to be true (or even remotely likely) to exist and be discussed. The fact is, some people out there believe this stuff, and so we report their belief. We are not saying that it is true. We are mearly reporting that the theory exists. Blueboar (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A newspaper reporter investigating to say that the theory exists would definitely use those websites. At Wikipedia, we need to have third party sources evaluate the websites so that we can quote their opinion about which ones are notable. The word 'exists' in Wikipedia context means 'is notable'. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for notability... this Google search gets some 50,000 hits... for more reliably published sources, try: this Google Books search. The theory is discussed repeatedly by multiple sources. When discribing a theory, it is acceptable (in fact, it is preferable) to cite those who hold the theory (ie primary sources)... if we were to say that the theory was true (or false ... or comment upon the theory in any other way) then you would be correct. But not when mearly discribing the theory.
I don't mean to be abrupt... but please look back through the archives of this page... This issue (or ones very similar) has been discussed multiple times before... it had gone to RFC, and has had multiple admins review it and comment upon it. I would prefer not to have to go through all the arguments again. Blueboar (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read all the way back to Archive 1 where this exact question was brought up in 2007 and to my eyes it appears that Relata refero, ALR, EdJohnston and Elonka were all on the side of ditching the nutter URLs in favor of finding reliable sources. On your side was... you. The resulting consensus of that RFC apparently didn't ever take. Why?
Your google and googlebooks searches prove my point. Such searches are just the beginning a reporter's slog through sources to find the best ones; the sources would have to be qualified for notability. Why aren't you using the books themselves, the ones found in your search?
None of these books say that the Bohemian Grove is where Freemasons go to worship an owl statue. None of these books evaluate the wacky websites. Perhaps a magazine or newspaper source would do that—I haven't searched for that. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have not cited these books because I have not read them (and citing something you have not read is dishonest) ... I have, on the other hand, read the websites that are cited. Look, I agree that the idea that Freemasons go to Bohemian Grove to conspire with the powerful and worship an owl is bunk. In fact, as a Freemason myself, I think (no... I know) that ALL of these conspiracy theories are bunk. Unfortunately, what I think or know is irrelevant. This is an article about what conspiracy theorists say about the Freemasons. One of the things they say is that Freemasons go to Bohemian Grove to meet with the rich and powerful... and while there they worship an owl. All we are doing is reporting that they say it. We may consider them nutters, but what we think is irrelevant.
I understand your desire to debunk or omit this... but that is not the purpose of this article. Anti-masonic conspiracy theorists would love to fill the article with every minor "fact" that might concievably "prove" that all of this is "true".... we tell them the same thing: that is not the purpose of this article. The purpose of this article is to simply to report that the conspiracy theories exist and give a summary of what the more common ones say. To go any further, one way or the other, would drag this article into a mire of POV. As it is, it is a carefully crafted article that has to be constantly monitored for neutrality. Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Monitoring it for neutrality is a good thing. Keeping out POV is a good thing. What's left undone is monitoring for WP:WEIGHT. The raw URLs are not appropriate here. What's appropriate is for us to repeat what reliable sources say about the fringe theories. Again, the word 'exist' doesn't mean the same thing here on Wikipedia that it does in real life. My left foot exists, but we don't write about it. When something becomes notable, it rises above the background noise and becomes worthy of mention here. It then exists for us. I fear a number of the URLs used in this article are merely part of the noise. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes the sheer volume of background noise is notable in itself... if it all says essentially the same thing. This is why I posted the google search results. It goes to show that this theory is not limited to just a few nutters... but is repeated by a lot of nutters. If there were thousands of websites out there, all discussing a Masonic conspiracy involving your left foot, then it would be quite appropriate to summarize that conspiracy theory in this article and to pick a few examples of these websites as citations. Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would not. Picking a few examples as citations doesn't establish notability or determine weight. You're taking the role of newspaper reporter by selecting examples. Our encyclopedic role is one of relaying what the newspaper reporters uncover. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then we are in radical disagreement, and must look to others to break our impass.
With that in mind... let me outline my rational on this... first, we should not be talking about Notability ... Notability on wikipedia relates to article topics as a whole, not individual statements within an article (see WP:NOTE). This article clearly establishes that Masonic conspiracy theories, as a topic, is notable (pointing to multiple third party reliable sources that discuss the topic).
Now, The closest policy statement that we have for the notability of individual statements is WP:UNDUE. Here, the determining factor is how prominent a view point is within the context of the article's topic (in this case, how prominent a particular Conspiracy theory is.). Given the sheer number of conspiracy websites that discuss a theorized connection between the Freemasons and Bohemian Grove (as demonstrated by the Google search), it is clearly a very prominent theory. Lots of people discuss it. So... there is no WP:UNDUE issue in simply mentioning that this theory exists.
Since we say that this theory exists... we must (according to WP:V) include at least one citation to demonstrate that the theory exists. Which citations are chosen to demonstrate this fact is something of an editorial discision. Now, WP:RS asks for the most reliable sources possible for any statement that is made, and I agree that the sources chosen are not the most reliable. So... if you can come up with sources for this claim that are more reliable than the ones chosen... feel free to swap them out.
If that source (or those sources) happen to debunk the theory (as opposed to a source that spouts the theory), so much the better as far as I am concerned. The point is... NPOV demands that the theory be mentioned in this article. I am quite willing to discuss wording, and improvement of citations... but I am strongly opposed to simply removing it. Blueboar (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Blueboar. Just because the earth is demonstrably round doesn't mean that we do not mention that there is a Flat Earth Theory. These conspiracy theories exist, including the Bohemian Grove theory. This article doesn't make any claims of their accuracy. (Taivo (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
There is actually a notable Flat Earth Theory as expounded by the Flat Earth Society, heh heh...  ;^) Back to this article, the claims "don't exist for us" if a secondary source doesn't acknowledge them. Per WP:PSTS, we have Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. A self-published website isn't reliable. Continuing, Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Listing a self-published website URL is interpreting it as notable. We can't do that without a secondary source saying it's notable. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims... We can say that David John Stewart publishes the www.jesus-is-savior.com website and says blah blah blah, but Stewart or his ideas would have to be acknowledged as notable by some secondary source for us to list any of his theories here. Binksternet (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims". That is all that is being done here--"The Bohemian Grove theory exists". There isn't some magic number or level of evidence that is necessary in order to say that something exists. My question is, "What is your stake in this?" Why are you so bent on eliminating one bullet in a list of unproven wacko beliefs? All these things are WP:FRINGE anyway, IMHO. (Taivo (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

