Talk:Obligations in Freemasonry: Difference between revisions

Freemasonry Redirect‑class

This redirect is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freemasonry articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to join us in our labors, please join the discussion and add your name to the list of participants. The "Top of the Trestleboard" section below can offer some ideas on where to start and what to do.FreemasonryWikipedia:WikiProject FreemasonryTemplate:WikiProject FreemasonryFreemasonry articles Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ◆  WikiProject Freemasonry's "Top of the Trestleboard": Improve to Featured Article status Freemasonry Tracing board Isaac Newton University Lodge Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia Operative Masonry Primitive Scottish Rite Add content to stubs… Check recently changed articles for possible improvement, to remove vandalism, etc. Requests [Watch this list] Articles for all United Grand Lodge of England-recognized Grand Lodges (if notable) Participate in articles listed for deletion Need images Scottish Rite York Rite Sovereign Grand Lodge of Malta New Article to be created Adonhiramite Rite Portuguese Rite Brazilian Rite Irish Rite Moorish Rite Rite Français Moderne Rétabli

I've removed the Duncans extracts since they're not comprehensive, all they do is repeat the last couple of lines of the obligation, not the whole thing. They're incomplete.ALR 23:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again, they are only accurat insofar as they were correct in one particular area in NY State sometime in the 1800s. So what exactly is the point of this article that can't be stated in the main Freemasonry article? MSJapan 23:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are oaths in that they contain a penalty clause. That's the difference between an oath and an obligation. An obligation does not contain a penalty clause. Feel free to document the alleged specificity of the oaths in Duncans. Frater Xyzzy 23:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence that the incorrect obligations in the cited text are comprehensive. I note that you've actually removed the citation to the correct obligations and would also appreciate justification of that.ALR 23:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, citation fixed. Please provide a reference for the removed statement that the text is not comprehensive. It is, however, exemplar, which I don't think you can deny. A word changed here or there is silly to quibble over, don't you think. Frater Xyzzy 00:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two cited examples, one authoritative and one not, do not match in any way. We're not in word either way territory but wholly different, which can be seen should one compare the references. The cited text is not an exemplar since it can only be found in one reference, not the half dozen which I have immediate access to. Please provide some referenece to indicate that it should be considered comprehensive.ALR 00:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! What a hive of activity! Don't you guys take the weekend off? Frater Xyzzy 16:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone seriously believe that a citation from a 25-year old book written by an anti-Mason is at all accurate? To be blunt, how does Zager know the obligations are accurate if he is not now and never was a Mason?

I can also find no other reference to Hochhass besides Zager, and you would think that there would be a way to independently verify his existence, much less that of the committee he chaired. MSJapan 03:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's no shortage of references to the accuracy of Duncan's. I particularly like the quote from this page:

"Every statement in the book is authentic, as every proficient Mason will admit to himself, if not to the public, as he turns over its pages."

I'd like to hear you directly state that in your experience as a Mason, Duncan's is wildly inaccurate, rather than the usual efforts to cast vague aspersion on it. But that would be lying, wouldn't it? :-) —Hanuman Das 03:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a past master, and member of two different constitutions, I find that there are significant and substantive differences and errors in Duncans.  ::Much of the wording is significantly different to that used and the obligations themselves bear little resemblance to those which I have taken myself and have led others through.

The rubric has has significant differences, to the extent that I'd call them errors. If someone tried to get into a Lodge using it they wouldn't get through the door, given the significance of the problem areas it is not representative.

Notwithstanding that, a line in a sales pitch could not be considered an authoritative statement on the accuracy of an unattributable working.

ALR 08:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is of course why I have not attempted to use it as a source ;-) Still, I myself am pretty sure that while as you say the wording may have changed (it is after all over 100 years old), the gist of what is sworn is not. Care to dispute that? —Hanuman Das 15:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental aspect is that one obligates oneself to protect the secrets, that is the signs, token and word of each of the three degrees. Of course given that simple fact we have a one line article which wouldn't justify an independent existence since it is covered in the opening paragraphs of the Freemasonry article already.

All the additional verbage is peculiar to Duncans, and has no place in Masonry .

ALR 15:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the oaths are not included among the secrets. Are you trying to protect them as secrets anyway? —Hanuman Das 15:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've provided a reference to them. I just don't see a need to regurgitate them.ALR 15:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that when I say that the Duncans and Emulation obligations differ, I mean that most of what appears in duncans does not appear in emulation. The reference you've provided only accounts for the symbolic penalties, not the rest.ALR 16:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but to go any further in discussing the differences, you'd need to cite a comparative work of some sort. An historian whose done an analysis of differences, perhaps with an explanation thereof. So let's leave out POV interpretations of the differences unless such work exists. —Hanuman Das 16:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can't have the obligations verbatim in the article, as they violate copyright (and not citing a source doesn't change that), so I have removed them. MSJapan 17:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The text in question is in the public domain. Everything published in the US before 1923 is in the public domain. The site from which they were sourced hosts only public domain sources and does not claim copyright. —Hanuman Das 19:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Hanuman, there are a number of things on the sacredtext webpage that are copyrighted, such as this and the original authors (or their heirs) are fighting the inclusion of them. In fact, the one I have just cited was the basis of a copyright violation claim (though not in court) on the appropriate article. So, just because it's on sacredtexts, doesn't make it automatically public domain.--Vidkun 23:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the copyright argument is wholly appropriate. Whilst the text is published at present I have a feeling that the contents of Duncans itself are probably public domain, given the age of the origination. However I am not a legal beagle.

I'm not convinced of the encyclopedic value of including the text, it does rather remind me of a breathless and excitable attempt at exposure rather than in creating a useful article.

I think the more pertinent point is that it's not representative of the obligations in any of the rituals I have available to me; Emulation, Taylors, Nigerian, Malta (unpublished), Kilwinning (unpublished), two other Scots rituals another private English ritual. I've also in the past seen translations of German, French and Swedish and don't recognise it from there. I've sat in meetings in Canada and haven't heard it, although many Lodges there use Emulation.

If we are going to have an article about Obligations, and I'm not convinced of that, then it needs to be a discussion of Obligations in general rather than one specific one whose veracity is unproven.

