Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obligations in Freemasonry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. A Train take the 09:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obligations in Freemasonry

[edit]

This article is unencyclopedic. All it materially consisted of was a cut and paste from the Internet Sacred Text Archive from a source dating to somewhere in the 1800s, meaning that it is possibly completely inaccurate with respect to modern obligations. Without that, as the article currently stands, there is nothing else to say about the topic that isn't already mentioned in the main Freemasonry article. MSJapan 00:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to closing admin - a number of the users voting delete have an

undisclosed conflict of interest which they should at least voluntarily disclose in their votes. Since they have not done so, you should consider discounting their vote due to this conflict. The following users I beleive to be Freemasons: ALR, Blueboar, MSJapan, Grye, WegianWarrior. Frater Xyzzy 14:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this "accuser" chose to do so anonymously should be noted. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 19:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not undisclosed, they have never hidden the fact that they are masons. Seraphim 17:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clearly disclosed in this AfD. The closing admin shouldn't have to go hunting for the information. Frater Xyzzy 17:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes you happier, I am perfectly happy to "disclose" being a Freemason. Nevertheless it is irrelevant to the debate, which is entirely about Wikipedia policy, and specifically the verifiability of this article. Also, please bear in mind that this is not a vote, but a discussion to try and reach consensus. See WP:AFD. Dave 17:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is very specificly relevant. WP:COI very clearly states that members of an organization should not vote is AfDs related to that organization. Therefore, all votes from Masons should by Wikipedia rules be discounted. The infomation is verifiable to a source, and that is all Wikipedia requires. Frater Xyzzy 17:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The wording on that page is unclear, however if you follow the source to the bottom you will see that "These include, but are not limited to, those posed by edits made by: public relations departments of corporations; or of other public or private for-profit or not-for-profit organisations; or by professional editors paid by said organizations to edit a Wikipedia article with the sole intent of improving that organisation's image". There is no conflict of interest here. Your interpretation of the rules would require that no Wikipedians could alter the article on Wikipedia. Dave 17:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion on the reliability should probably take place on the talk page of the article, but the first couple of paragraphs, which are on the subject of Obligations in Freemasonry are verifiably referenced. The aspect that there is a problem with is self-referential, therefore not inherently verifiable. But that's not the point of this is it?ALR 17:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clear reasons are being given for deletion that have nothing whatsoever to do with Freemasonry, and everything to do with policy. That many voters on this page are Freemasons is only to be expected, given that the article is part of Wikiproject Freemasonry (which obviously attracts Freemasons). Dave 17:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The problems with the 1800s source go beyond being inaccurate with today's masonic rituals. It was not even accurate in respect to any ritual used in the 1800s. While the selection that was cut and pasted conveniently did not include it, another section of the source has Masons swearing to obey the rules and regs of a "General Grand Royal Arch Chapter of the United States of America" - a body which never existed. Without that material, the article is indeed duplicative of the Freemasonry article. And while "secret masonic rituals" may be an interesting or "cool" topic for non-masons, an article that is duplicative of another is unencyclopedic. And before the usual "Keep, but clean up" croud chimes in... the article already says everything that can be said on the topic. There is nothing that could be added to "clean" it up. Blueboar 02:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is well referenced with material dating from 1866 to 1991 Jeepday 03:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I noticed that those voting delete had less then compelling arguments so I took a look at user contributions and noted that some people voting might have other priorities then Wikipidia policy. Just something to consider when discussing the private affairs of large private organization. Jeepday 03:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's nothing valid here which would become more than a stub any time this year or so at least. Taking out what's unsourced etc will make about exactly a section, tyhat of course can always be expanded later, when there is something to cite etc. Grye 06:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided The article looks well-referenced to me and is obviously more than a simple cut-and-paste. However - I'm not going to every source to verify it and I don't know the subject enough to just read it and say offhand that it is untruthful swill. The delete comment above looks compelling, but unfortunately the nom and comments look like they want the article deleted as a partisan issue. SchmuckyTheCat 07:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Schmucky, The article itself is not a simple cut and paste, just the quotations taken from sacredtexts.com (now deleted). Nor is the article (as it currently stands) untruthful swill. The current material is actually very well referenced and factual. The issue is that it is duplicative of material that is already presented elsewhere. Blueboar 14:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Jeepday. the 1800s book isn't the only source used. Mgm|(talk) 12:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore texts. Even if the alleged oaths of Freemasons are a hoax or inaccurate, they are nevertheless published and highly noteworthy. If they are false or obsolete, the simple solution is to add true and current versions. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's precisely the trouble - there is no true and current version, because there is no one single universal Masonic ritual. It is decided upon individually by each Grand Lodge. There are always going to be differences, and there's no one obligation that takes precedence as "correct". People are constantly going to be debating on this, changing the article so it matches what they know. If this article material exists on ISTA, why simply duplicate it here? This is not WP's purpose, and there's nothing that can be said that isn't already mentioned in the main Freemasonry article. I fail to see the encyclopedic value in this article, which is why I put it up for AfD. MSJapan 19:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the problem that Masonic rituals have traditionally been unpublished. The few versions that have been published are all like the source that was deleted from the article: they are either outdated, unverifiable, demonstratibly wrong, or proven hoaxes. Blueboar 20:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just point out that you should have picked up that there is a reference to at least one current set of obligations and given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a repository of source material, then it's inappropriate to copy that verbatim.ALR 23:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand what you are getting at, but you cannot republish current, verifiable versions as to do such would be a gross breach of copyright. I am breaching no masonic rule when I tell you that they were last majorly revised (under UGLE juristriction) in 1986, and can perfectly legitimately be found within this book, if you are willing to pay £12. I cannot speak for other juristrictions. To reiterate, these are not secrets and so there is no reason why masons would be trying to hide them. The versions given on the article are not at all verifiable, and so should be removed. Once they are removed, there is nothing in this article that isn't in the freemasonry article. Therefore, the article should be deleted. Dave 21:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article is clearly encyclopedic, no valid reasons given for deletion. Also agree with Smerdis of Tlön that texts should be restored. Jefferson Anderson 16:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - striking my vote, since an IP which has commented in this AfD has now been accused of being a user who has previously been falsely accused and blocked as a sockpuppet of mine. I want not even the slightest appearance of vote stacking. Jefferson Anderson 21:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - it was a (now banned) sockpuppet of the above user who created this article. See [1] Dave 21:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Further note - that's alleged sockpuppet who was inappropiately blocked because he used to edit from the same place of employment as I do. I've been following this and have withdrawn my vote because I don't want to be inappropriately blocked again for the actions of another person. Jefferson Anderson 21:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The fact that the article's content was removed with a reason that was a complete lie, and then immediatly put up for deletion once the content was gutted, should be a red flag to any administrator watching this page. This edit on the talk page that justifies the removal of all that material as a "copy vio" is a blatant lie, it's hard to WP:AGF when an editor does something so obvious as this. It's copy pasted content from a Public Domain book, it's avaliable for all to easially see by going to a website, the text is there letter for letter and puncuation for puncuation, yet somehow the editor decided that they don't match up. The editor who removed the material then put up a prod with a reason "The article was intended as a crude "exposure", and without the copyvio that entailed, the article does not say very much, nor is there much to be said that is not already included