This discussion topic resulted from a search I was doing on the words Bohemian and Grove, to see if any of them needed to be linked or tweaked. Once I got here, I saw that shitty URLs were being used as references near "Bohemian Grove", so I took them out. Now that we are deep in discussion about the understanding of what is and what is not notable, and about the use of primary and secondary sources, I am aiming for the whole article, not just the one line. Binksternet (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tavio makes my point better than I did... This article does use reliable secondary sources (Hodapp, Addison, Morris, etc.) in talking about Masonic conspiracy theories in general terms. These sources establish that the topic of Masonic conspiracy theories is notable, and that these theories fall into various types. Having established that, we then go on to describe some of the more common theories that fall into each type, citing examples of websites that propose the particular theory. We purposly don't include any interpretation of the theories. In other words, we are using the self-published, primary sources that you object to exactly as the policy says... to support a descriptive statement and no more. That said, I agree that if we can find a reliable secondary source for this description, that would be even better... but that means swapping citation, not removing the entire paragraph. As it is, we are using the websites Binksternet objects to in accordance with policy. Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masonic ritual abuse

[edit]

I remember reading a fairly old book from the 1800s which claimed of ritual abuse of underaged girls during Masonic ritual ceremonies. There were even American Presidents that had allegedly been invited to these occult ceremonies at the lodges of the Grand Orient of France in Paris. Part of this claim obviously implies the widespread conspiratorial belief that Masons are crypto-Satanists. In any case, it would be interesting if the article were able to find links between conspiracy theories about secret societies such as the Freemasons and modern allegations of Satanic ritual abuse. ADM (talk) 05:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly can not mention it based on "I remember reading an old book"... that would be OR. I suspect that the book you are thinking of might be either Devil in the Nineteenth Century, by Leo Taxil, or Mémoires d'une Ex-Palladiste Parfaite Initiée, by Miss Diana Vaughan. If so... I suggest you read up on the Taxil hoax.
In any case, the claim that Freemasons worship Satan is certainly made today by many conspiracy theorists today (although without the bit about abusing underaged girls). We already mention it in the article. Blueboar (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, basically, anyone who says something about Free Masonry that is not 100% positive is a conspiracy theorist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.14.126 (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why has no one mentioned this on Wikipedia? The world should be warned.