ALR 19:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the sacred-texts webpage "The texts presented here are either original scans from books and articles clearly in the public domain, material which has been presented elsewhere on the Internet, or material included under fair use conditions in printed anthologies." It seems that s-t (or the owners/maintainers of the site) think that if someone else copied copyright material and placed it one the web, it's fair use. It isn't. Now, while this is not an issue for duncan'c, can Duncan's be verified? Is it a reliable source? I think not.--Vidkun 00:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding the idea of verifiability. WP:V specificly states that one should not attempt to prove that the facts given in sources are true, that would be original research. Verifiability simply means that a fact listed in Wikipedia can be referenced to a published source. Reliability is determined primarily by the fact that the material was published by a third party rather than self-published. So from WP pov, it is both verifiable and reliable. —Hanuman Das 00:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly - we can verify Duncan wrote it, but we can't verify that it is an accurate representation. WP:RS is made for that. Guidelines can't be applied in a vacuum, meaning that even if it passes V, does it pass RS? If it does, then it is usable, and I'm not so sure Duncan's does. MSJapan 00:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to verify that it is an accurate representation. We just have to identify who said it. It's also considered reliable as long as it has a reliable publisher. You seem to be confused about what these terms mean on WP. —Hanuman Das 05:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, did you know that Duncan's is actually the official ritual in the State of Missouri Prince Hall Affiliation? Now, in your opinion, is Prince Hall Freemasonry or not? —Hanuman Das 05:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability depends on a whole host of issues, just being published isn't actually enough. In that sense the publication is probably a reliable instance of the content but that doesn't actually indicate whether the content itself is reliable or not. We have no indication of the purpose, the authority of the originator or any vetting process so we are unable to make a judgement.ALR 13:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HD - I will take your statement about Missouri PH using Duncan in good faith... although I would want to have a reliable citation to back the claim if you wanted to state this in the article. That said, the problem we have is that the Masonic ritual varies widely between different jurisdictions. Something that may be in the ritual of one jurisdiction is not in the ritual of another. Thus, to in order to quote any ritual, you would have to add disclaimers such as: "According to the ritual used in the State of Missouri, Prince Hall Affilliation, the obligation reads...." or "According to Emulation Ritual used in England the obligation reads....". And to be NPOV, you would have to give examples of many different obligations to demonstrate the diversity. Blueboar 14:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded to reflect the wording used by the Craft rather than it's detractors and exposure fetishists, however the references to Oaths still stands in the text. The point about Prince Hall was clumsily put and given the mix of direct quote and personal wording was neither readable or useful, hopefully it's now clearer. fwiw I'm not a fan of the he said, she said style of writing, so I've slimmed that down as well.

I'm not convinced that the copy of the obligations actually adds any value to the article.

ALR 13:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really doesn't. I still firmly believe that the Obligations add nothing, because it's sort of like "So what?" There is no point being made, and no real information being conveyed to the reader, because the "Obligations" aren't accurate as far as I'm concerned. OTOH, I believe that HD feels he is doing a needed disservice to the Craft by "exposing" 200-year old ritual. Otherwise I can't see an encyclopedic aim for this, and I would really like to know how HD knows PH in Missouri uses Duncan, and no one else seems to. ALR, would you care to add in the UGLE notice regarding the current disposition of the so-called "blood oaths", as I think this is what the real point of this "article" is. MSJapan 22:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link that's been referenced appears to be an accurate representaiton of the preface to the ritual which highlights that the symbolic penalties have been removed from the obligation text.

What it doesn't refer to is all the other drivel which was never removed because it wasn't there.

ALR 16:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you say. :-) Frater Xyzzy 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to do your own research, the reference is fully identified and available to anyone who chooses to purchase it.ALR 16:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, there has been some discussion over the validity of Duncan's Masonic Monitor. One problem is that Duncan does not tell us which Jurisdiction his exposé is for. He never says "Grand Lodge of New York" or "Grand Lodge of Virginia" or what ever. This runs contrary to the practice in most US Grand Lodges. They tend to be very specific in their obligations. The one place where Duncan does get specific is in the obligation for the Royal Arch Degree... where he uses the phrase:

• "I furthermore promise and swear, that I will support the Constitution of the General Grand Royal Arch Chapter of the United States of America..."

Somethng about this struck me as being odd... so I looked up the history of the General Grand Chapter. Volume I of “A History of Royal Arch Masonry” by Everett R. Turnbull & Ray V. Denslow, published in 1956, states (On Page 413) that, at the 1816 Triennial, The General Grand Chapter adopted the title “General Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons of the United States.”

Note the difference:

• Duncan used "General Grand Royal Arch Chapter of the United States of America", whereas
• The General Grand Chapter itself used "General Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons of the United States.

