Talk:Freemason - Revision history

Tannhaus at 02:20, 4 December 2006

2006-12-04T02:20:06Z

Treefunk at 22:18, 3 December 2006

2006-12-03T22:18:01Z

Tannhaus at 21:02, 3 December 2006

2006-12-03T21:02:53Z

OwenIsCool at 20:35, 3 December 2006

2006-12-03T20:35:31Z

Tannhaus at 20:31, 3 December 2006

2006-12-03T20:31:48Z

Tannhaus at 20:23, 3 December 2006

2006-12-03T20:23:30Z

New page

This article is inflammatory and does nothing but attack Freemasons. I am not a Freemason. But, the rituals of freemasonry have been published. It's easy enough to get a copy of Albert Pike's "Morals and Dogma" to see that this person's "comment" is complete rubbish.

I definitely don't think a comment should be added to a lgpedia page unless it contributes significantly to the article. This comment in no way does and is inflammatory/nonfactual.--[[User:Tannhaus|Tannhaus]] 14:23, 3 December 2006 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:20, 4 December 2006
Line 8:		Line 8:

	Nice job Tannhaus! --[[User:Treefunk\|Treefunk]] 16:18, 3 December 2006 (CST)		Nice job Tannhaus! --[[User:Treefunk\|Treefunk]] 16:18, 3 December 2006 (CST)
		+
		+	Thanks --[[User:Tannhaus\|Tannhaus]] 20:20, 3 December 2006 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:18, 3 December 2006
Line 6:		Line 6:

	Unfortunately, not a single book of mine on freemasonry survived the hurricane. I only had two or three though. But, I will try and rework that wiki page when I have the time. References should be checked at least somewhat, I think. Just because it's a comment or found SOMEWHERE on the net doesn't mean it's worth a mention. It's got to add to the article in a legitimate manner or shouldn't be included, IMNSHO. --[[User:Tannhaus\|Tannhaus]] 15:02, 3 December 2006 (CST)		Unfortunately, not a single book of mine on freemasonry survived the hurricane. I only had two or three though. But, I will try and rework that wiki page when I have the time. References should be checked at least somewhat, I think. Just because it's a comment or found SOMEWHERE on the net doesn't mean it's worth a mention. It's got to add to the article in a legitimate manner or shouldn't be included, IMNSHO. --[[User:Tannhaus\|Tannhaus]] 15:02, 3 December 2006 (CST)
		+
		+	Nice job Tannhaus! --[[User:Treefunk\|Treefunk]] 16:18, 3 December 2006 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:02, 3 December 2006
Line 4:		Line 4:

	:I don't know anything about Freemasonry, but I am skeptical about quoting comments from the boards or citing them as sources. They are not definitive sources of information on anything like this. You should edit out that part of the article if you think it's wrong; ideally you would replace it with something quoted from the book you mentioned, but I don't want to burden you with that. [[User:OwenIsCool\|OwenIsCool]] 14:35, 3 December 2006 (CST)		:I don't know anything about Freemasonry, but I am skeptical about quoting comments from the boards or citing them as sources. They are not definitive sources of information on anything like this. You should edit out that part of the article if you think it's wrong; ideally you would replace it with something quoted from the book you mentioned, but I don't want to burden you with that. [[User:OwenIsCool\|OwenIsCool]] 14:35, 3 December 2006 (CST)
		+
		+	Unfortunately, not a single book of mine on freemasonry survived the hurricane. I only had two or three though. But, I will try and rework that wiki page when I have the time. References should be checked at least somewhat, I think. Just because it's a comment or found SOMEWHERE on the net doesn't mean it's worth a mention. It's got to add to the article in a legitimate manner or shouldn't be included, IMNSHO. --[[User:Tannhaus\|Tannhaus]] 15:02, 3 December 2006 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:35, 3 December 2006
Line 2:		Line 2:

	I definitely don't think a comment should be added to a lgpedia page unless it contributes significantly to the article. This comment in no way does and is inflammatory/nonfactual.--[[User:Tannhaus\|Tannhaus]] 14:23, 3 December 2006 (CST)		I definitely don't think a comment should be added to a lgpedia page unless it contributes significantly to the article. This comment in no way does and is inflammatory/nonfactual.--[[User:Tannhaus\|Tannhaus]] 14:23, 3 December 2006 (CST)
		+
		+	:I don't know anything about Freemasonry, but I am skeptical about quoting comments from the boards or citing them as sources. They are not definitive sources of information on anything like this. You should edit out that part of the article if you think it's wrong; ideally you would replace it with something quoted from the book you mentioned, but I don't want to burden you with that. [[User:OwenIsCool\|OwenIsCool]] 14:35, 3 December 2006 (CST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:31, 3 December 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	This article is inflammatory and does nothing but attack Freemasons. I am not a Freemason. But, the rituals of freemasonry have been published. It's easy enough to get a copy of Albert Pike's "Morals and Dogma" to see that this person's "comment" is complete rubbish.	+	This article is inflammatory and does nothing but attack Freemasons. I am not a Freemason. But, the rituals of freemasonry have been published. It's easy enough to get a copy of Albert Pike's "[http://www.amazon.com/Morals-Dogma-Accepted-Scottish-Freemasonry/dp/159547997X/sr=8-3/qid=1165177602/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/104-7827936-9935147?ie=UTF8&s=books Morals and Dogma]" to see that this person's "comment" is complete rubbish.

	I definitely don't think a comment should be added to a lgpedia page unless it contributes significantly to the article. This comment in no way does and is inflammatory/nonfactual.--[[User:Tannhaus\|Tannhaus]] 14:23, 3 December 2006 (CST)		I definitely don't think a comment should be added to a lgpedia page unless it contributes significantly to the article. This comment in no way does and is inflammatory/nonfactual.--[[User:Tannhaus\|Tannhaus]] 14:23, 3 December 2006 (CST)