in the main Freemasonry article.". Now that there is no copy vio his reason for AFD'ing the article is null and void. Seraphim 22:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to comment on this... If you check the edit history, the nominator waited a full week between removing the disputed text and prodding the article. Blueboar 00:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFD/Prod brings attention to the page, I never knew MSJ did that before this came to my attention. Also the fact that a week passed doesn't change the fact that his original basis for posting the AFD is now completly null and void, since his "copy vio" is provably not a copy vio. Seraphim 02:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So he had more than one basis for nominating it, that just indicates that there is more than one reason to delete. Blueboar 03:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The article content itself doesn't appear to add anything to the existing portfolio and appears to be a vehicle to bear un-representative material. The explanation given already indicates why the padding is superfluous and inaccurate, providing a reference for contemporary material. I suppose there could be potential to expand into a discussion of obligations in general, perhaps including material about the promises one makes when being baptised and confirmed in the Christian church etc, but without this broadening it's an de-contextualised section from elsewhere which doesn't say anything more than is already explained in context.ALR 23:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As articulated by User:Blueboar, the only material that remains after removal of all that is non sourced is duplication of article content found elsewhere upon wikipedia. Dave 00:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Blueboar and others and redirect to main Freemasonry article - without the alleged (and I've yet to see any proof it is accurate, or was/is used by any masonic body) obligations, nothing here that isn't covered allready in main article. As to the wisdom of including alleged obligations without any proof to it's accuracy... I feel that goes against WP:V, but others milage may vary. WegianWarrior 07:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if only source for full reproductions of obligations is Sacred Texts Archive, then we have a few problems: first of all, ISTA is currently being looked at for a number of copyright violations by the heirs of some author's whose work is on ST. This makes Sacred Texts, as a source, a poor choice. Secondly, given that all jurisdictions use their own version of the ritual, there is no way for the article to be a comprehensive encylopedic look at it. All that can bee said, if direct quotes are given, is that "This is what Duncan's says the obligations are. What the actual versions as used by various jurisidictions are, is speculative and original research."--Vidkun 17:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment both objections are spurious. As Duncan's was first published in 1866, there is no possibility that it is still protected by copyright. Also, it is available in print as well as from ST. ST provides a convenient source for instant verification. Two, Masonic editors keep removing or revising two sources which say that Duncan's is still in use in some Prince Hall jurisdictions, particualar Missouri. Frater Xyzzy 17:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment neither objection is spurious. Sacred texts as a website should not be used because of the ongoing copyright issues on various other items. I'm well aware that Duncan's is public domain, however, WP:EL has commentary about not linking to sites which reproduce copyrighted material. ST themselves say they can't get copyright clearances on some of the stuff they reproduce, thus disqualifying them as a source for wikipedia. And as for the second, you can show that one Masonic author claims the PHA Missouri uses Duncan's. Can you prove that any other one does? If not, why not title the article "Obligations of Freemasonry from Duncan's exposé, as used by PHA MO"? why aren't you trying to include the material from "Three Distinct Knocks" or "Jachin and Boaz", which would easily show that, among the exposés there is disagreement on what the obligations are.--Vidkun 17:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment not that's TOTAL BS. WP is a collaborative project. I have access to certain material, which I am using. If you have access to other material, then use it. Don't tell me to do more than I choose to. Frater Xyzzy 17:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it does seem well referenced, and the reasons for deletion don't seem enough to overcome them. —siroχo 21:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jeepday, Smerdis of Tlon, Seraphim, and siro. Disclosure: I started the article. Frater Xyzzy 15:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a vote for you:

[edit]

A plague on both your houses. The anti-masons are so desparate to include whatever material they can - as such, they are constantly creating articles like this one that are basically crufty crap but refrenced. The masons are so desparate to hide whatever stupid secrets they have that they are constantly flying right off the handle with what amounts to serial revert-wars and mass procedural attacks on anything that purports to reveal the sooper sekrits. Yet another case where if I was in charge, I'd get rid of each and every one of you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input... Dave 22:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I've mentioned on the article talk page, I am not anti-Masonic. Nor do I see any evidence that any of the editors voting to keep the article are doing so for anti-Masonic reasons... Frater Xyzzy 22:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There may a dichotomy at play, but not it's probably not that simple. Whatever it is, it's obnoxious. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge per Hipocrite. Edit wars aren't a prerequisite for deletion. Just H 15:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment' They weren't. MSJapan 02:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I think the article breaks up the rather lengthy Freemasonry article and provides a sample of obligations. Concerns expressed about the validity of the obligations shown and their applicability universally should be adequately described in the article. Bdevoe 22:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Obligations_in_Freemasonry&oldid=1069639152"