For those who don't get the subtle difference, it is like someone quoting from the "Constitution of the United American States"... sounds legit, but when you look at it closely it doesn't work. Duncan's is demonstratibly in error, which supports the claim that it can not be said to be accurate for any Jurisdiction. Blueboar 14:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. I wonder what that was all about, given that AFAIK, the GGC isn't a higher authority than a GC, but rather an umbrella group. In short, the obligation shouldn't have anything to do with GGC, unless it is in addition to following the rules of one's constituent chapter. MSJapan 14:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well to be fair, ... the full text reads: "I furthermore promise and swear, that I will support the Constitution of the General Grand Royal Arch Chapter of the United States of America; together with that of the Grand Chapter of this State, under which this Chapter is holden; that I will stand to and abide by all the by-laws, rules, and regulations of this Chapter, or of any other Chapter of which I may hereafter become a member." So it does add the rules of the constituent GC and Chapter ... On the other hand I took a look at my own Chapter's obligation and while it specifically includes the Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons in the State of New York, it does not mention GGC at all. I don't know if other Jurisdictions include the GGC however. But the point is that Duncan is using the wrong name for the GGC... as I added above, it's the same as talking about the "United American States" instead of the "United States of America". It isn't valid. Blueboar 15:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I asked. I know we don't mention GGC, and there's a fair number of states that never recognized GGC. I'm pretty sure it's only an umbrella group. MSJapan 15:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a statement highlighting this, as it supports the doubt surrounding Duncan's authenticity. I am wondering if this is enough to substantiate deleting the quotes. If they are not authentic Masonic Oaths, do we not mislead the reader by including them? Blueboar 00:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's always the question of history, though. Since we can date Duncan no earlier than 1816, and given the accepted date of 1826 for Duncan's book, if we could look at a contemporaneous obligation and it didn't have a GGC reference, that would certainly prove a reliability issue. For all we know, Duncan might have seen a draft rather than a final product. MSJapan 00:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should discount the possibility that Duncan never saw a either draft or an original... but made up his own ritual based on the more or less contemporanious Morgan Exposé. In any case, I do get what you mean. While his authenticity can be doubted, it can not completely disproven without a reliable version to compare it against. Blueboar 01:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grye pointed something out to me, and he was right. The oaths as posted here do not match Duncan's on the Sacred Text Archive, and thus must be from some other source, and are therefore copyvio from somewhere. MSJapan 04:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without the (incorrect) quotes from Duncan, this article does not really say much. Prod? Blueboar 19:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, boys, they match exactly. Didn't think anybody would look, did you? Frater Xyzzy 22:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I wonder how the use of of intentional deception on talk pages to justify an attempt to delete an article accords with Wikipedia policy. Should we look into it? Frater Xyzzy 22:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. BTW, are you Frater or Hanuman? MSJapan 23:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They match exactly. It's fairly easy to match up the content you mass deleted with the content here. Since it does match up perfectly your edit reason of "They do not match Duncan's on the Internet Sacred Text Archive, so they are copyvio from someplace" is completly false, and i'll be reverting that edit. Seraphim 22:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of problems with it, including inconsistency with hard copy versions. But more to the point the linguistic hurdles which justify keeping demonstrably inaccurate material in the article create a clumsy unencyclopedic mess. The actual version of one current version of the obligations is referenced and publically available in open source, more can be referenced if required.ALR 22:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing it again on other grounds. The article is entitled Obligations in Freemasonry ... Duncan's is demonstratably not a legitimate representation of Obligations in Freemasonry. The jurisdiction that he mentions never existed. Thus it is not an accurate account of any approved Masonic ritual. Now, if you want to change the title of the article to something like "Obligations thought by many to be in Freemasonry, but actually NOT in Freemasonry", or "Duncan's pseudo-masonic ritual" ... feel free to add it back. Blueboar 00:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply a historical example, and being presented as such. ALR if you can find more up to date material to replace it with i'm sure that would be very beneficial to the article. However you should replace what is currently there with that new material, not delete the material and expect someone else to go find what your talking about. Seraphim 02:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snag is, it's not a historical example, and I'll reiterate that there are references to the obligations, however given that wikipedia is not a repository of source material I don't believe that it is useful to quote a single example when so many assured variants of ritual exist.ALR 08:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't a historical example... if it were actually a valid masonic ritual, THEN it would be a historical example. If it was even a possibly valid masonic ritual I might call it such... but it is not. It is a proven fake. The use of a non-existing jurisdiction completely invalidates it. It would be like quoting a document that read "We the People of the United American States..." in an article about the US constitution. It isn't a ligit example. Blueboar 03:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I realize I never cleared this up. It can be proven that there was a grand chapter referring to itself as the "General Grand Royal Arch Chapter of the United States of America" in 1854. Here is a link proving it's existance. Next argument! Seraphim 07:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd... since according to the official proceedings of the General Grand Chapter, its name at the time was the "General Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons of the United States" (which is cited in Turnbull, Everett R. & Denslow, Ray V., A History of Royal Arch Masonry, Volume I, p. 413, published in 1956) ... I double checked this with the current General Grand Chapter (The General Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons International) and they sent me a photocopy of the relevant pages of their proceedings (which they tell me are published, although they did not send the page with the publication info... i'll have to get back to you on that). Throughout its history the GGC was consistant in using the form "General Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons..." the only thing that changed was the regional indicator (North America, United States, International, etc.).

So we have a dilemma... who is correct? A register of fraternal bodies in the State of California , or the minutes and bylaws of the body itself? Given that those compiling the register can make errors, I would go with the official records of the body itself. I am not saying that the register is an unreliable document under RS... only that I think that the records of the GGC are MORE reliable. Blueboar 14:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of what certain editors are trying to add is original research. You can't just say that something didn't exist. You have to cite a source which says that it didn't exist. You can't just say that a government source must be unreliable, you must cite another source which says that that particular government record may be unreliable. You can't just make assumptions from the fact that you have access to documents which use a certain designation, you must have a secondary historical source which discusses the naming conventions of the time. Frater Xyzzy 15:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do cite a secondary source. A source which quotes the proceedings of the General Grand Chapter, which lists all the names that the GGC ever went by (from its founding in the 1790s through to the 1950s). In each case, the GGC uses the phrasing "General Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons" as opposed to Duncan's "General Grand Royal Arch Chapter". It is not OR... it is in the book. While this is supported by the actual proceedings... I have not added that to the article because I do not have the publishing info yet... and doing so without the publication info would violate OR.

I would contend that it is up to those who claim that Duncan's is legit to find a reliable secondary source to verify its legitimacy... and that to state that Duncan's is authentic without verification is OR.

As to the State Register... actually, I do incorrectly assume something there... I am not sure that it IS a government record. The title page gives the authors and publisher... but not that it is an kind of "official" document. (do we know more about the registry?) As for saying it is unreliable... I don't. I say that given two conflicting sources, each of which is reliable to some degree, I think the offical records of the GGC are MORE reliable than the register, which seems to have its facts wrong. Yes, this is my opinion, and others are free to disagree... I have not included my opinion in the article, and is fine to state one's opinion of sources on a talk page... that's what talk pages are for.

Blueboar 16:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue about the publication information is more verifiability rather than OR. You have the material, you just don't have the information to allow an independent check.ALR 16:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It is generally known that the Grand Lodge of Missouri, PHA, uses Duncans Masonic Ritual and Monitor (1866) as its official ritual" [1] Frater Xyzzy 15:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a little disingenuous to take a single statement from an analysis of whether Prince Hall GLs obtained their various rituals from legitimate or illegitimate sources as significant evidence, particularly where the rest of the sentence, which you're taking out of context highlights that other PHA GLs use the official version.ALR 15:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

INcidentally a tripod page constitutes self published and doesn't meet the needs of Reliable Sourcing, that's even before you misquote it.ALR 16:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's now clear that the motivaiton from some is to get, yet another, article which is predominantly made up of a huge chunk of Duncans ritual. The actual article content on the subject of Obligations as such is two paragraphs long, the rest is a cut and paste with an explanation of why the cut and pasted content is both unrepresentative and inaccurate.ALR 15:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that Freemasons should not be editing the article at all, only discussing on the talk page. We've had these sorts of edit wars before, and they have always been precipitated by those who violate Wikipedia's quite clear rules about conflict of interest|. Specificly,

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but if you have a conflict of interest, you should exercise great caution. In particular, you should:

1. avoid editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors;
2. avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;

These clear rules are clearly being violated here. Frater Xyzzy 16:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I note that this very argument has been a major cause of discussion on the talk page of that guideline since it was adopted... It is patently rediculous. By your logic, no Catholic should edit articles on Catholicims, no one with a PHD in physics should edit an article on science. I will also point out that you can flip this argument around ... and say that under COI no one who belongs to any group of organization that opposes Freemasonry should edit an article on masonic topics, for they have a conflict of interest insofar as their organization has an anti-masonic agenda. Wiki-lawyering can be played both ways.