[edit]

According to Christopher Hodapp, the Masons have new competition in their conspiracy to control the world. There is new evidence from arial photography of Washington DC... See: this posting on his blog. (I am suddenly seeing the cartoon strip Peanuts in a whole new light).  :>) Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but Snoopy was a Christian beagle and not a Satanic dachshund! "Beagle" is even a good English word (from Old French), while "dachshund" is German! (Godwin's Law!) (Taivo (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
That won't stop a good conspiracy theory... Snoopy was obviously realy a dachshund... after all he was created by Charles Schultz (a German name). Notice how he was always being shot down by the Red Barron? An attempt to plant defeatist notions in the minds of God fearing American children (if Snoopy can't defeat the Red Barron, can you resist Satan?) See... more proof... Plus, if you add up the letters in the phrase "Good Grief", devide by 13, add 33, multiply by 76 (the year Linus was Pope... another clue) you end up with ... ok, I haven't figured that part out yet... but I bet it comes to something very very sinister and predicted by Nostradamus (who obviously must have owned a dachshund). It's all true I tell you, TRUE! Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've got it! The result is 2560.615..., which if you truncate the fraction is 2560. Add the decimals and you get 13, the day on which the Templars were arrested! Then if you take that, add the decimals of 615 to it, you get 7, the holy number! Obviously, it's an attempt to claim that the Angry Dachshund is the Great Architect of the Universe! (Taivo (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Oooh... Masons and Dachshunds all in one theory! Perfect!. Blueboar (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GREETINGS

[edit]
  • Greetings and salutations brothers, (and sisters), from Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Great article by the way. Not too sure if this should be included but rumour has it that the Ringling Brothers were freemasons as well. you know what they say, "Too many Circuses and not enough freaks." Best Regard! ;)  Nhl4hamilton | Chit-Chat  04:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting info, but it's not really a conspiracy theory, so I don't think it fits in this article. However, if we can find a reliable source for their membership, we could add them to the List of Freemasons. Blueboar (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hodapp, Freemasons for Dummies, pg. 291, "The Ringling Brothers: All seven of them". (Taivo (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Hodapp is certainly reliable. Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV problems

[edit]

Undue weight (WP:UNDUE) given to outlandish conspiracy theories (WP:FRINGE) compared to reasonable concerns an outsider might have, such as institutional corruption or subversion by fraternal organizations (or mutual benefit societies, or societies with secrets, or whatever you're calling them this week).

Perhaps this article could be renamed to "outlandish masonic conspiracy theories", or "disinformation about masonic conspiracies"?

It doesn't help that in the sections immediately preceding this one, there are Masons crowing about howlers they or their associates have dug up. Ironically, a source used on this very page to combat some sources of misinformation about Freemasonry (the Taxil hoax) also supports the contention that some Masons deliberately promote wild conspiracy theories about Freemasonry so as to discredit their critics.

This article and its discussion page make me want to wash the slime off my computer's screen. Jeremystalked T C 10:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy, this article is about those very wild, outlandish conspiracy theories that you complain about. This is the place to list them. --Taivo (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, this article goes out of its way to discuss such theories without POV. It consciously refuses to discuss whether these claims are true or false... valid or not. It neutrally lays out the most commonly made claims, without commentary. You can not get more neutral than that. Blueboar (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the place to list "very wild, outlandish conspiracy theories". The article should be about the phenomena of Masonic conspiracy theories. What is the history of Conspiracy theories, what are the academic theories behind why Freemasonry attracts so many conspiracy theories, what has been the cultural impact of these. To be fair the article is not entirely devoted to the listing that Taivo is so fond of, but the listing is problematic. JASpencer (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reptilian claim

[edit]