No... the COI guideline clearly does not intend that people can not edit articles that relate to things they are involved with... it means they must be cautious not to let their affiliations influence their editing. Masons should not edit as Masons, they should edit with the best interest of Wikipedia in mind. I think the Masons who edit this article do have the best interests of Wikipedia in mind ... they want factual and verifiable information presented, and want to delete inaccurate information, supposition and inuendo. Blueboar 16:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, that is the excat same argument someone brought up several times (thru sockpuppets even) on several other articles related to Masonry... just saying. WegianWarrior 17:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of socks, any reason why a new editor (who acts a lot like Frater Xyzzy, who crated this article) would be interested in this article, if he wasn't Frater Xyzzy editing under an IP? Incidentally, we won't find a match, as according to his talk page, he recently moved. Just food for thought. MSJapan 17:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frater Xyzzy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)?

"...I am am member of Golden Dawn and know 999 because he likes to attend G.D. events, though he has not joined. I met A.R. through 999 at a Golden Dawn conference in Austin, where I lived also until mid-December. I now live in Seattle..."diff

Frater Xyzzy is indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry.diff- WeniWidiWiki 20:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to popular belief, Seattle is not the parochial small town it's made out to be. Frater Xyzzy 21:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a talking point, I'd like to present I in no way view the inclusion of these Obligations as discrediting Freemasonry. They appear to me to be perfectly decent oaths which any bloke should be able to take without fearing that they conflict with the laws of his country or with the tenets of his religion. I am at a loss to understand why Freemasons should wish to hide or discredit the sources of these Obligations. My intent is that the information be available in Wikipedia. If the Masons want to hedge it about with denials and defences, that's their own business, as long as the information they present is cited and does not distort what the source actually say. I am annoyed they they will not allow be to cite source, even when I have tried to quote them after being falsely accused of misrepresenting them. There are two sources which indicate that these oaths are used in some Prince Hall jurisdictions, but every attempt to clearly quote and cite taht information is reverted. 204.122.16.13 20:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement shows several areas where you misunderstand what is going on here:

• "I am at a loss to understand why Freemasons should wish to hide or discredit the sources of these Obligations"

1) no one is trying to "hide" anything. 2) The main reason why we "discredit" the source is that (as we keep saying, but you don't want to believe) it is not accurate. There are hundreds of Masonic jurisdictions in the world... each has a different ritual and different obligations. Even if Duncan's is correct for one of them (and here I refer to the single PH jurisdiction for which we have any evidence to support saying it is correct), it is incorrect for all the others. Thus, to single out this one example gives it vast undue weight.

• "...as long as the information they present is cited and does not distort what the source actually say"

you imply that the information "the Masons" are presenting is not cited (it is), and distorts what the source actually says... where do we distort the source? and you neglect to address the issue of what to do if including the source in a certain way is itself a distortion? Blueboar 01:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed a pattern going on here that should be familiar to many of us on both sides... One side of the debate wants to delete something (be it a reference, a quotation, a statement or even an entire article), and the other side argues against the delete. What never seems to occur is any discussion of why the material should be included in the first place. No one ever seems to argue for the material.

So I thought I would ask. Why should the material from Duncan's be included in the article? Blueboar 21:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this, as noted in the AfD, I feel not that this is a "secret" (it isn't) and shouldn't be revealed, but rather that this article is unencyclopedic - this article should not be a cut and paste of an example, especially a questionable one like Duncan's. What it should be is a discussion about Masonic obligations in general, and this has already been adequately covered in the main article. If not, it's not going to take an entire article to cover it, but rather a few sentences, which can also be added to the main article in the appropriate section. MSJapan 04:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Of the 50 regular Blue Lodges, 40-x PH Lodges (not saying anything, just adding), & any other "Lodges", just in the USA, only one of which can maybe be correctly cited as using something even close to these obligations. To say they are "the" Freemasonic Obligations is, by definition, unencyclopedic. Grye 05:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the article does it say that "they are "the" Freemasonic Obligations". If it says anything in the article to that effect that statement should be removed. They are an example of Masonic Obligations used in a certain version of the ritual over 100 years ago, that's all it should be represented as. Seraphim 05:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

uh... If they are not the obligations, then the information is unencyclopedic, & conversation's over. Grye 09:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We keeps cycling back to a) why group A feels we should remove the quote, and b) why Group B opposes removing them. Will someone please answer my question and articulate why quoting from Duncan's ritual is important to the article. Why should the material be included?

I am beginning to think that the only reason that people are opposing deletion (of the quote here, and of the article at the AfD) is that a particular group of editors is in favor of deletion (essentially saying: If they want it out, I want it in). I hope I am wrong as to motivations ... but if I am, then someone should be able to explain why including the quote is so important to this article. Blueboar 13:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is suppossed to be an extencive collection of information not limited to the size constraints of paper encyclopedias. Adding an example of what the article discussing is beneficial to the article and therefore it is included. Since the Duncan's text is being presented as an example of Obligations that were in use in 1866, nothing being presented is misleading, and it gives readers an idea of what masonic obligations might look like. If you can add NPOV, verfiable, sourced content to an article, that increases the usability and usefulness of the article to a 3rd party reader that is always a good thing. Seraphim 19:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ... at least someone finally answered the question. I disagree with the reasoning (I feel that, given the variations between the hundreds of rituals in use - both in 1866 and today - giving an example IS misleading; and that using an example for which there is doubt as to its authenticity is doubly so) but I understand it. Is that the only argument for inclusion?Blueboar 19:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you to articulate why you feel that it is beneficial?

ALR 20:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't all that dissimilar from ones in use in Colorado (as they apparently are for our brethren across the "big pond"). Certainly not exact, but not dissimilar. I know that Colorado's are an amalgam of different jurisdictions (Kansas and Nebraska, I believe) and that most of that work came to us from other locations (i.e., the east coast - MA, NY, etc.). It is quite different in some instances from other jurisdictions (Oklahoma, for example). Having said that, I'm actually ambivalent about the request to delete/retain the Duncan's text. Perhaps some clarification of Duncan's as a source may alleviate some of the concerns expressed in this quite expansive discussion. As it stands, it appears in the article that it is a highly-regarded source. As an historian, I do know that there was quite a bit of "creative liberties" associated with even "authoritative" sources even only 150 years ago, let alone 600 (where my research was focused). While any article about the obligations of Masonry is fallacious in the extreme, it is indicative of what 'such an obligation' may have been. For that reason, I'm more inclined (with the appropriate clarifications) to leave it in the article. Bdevoe 20:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well would it not be more representative to actually have something that we can be assured is an accurate obligation, rather than one which we're not entirely clear on? fwiw I don't actually believe that have an example adds anything and there are 'impact' reasons for not including ritual in WP. I have some sympathy for the view that someone genuinely searching WP for information in advance will have some of the value of the ritual taken away from him or her should they find a chunk of ritual, accurate or otherwise, in an article.ALR 21:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would not that same petitioner find Duncan's and assume that it is also accurate? I think the argument is specious from that perspective. I do not have anything that's been published that I can quote as a true accounting of the obligations. Maybe we can discuss the possibility of not including the actual text but rather a synopsis of the different degrees? Or perhaps that each obligation builds upon the previous one(s)? Bdevoe 21:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that I disagree with having ritual excerpts here at all, however there is a body of editors in WP who feel it is necessary to copy Duncans into WP, this diff rather sums it up. fwiw if you look at the article again you'll find that a genuine publication is referenced, but personally I do not wish to type the content out, for the reason previously outlined.ALR 21:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, I took a look at the 1827 2nd ed. of Morgan's book, and the obligations therein contained do not match Duncan, even in the first part of the first obligation, so Duncan isn't sourced from there. MSJapan 21:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from Nelson King, "Prince Hall Grand Lodges use what we would call the American Ritual, either Duncan's or Webb's, which is very similar to what the two St. Johns Lodges of London use", isn't all that clear. Given that Webbs and Duncans have differences, which ritual has similarities to the St Johns Lodges of London? Even in conjunction with the deHoyos quote, which I've now attributed to Heredom although that could use confirmation, all we have is an assertion that one PH GL uses it, and that from a discussion of where PH GLs got hold of their ritual from with the recognition that some are derived from unattributable exposures. I think we're into giving usage more weight than is justified, one GL of 40 odd PH and a couple of hundred other GLs? a tad fringy to me. ALR 20:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, it may be because English is my second language, but I would argue that the 'which' in the sentence points towards Webb's. IE: the qoute is stating that "Prince Hall Grand Lodges use what we would call the American Ritual, either Duncan's or Webb's" and "(Webb's) is very similar to what the two St. Johns Lodges of London use.". WegianWarrior 20:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's my interpretation as well, as it stands it is very ambigious.ALR 21:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely why it should simply be quoted. It is for the reader, not us, to interpret. Jefferson Anderson 21:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we only have evidence of one GL from a good couple of hundred, unless we can pin it down then it gives undue weight to the assertion.ALR 21:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

could this help answer the question? The Webb ritual is commonly called the "American" ritual. (it is also the basis for the majority of rituals used in the US... before each GL started "tinkering"). Which brings up another point... I think we should include a list of some of the more common ritual traditions... Preston, Webb, Emulation, etc. come to mind. I am sure we can come up with more examples with a bit of research (NOT OR... research into what reliable sources tell us). At the moment, the reader is going to come away with the impression that Duncan is all there is (which is part of the problem with quoting Duncan... or any other ritual... it does indeed give too much weight to one of many rituals). Blueboar 21:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taylors, Nigerian, Standard, Complete, Malta, Bristol (and that's only in England).ALR 21:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At last count, I had 47 workings in England not counting private unpublished materials; hence the problem. TBH, I much prefer the discussion portion of the article than the c/p portion for purposes of this encyclopedia article. The more I look at it, sourcing issues aside, the less I think the text blocks add anything of value. Also, unless someone knows otherwise for sure, I believe King is Canadian, not that I think it matters at all. MSJapan 21:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the bit that's already in the Freemasonry article......ALR 21:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and of the four craft lodges I belong to there are three different rituals, the Research Lodge uses Emulation to open and close.ALR 21:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is arguing that there are many many many many versions of ritual out there. Just like in all of the other freemasonry articles that talk about ritual, there is wording in the article to alert the reader to the fact that lodges use different ritual. That is NOT a valid reason to removed sourced, verifiable, relevant material from an article. Wikipedia is inclusionist not exclusionist. "I don't think this should be in here" is not a valid reason for removal. Seraphim 23:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is when it's not terribly good. There seems to be this recurring issue that just because something is in print or posted someplace, that it's a totally valid an usable source, and whatever it says is worthwhile. I do not think that c/p'ed Duncan's is a good idea, because this is not an article about "Historical Obligations in Masonry", it is an article about "Obligations in Masonry". The title itself presumes a uniformity that doesn't exist. "So why not change it?" you might ask. Well, that's easy. It's all OR. It's simply words, so no one has done research on it, and therefore we can't really do anything either. What we've got now as your "verifiable, citable article" is another pro and con argument over differences in phrasing, and a load of cut and pasted garbage of no value to the article content that is furthermore readily locatable by anyone who types "Duncan's" into Google. WP is not a dumping ground for things from other sites. The text adds nothing ot the article, and as BB has said, it adds undue weight. MSJapan 01:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in the article does it ever say that "these are current and up to date versions of ritual". Your problem is that your looking at the article from the perspective of a freemason who knows what the obligations look like. Wikipedia is not written for an expert audience, if someone comes to this article and reads it over, and the duncan's text isn't there the first thing they are going to think of is "ok.. what do these things actually consist of". An example in this case is 100% relevant. Also we've already proven that the version of the ritual in Duncan's was used. The reason I fight to keep stuff like this on WP is because you guys try to abuse Wiki-Procedure to remove content under false pretences, and that's just wrong, and very anti-wikipedia. Wikipedia is suppossed to be a fountain of knowledge, this article is a sub article, which means it should contain detailed information about it's sub topic. The cycle that you tend to take, Pick article, Remove Content, AFD what's left, is Abusive and not how wikipedia is suppossed to work. Editors are suppossed to improve articles, not fight to get them deleted. Seraphim 02:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was wondering how long the "pretend to help improve the article" phase would last. Sheesh... 204.122.16.13 02:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Frater, you're not one to talk about abuse of procedure, since you're markedly hostile to Freemasonry and have been since you first got here, and you're editing under a sock because you're banned. Second of all (and here's the key), where does this article state that this is historical? Not in the title, certainly, and not in the article. What value does this have anyway, if the majority of the content is no longer a valid usage? Furthermore, we cannot cut and paste entire sections of text from other websites, public domain or not. We can link to it, but an encyclopedia is not a reproduction; it is a summation. That's why (as I said in the first place), we need to discuss obligations in general, not give specific examples. For example, Duncan in 1866 doesn't match Morgan in key areas in 1826! However, to say that requires synthesis on an editor's part from primary sources, which is WP:OR. Read it. Anyhow, if the two of you are done playing games, let's move on. If not, go play in the sandbox, because the both of you are too hung up on yourselves to be of any contributive value to this. MSJapan 03:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I'm afraid you're getting some levels of reality mixed up here. The account, Frater Xyzzy, was blocked, not banned, so that it could not be used by another person who had never used it in the first place. That's your first confusion. Your second is about verifiability, which only means that all statements and quotes in the article can be attributed to a source. They are. So there's no original research. But hey, you're the one with the conflict of interest and I'm not. That's clear enough to anyone who bothers to look at your edits. Ciao. 204.122.16.13 03:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there is OR then put up a ref request there. The only reason the verifiability section is in there in the first place, is because (blueboar you or ALR i forget who) engaged in OR trying to throw out the entierty of duncans as a bogus source. I'm all for tossing out that whole Reliability paragraph since "Art deHoyos, a Past Master of McAllen Lodge No. 1110, AF&AM, McAllen, Texas, confirms that "It is generally known that the Grand Lodge of Missouri, PHA, uses Duncan's Masonic Ritual and Monitor (1866) as its official ritual"" is more then enough to validate the Duncan content in the article. Seraphim 03:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're conflating separate issues again, as well as trying to say WP:V trumps all, which it does not. One, I do not want Duncan's in there because it can just as easily be referenced in externals and we do not need to duplicate it in its entirety. Two, the "disagreement over GGC" is the OR; it's synthesis, which was forced to be put in there to show lack of validity of Duncan's, because using modern ritual would be copyvio. Three, everything else was lifted out of the main article, and therefore doesn't need to be here. Four, it's one thing if this article dicusses content of obligations in general (if sourced), but it doesn't; historical or not, the full text paste gives undue weight to a ritual which is a hodgepodge (read the preface to the book to see what Duncan consulted) and is maybe used in one state (and it's probably changed by now) out of hundreds of jurisdictions and thousands of rituals. Five, this article was written by a POV-pusher in the first place who was subsequently banned, is part of an Arbcom case, and is now hiding behind an IP. See WP:POINT. MSJapan 04:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God you're dense. Let me spell it out for you. I was not banned, nor was I ever part of an Arbcom case. The account, Frater Xyzzy, was blocked because the admins are too stupid to tell the difference between two unique individuals if they work at the same large corporation. The person they confused my with is in fucking Boulder, Colorado. I am in Seattle, which is why I'm using this friggin' IP instead of using an account, so the stupid corrupt administration of this site can't continue to make the same stupid mistake again, which they would do if I don't make it too bleeding obvious for them to ignore. 204.122.16.13 04:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I might paraphrase this, Your problem is that your looking at the article from the perspective of a freemason who knows what the obligations look like. as Your problem is that you know what you're talking about. It made me smile anyway...ALR 10:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's writing for a masonic audience. That was my point. Don't put words in my mouth. Seraphim 17:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the question above, and didn't get an answer, Why is including any obligation in the article beneficial and encyclopedic. Now rather than debating the merits or otherwise of one source I think it would be useful to examine that issue. Is there any benefit including any example of the obligations in the article?ALR 10:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow, the "add a new section heading and pretend nobody answered the question" ploy. You guys are so predictable. Anybody who wants to see the pattern need only look at Talk:Jahbulon and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jahbulon (3rd nomination). Just because you have the time to engage in these coordinated diversions doesn't mean anybody else has to play your stupid little games. Answers were given in the previous section. Please stop simply dismissing others people's reasoning simply because you have your own agenda. 204.122.16.13 11:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim stated Adding an example of what the article discussing is beneficial to the article and therefore it is included to which I responded Can I ask you to articulate why you feel that it is beneficial?.