The theory most definitely exists... just search Google for "Freemasons Reptilian". The theory was first proposed by David Ickes, but there are a lot of other conspiracy websites that repeat the claim. Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern was whether or not it was a one-off website. If it's been repeated, however... Damn, it hate it when it's time to shed my old scales. The new ones are always so tender for a couple of days. --Taivo (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just lay under the sunlamp for a while. It always makes me feel better. PeRshGo (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absent a reliable source, it shouldn't exist as a part of any article here. --Nouniquenames 03:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability depends on the context of how a source is used in an article... ie does the source verify the specific statement in our article. The statement in our article is simply that the claim is made. In that context, a primary source that actually makes the claim IS a reliable source (in fact, a primary source that actually makes the claim is the most reliable source you can get for a statement saying that a claim has been made). It would be different if we were saying that the claim was true (or false)... then the primary source would not be reliable and we would need a secondary source.
Essentially this is like citing a quote... the most reliable source is the original document where the quote came from. Blueboar (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abovetopsecret forums is OK for background research on usage but this is not a reliable source in an article. (1) it's a conspiracy site and (2) it's a forum. That's why I'm getting rid of this. JASpencer (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted it and replaced it with a link to a Time article mentioning David Icke as the proponent of this 'theory'.  Natty10000 | Natter  22:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I've reworded it to actually fit in with the source. JASpencer (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I understand this is a related topic to Masons but most of them are rumors and the links are from pages with poor or no facts. My point is, there could be millions of conspiracy theories based solely on rumors and I don't know if that deserves a wiki page. Even, David Icke interviews as source is not enough taking in consideration his source is imagination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.161.4.105 (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Icke has become notable enough that his theories have to be covered. We don't say they are true... we just neutrally note that they exist. Blueboar (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References are not reliable sources

[edit]

Many of the references on this page are random conspiracy blogs. One of them that I checked out was so bad that it managed to assert that everything from the Dodge Ram logo to the Microsoft Windows logo were Masonic with no more proof than their containing elements that the author associated with Freemasonry (such as a ram or 13 of something). Ultimately, I think that the conspiracy theories section on the Anti-Masonry page contains everything that can be verified from this page, so why do we need the sub-article anyway? -Miskaton (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the archives will give some understanding as to why this article was created and why the references go to the kind of places they go. If this article is needed now is a different discussion entirely - personally I wont be sad to see it go, as long as we can keep the madness from the main articles. WegianWarrior (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to note that the purpose of this article is to outline what conspiracy theorists believe ... It carefully avoids saying anything about whether those beliefs are true (or false). In that context, the references cited actually are reliable. After all, when it comes to verifying a statement that someone believes X or Y, the most reliable source you can get is a Primary Source where they state X or Y.
Now... If the article did attempt to say that X or Y were true (or false), then we would need a reliable Secondary Source to support that statement (and I would completely agree that the sources currently cited are not reliable secondary sources). However, as used, they are quite acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this page doesn't discriminate between notable conspiracy theories (eg, that Freemasonry was behind the French Revolution) and non-notable theories (most things involving UFOs). It looks like a bit of a point and laugh exercise (although that was probably not the intent). Freemasonry attracts a lot of conspiracy theories and this should be dealt with - but not as an undifferentiated list. JASpencer (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was argued some years back - archives 3, 4, or 5 I think - that determining which conspiracy theories are more notable than others would require a fair bit of OR. Most reliable sources wouldn't touch the subject of what conspiracy theories are more or less notable (or sane) with a ten foot pole. WegianWarrior (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party thought piece on the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy

[edit]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Masonic conspiracy theories. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Masonic conspiracy theories. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever is trying to put a link to a youtube video into the article proper:

[edit]

Youtube is not a citable source, moreover, Wikipedia is NOT about "proof". We aren't supposed to prove anything. Don't add that again. Your edits were contested and you can discuss them here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepe Oats (talk • contribs) 13:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is overall non-sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.14.126 (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the revert by Pepe Oats: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Masonic_conspiracy_theories&diff=861579213&oldid=861579100 and the link to occult symbols being inserted into a national US Television broadcast of a baseball game https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X28ouoVHy_c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.14.126 (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now, what we shall do is examine whether any of these symbols are in any way connected with Free Masonry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.14.126 (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone able or willing to examine this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.14.126 (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not our job to examine youtube videos, or to make conclusions. Wikipedia isn't a place for Original Research, and OR cannot be put into the article. Moreover, a youtube video is not a citable, nor notable, source. Pepe Oats (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is your job to examine any piece of information you are given. 1000 reasons for this - one of them is Wikipedia adding the phlegmatic if not hypocritical "conspiracy theory" tag to any subject differing official versions of things. Apart from the youtube still containing the fact of masonic occult symbols inserted into a nation-wide US TV broadcast, A citable book on the subject might be this one: https://www.amazon.com/Masonic-Occult-Symbols-Illustrated-Cathy/dp/1891117122 If you or anyone else is interested in the truth, rather than other motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.21.145 (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check the book out, however, it actually isn't our job to examine any piece of info given. Notability is a big requirement, and YouTube isn't notable. Moreover, conspiracy is the accurate word to describe the theories that are being put here. We don't try to prove or disprove tgem, because Wikipedia isn't about proof. We look at reliable sources and I record information. Pepe Oats (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Book: "The Brotherhood: The Secret World of the Freemasons"

[edit]

https://www.amazon.com/Brotherhood-Secret-World-Freemasons/dp/0880291133/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1538232940&sr=8-1&keywords=the+brotherhood+stephen+knight

quotes:

"Stephen Knight made a very good investigation of the Freemasons. His book is very open minded, and is more of a presentation of facts than it is drawing conclusions."

"The book has a good reputation, and I can see by the quotes, etc. that Stephen put a lot into this. I believe because of this his work is truthful. However, it was not quite what I was looking for. I was looking more for an explanation of actually what the Freemasons do in their secret world, and what some of their rituals entail. The book was more about proving favouratism and thereby corruption, in the main institutions of Britain by the Freemasons."

"This book was excellent to say the least. The author did a great job at presenting valid sources and documentation. He also did a great job at staying unbiased. Its too bad he died a year after the book was published." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.21.145 (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

The edits being pushed concerning John Adams and his son do not belong here in the first place, but in the Anti-Masonry article. Moreover, it's in the wrong tense.Pepe Oats (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several issues with the edit... 1) the text of the edit is simply cut and pasted from the cited source (and is thus a WP:COPYVIO)... 2) the cited source from which it was copied (refree.com/2013/10/the-complete-history-of-freemasonry-and.html here) is hardly reliable ... 3) the cut and pasted text is factually inaccurate - while John Quincy Adams was an anti-mason (and is accurately quoted), his comments are taken out of context... they do not relate to the 1796 election at all, nor to his father John Adams. J.Q. Adam's remarks date from 1833, and are in response to the Morgan Affair. Freemasonry was not a major issue in the 1796 election, and John Adams did not win the Presidency by opposing Freemasonry - Indeed the only time John Adams ever publicly expressed a view on Freemasonry was in a letter to the Grand Master of Maryland in which he was guardedly positive in his comments.
So... I don't really think the edits in question should be added anywhere... here, or at the Anti-Masonry article. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason for the John Q. Adams quote to be placed in the article on masonic conspiracy theories, as the quote is not about conspiracies, but moral wrong. The quote is just generic anti-masonry, not anti-masonic conspiracy. Pepe Oats (talk) 07:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.ylmasons.com/faq/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sam Sailor 06:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources become reliable...?

[edit]

I disagree that patently unreliable sources can be cited as such in this article. Sure, I can cite a mess o' blogs to prove that conspiracy theories are believed, but this is Wikipedia and we base our articles not on unreliable blogs and user-generated sites but upon reliably published secondary sources. Unreliable sources have no place here. Elizium23 (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of sources depends on the context of why you are citing them (or what information you are verifing when you cite them). Sources that are unreliable in one context can be reliable in another context.
For example, a work of fiction would normally not be reliable… BUT it is reliable for verifying the plot of that work of fiction. In this context it is the Primary Source for that plot (and actually is the most reliable source for the plot).
In the context of this article, we cite some sources that would be completely unreliable IF we said “Freemasons did X”… but we don’t. We say “One theory is that Freemasons did X”. By citing the sources, we are verifying that these nutty theories do in fact exist, and are not just made up by Wikipedia. In other words, we are citing the primary sources.
It might help if you think about the claims listed in this article as being several works of fiction, and that we are verifying the plots of these fictional stories by citing the original works themselves (as the primary sources). Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because some independently-published crackpot blog features a theory doesn't, in my mind, even prove that it exists. I am not sure how that follows. Wouldn't we require reliably-published secondary sources to document the existence of something, even a conspiracy theory or fringe idea? Elizium23 (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point… consider an article about “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone”… it might have a brief description of what the book was about (a plot summary). While the book itself would not be a reliable source in any other context (it is a work of fiction), it is reliable in that one, limited context. Indeed there is no source that is more reliable in that specific context. Blueboar (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasons at "other space agencies"

[edit]

I don't think that the allegation of Freemasons being involved in "other space agencies" other than NASA is a case of saying that the "sky is blue" and it is very definitely missing from the cited source. @Partofthemachine, please provide a reliable secondary source for your claim, the WP:BURDEN is on you! Elizium23 (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Partofthemachine, you've re-added your claim a 3rd time (WP:EW) but your source fails to mention space agencies at all. What gives, man? Just either give a source or wait. Elizium23 (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Masonic_conspiracy_theories&oldid=1238183507"