There has been no response to my specific question or the general point about why including an example is useful, all the discussion has focussed on sourcing.

I'd welcome your view on that point, if you can do so without becoming abusive.

ALR 11:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Adding an example of what the article is duscussing is beneficial to the article" is the answer to your question about "why including an example is useful". If that content is removed people leave the article without any concept of what masonic obligations are beyond "Oaths". It's almost like creating a page about the color red, without including an image of the color, sure the reader learns about the topic, but they have no context for what they learned. Adding an example is useful since it illustrates what the obligations may look like in ways we cannot through the text. Wikipedia is not suppossed to work like this, you cannot censor the material on here simply because you don't want it in the article, you guys tried to remove the material by hiding behind copy vio, going as far as to lie and state that the text was not from Duncan's when 2 seconds of checking confirmed that, and when that path failed you swapped to "duncans is provably false" because of the name thing, and then when we found sources to counter that, your now on "this is useless information", what is going to be your next argument? Seraphim 17:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim, I'd like to point out here that when someone complained about COI, one of the responding admins encountered the same Duncan's text issue I did because of the way Google works, so you might as well drop that. That was not what was used in the AfD, so it frankly doesn't matter anymore.

Why is it that when someone asks you a question you cannot answer, you feel a need to restate the history of the issue, or misquote policy, as if that makes you right, rather than simply not respond at all? The rest of us are capable of reading talk pages. You seem to think WP policies apply one at a time, when they do not.

"Adding an example is beneficial"? Fine, but how about "is the example valid or representative?" There is no representative Masonic ritual, and therefore any example is not representative, especially when the example is used in one state (maybe) and is 140 years old. I can't find historical obligations that agree within 40 years of each other, and you want to claim that something over three times as separated is valid?

That is why it needs to be removed. However, you would rather make a faulty assumption over what is secret because you don't know any better. The only secrets are modes of recognition, as stated in the main Freemasonry article. you're only interested in adding in material which supports your preconceived point of view, and you've been doing this ever since you came to these articles. This is going to stop. MSJapan 17:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim, ignoring the rant about process, which I don't really think is helping in trying to achieve a reasonable compromise, I'm wanting to explore the encyclopedic value issue in more depth. I have no wish to censor anything, but I expect a balanced and representative discussion of the topics in the portfolio. What I'm trying to do is to identify the purpose for the inclusion. Once we have a purpose, then we can find a solution. As I interpret your statements, including an example is useful because including an example is beneficial, notwithstanding that I do note that your later comments go some way towards articulating your position.

I'd disagree that providing an example provides context per se, the context is provided in the Freemasonry article, where obligations are discussed alongside discussion of governance, privacy and secrets, those being signs, grips and words. I suspect what you're getting at is illustration of the subject, rather than contextualisation. Is that the case?

ALR 20:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Illustration is a better word. I cannot understand why you guys are up to your 4th attempt through wikilawyering to remove this content. I don't understand why the inclusion of this is such an issue. The article without the example is less useful to the reader, then the article with the example, and by the time the reader gets to the duncan text they have already learned that obligations change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and that the quoted text is over 140 years old. The point the deletionists keep trying to make is that somehow the reader will be confused by the quoted text and think that they are current obligations, or "the masonic obligations", however if the person reads the article there is NO WAY they should come to that conclusion. Readers aren't stupid. EDIT: Oh and for the record, MSJ already came up with the 4th attempt to get it removed, see his rediculious claim that the duncan text falls under wikipedias policies for copying "complete text" found below. Seraphim 21:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article without an illustration is exactly the same as that which is already in the Freemasonry article.

Appreciating that we have a significant volume of text related to the unknown provenance, accuracy and applicability of the chosen illustration, selected from a potential range of several hundred candidates, can I just ask you to clarify why illustrating the topic with a 140 year old extract from a document of unclear provenance and usage is helpful to the reader?

Can you think of approaches which might provide a more assuredly useful illustration?

ALR 21:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, I'd have no issue with removing all the text where you guys claim that Duncan's is not a reliable source, I agree it needlessly dirty's up the article. There are atleast 5 sources that show the text is reliable, and that the Grand Chapter mentioned in the Obligations existed. I'm all for removing that paragraph, as I said before when someone pointed out that that paragraph might be considered OR. Also it's origins are not unknown, it was in a lodge under the jurisdiction of " General Grand Royal Arch Chapter of the United States of America". Since in the History of Royal Arch Masonry book the author writes "at the 1816 Triennial, The General Grand Chapter adopted the title “General Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons of the United States", yet we have proof that a group called the "General Grand Royal Arch Chapter of the United States of America" existed around the time of Duncan's writing, we can easially assume the two groups are completly unrelated, and or, they used the names interchangably. The origin of the Duncan text is NOT unclear we have already provided plenty of sources that proves that, we even provided a source where a completly unrelated lodge was using Duncan the 1866 version as their official ritual. Edit: Also how could there be a "more useful illustration"? you know as well as anyone else that masonic ritual changes from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and current published ritual is commonly obsfucated. I'd argue that there is no "more useful" text avaliable. Seraphim 21:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that there is significant lack of clarity in the sources about the provenance and applicability means that there has to be significant caveating around its use.

With respect to the deHoyos citation, if you read the entire article you'll note that it's a discussion of how the Prince Hall GLs acquired their rituals. It does identify that some PH GLs obtained their rituals from exposures, although it doesn't go into any depth about what those exposures were. It is implicit in that paper, given the phrasing, that deHoyos does not see Duncans as a legitimate ritual and the usage as a source is not sufficiently reliable for the purpose that it was used for. I sought to correct that by not quoting the sentence fragment out of context.

The point of the question is, given the need for significant caveating around the use of the Duncans source, is there a method of providing an illustration which doesn't require caveating?

ALR 21:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "lack of clarity" about the origin of Duncan's. The text comes from a lodge in the jurisdiction of the "General Grand Royal Arch Chapter of the United States of America" which we have proven did exist around the time of 1866. There is 0 lack of clarity here. It's origin is perfectly clear. The text only requires the normal disclaimers that any discussion about masonic practices requires, that there is no uniform standard that all lodges follow. Your trying to argue that the origin of Duncan's is unclear, it is not unclear, it's origin is right there in the text. Seraphim 21:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to do is find an opportunity to illustrate the subject of Obligations in a way which we can both agree on.

One of the issues we have is that we both interpret the available evidence with respect to the source in very different ways. As far as I'm concerned, there is a requirement for significant caveating beyond the generic disclaimer which you're suggesting, and lets face I have access to many of the real obligations both openly available to the public and private.

So I'll rephrase the question. Is there a way to move away from specifically using Duncans, which is causing so much of an issue, and finding another method of illustrating the obligations in a meaningful way?

ALR 22:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for any interpretation, what you are engaging in is OR, you found a source that had a similarly named jurisdiction and inferred that since that group existed that duncan's must be fake. And instead of debating about the reliability of the source on the talk page, you decided to move that into the article itself. Unless you can come up with a verifiable list of "common masonic obligations" then no, there is no better way of illustrating the obligations then by example. Seraphim 22:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I draw attention to your own use of easially assume the two groups are completly unrelated, and or, they used the names interchangably above, which I would suggest casts enough doubt on the provenance of the source that no categorical statement can be made. Indeed if you're suggesting that the current series of statements regarding reliability of Duncans is OR, then I'd also say that your assertion that Duncans is reliable and representative also constitutes OR.

Given that we're both using the same evidence to come to two different conclusions then I have to say that the best way to provide an illustration is to find an approach which is not dependent on Duncans. Would that seem to be reasonable to you?

ALR 22:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just pointing out one of many possible explanations for the source you guys found. There is no question that the Duncan's text comes from a jurisdiction with the name as in the text. Fact: The text comes from a lodge in the jurisdiction of "General Grand Royal Arch Chapter of the United States of America" Fact: The text comes from the time period surrounding 1866. Those are un-arguable, proven facts. That is all that matters. I'm not asserting that Duncan's is reliable or representative, other sources that we linked to are saying that it's reliable, and nobody is saying that it's representative of anything more then what it is, it's the obligations that were used in that jurisdiction at that time. Also stop re-asking the same question, I already said that if a more modern up-to-date version of obligations can be found then that should replace the duncans content. However as I also said, the only thing that would have going for it, is it would be more modern, nothing we can put there will ever beable to accuratly represent "freemasonic obligations" since there is no commonality between ritual. Seraphim 00:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm sure the internal evidence within the source suggests that the text is appropriate to a specific body, however there is also evidence which throws some doubt on that specific body; it doesn't appear in the official history and the deHoyos phrasing suggests that it may be clandestine or irregular. Blueboar raises additional internal inconsistency as well.

I'm glad that you're not particularly wedded to using a single source, as I think we can move on from this point towards something more meaningful to the potential reader.

ALR 08:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to try to explain why I think quoting Duncan (or any other single ritual) is wrong through an analogy that I hope some of you will understand.... the issue of quoting the Bible in Wikipedia: Say someone wanted to start an article about a passage from the Bible. The editor would probably want to include the text in the article. But then he runs into a problem: Which translation should be used? King James? Revised Standard? New Revised Standard? etc. etc. In some cases the translation chosen can greatly change the meaning of the text.

I don't know if any of you have ever followed the debates on the talk pages at articles relating to biblical passages, but on many of them there is constant debate and revert warring as to which translation to use. They often solve this debate by giving multiple translations.

I know this analogy is not perfect... in the case of the Bible there is at least a common root for all translations, while in Freemasonry there isn't. But the process of deciding WHICH version to use, and how to deal with differences in text is similar. I would be much less ardent about deleting the Duncan passage if several other examples were placed with it. Then, at least, the reader would be able to see some of the differences we are talking about. However, unlike the Bible, it is very difficult to obtain masonic rituals. Duncan's is easy as it is on-line, but others may require actually going to a library and reading hard copy. Still others are not available to the public. Since we can not easily get ahold of multiple examples... the only other choice is to quote no example. ... to take the easy, lazy way out and JUST put Duncan's is wrong. It gives an undue weight on one version of ritual and implies to the reader that it is more "authoritive" than it really is, and borders on violating NPOV. Blueboar 13:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If in the article it clearly explains, like in most freemasonry related articles, that ritual changes from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and changes over time, and it's pointed out that the text comes from an 1866 ritual book, there is no issue, since by the time the reader gets to the quoted text they have already read all the "disclaimers". Readers are smart enough to realize that it's an simply an example of ritual, and not being presented as "The Masonic Obligations". Also how does NPOV even enter into this issue? I'm missing something there. Seraphim 20:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, please do note I said "borders on" ... not "crosses over", I am NOT trying to say that this article is POV. However, it could be argued that it is ... the hypothetical argument runs this way: To present only one version of any text that has multiple different versions is itself POV... It IMPLIES that the version chosen is somehow "better" or "more authoritive" or "more representative" etc. than all the others ... which is a POV issue.

To belabor my analogy... the debate that goes on all the time at the various articles on bible passages usually follows this pattern. Since different religious denominations formally approve different translations of the bible, to pick one as being representative of all is sure to start an argument about POV. Each denomination will start to insist on their version beign the one chosen. The solution is to either present multiple translations, or present none at all. Then you get the scholars chiming in with arguments between greek or hebrew, etc. etc. etc.

Well, it could be argued that choosing only one version of the Masonic ritual is POV on similar grounds... we are elevating one ritual tradition over all the others (even with all the caveats). We could get into a heated POV debate between different groups of Masons, each clammoring that "their" obligations should be the one chosen. OK, I do admit that this is not very likely ... but my point was that there is always a POV issue to consider when choosing between competing texts. At a place like Wikipedia, which treasures NPOV, we should either choose several illustrations or not choose any. Blueboar 22:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the reader is going to wrongly imply that the version we have quoted is better then any other versions even though they have been informed that that is not the case then that is their problem not a problem with the article. This isn't a situation where there are multiple translations of something, there could be 0 commonality between the duncan version and say the obligations in the lodges that keep getting advertised on tv here in MA. It's a flawed analogy since there is no provable common ground between the obligations. There is no POV issue here. But i'll tell you what, if some mason from a random lodge wants to come here and post the current text of the obligations that his lodge uses, and it's verifiable, i'd much rather have that then the duncan's text. Seraphim 22:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#MIRROR, guideline 3, says: "Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording. Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia. There's nothing wrong with using public domain resources such as 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica to add content to an article. See also Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources and Wikisource's inclusion policy." Therefore, as Duncan's is a primary source for this article, its inclusion violates policy. Furthermore, the "policy" cited to replace the parenthetical text does not exist. Duncan's will be removed, period, as it is a direct violation of a stated policy. MSJapan 19:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a load of bogus crap. Duncan's is several hundred pages and has not been reproduced. THe minimum amount necessary has been quoted, which is just as permissable as quoting other sources, moreso because in the public domain. THis is an abusive use of WP policies. Grasping at straws now? 204.122.16.13 19:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I would love to have yet another reason to delete the quotes ... I'm not sure that MIRROR aplies. The quotes in question are (lengthy) excepts, not complete copies of Duncan's book (which is what I read the guideline as intending to bar). I think this actually falls into a grey zone ... a brief quotation is OK, copying the entire book (or chapter of a book) is not ... this falls in the middle. Blueboar 19:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See "Don't include" linked above, as it clarifies a little more as to what is acceptable and what is not. MSJapan 19:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is not brief at all. According to ISTA's notation, the 1st degree obligation is an entire page in the original book, and I would guess the same in the other degrees as well. MSJapan 19:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, without the paste of the bogus obligations there is no need for the preceding, convoluted and involved, section which attempts, without success, to demonstrate that it might actually be legitimate. Any objections to removing it completely since it's not really apposite to the subject?ALR 19:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPS (the "don't include" link you provided above) is indeed more informative - and more applicable. I especially like the example of how the hymn "Christ the lord is risen today" has an article about the hymn in wikipedia, but links to the text at wikisource. The hymn's text is actually shorter than any of the three excerpts we provide here, and yet it was deemed appropriate to list as an example of how the guideline should work. Blueboar 19:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious?? This is the 4th objection you guys have raised, and your starting to grasp at straws. It's 3 block quotes, not the entire text of duncan's, nor is it consecutive pieces of duncan that would amount to copying a substancial chunk, it's 3 block quotes that are pulled from seperate areas of his book. If I had any reverts avaliable right now it would be replaced already. Stop trying to wikilawyer articles into non-existance. Edit: " Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia." key word being "Complete". Seraphim 20:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the point of adding Duncan's (or any other ritual) to the article is to give a simple illustration of what a typical obligation looks like... then do we really need all three? Won't quoting one do just as well? With this in mind, I am going to cut the first two degrees. The reasoning behind this is that the Third Degree obligation is the most complete... and contains all the elements of the first two. No, I have not "caved"... I still think that using no ritual is better than using just one... but to me this is logical if we have to have at least one. Blueboar 01:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... well it seems I am behind the curve... when I went to cut, I found that all three are currently deleted. I am, of course, happier with that... but I suspect that someone will come along soon and revert. So... when you do, please keep my comments above in mind and only put the text for the third degree Obligaion in. Thanks. Blueboar 01:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. There is no reason to have all 3 degrees in there, one is sufficient. Seraphim 03:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woops... I just noticed another glaring error in Duncan's ritual that shows it is not legit... On p. 21 of his section on the first degree, he includes the following exchange:

• W. M.--Brother Secretary, you will please read the minutes of our last regular communication.
• The Secretary reads as follows, viz.:--
• MASONIC HALL, New YORK, December 8, A. L. 5860. A regular communication of St. John's Lodge, No. 222, of Free and Accepted Masons, was holden at New York, Wednesday, the 10th of November, A. L. 5860.

There was a St. John's Lodge in New York City in 5860 (1860 for non-masons)... but it was (and still is) St. John's Number 1 - the oldest, and one of the most famous lodges in New York (they are the lodge that provided the Bible used by George Washington at his first inauguration as President). If Duncan's had any claim to being authentic it would know that and use the proper number.

Since the lodge still exists, I wonder if WP:BIO comes into play? Now, before you jump all over me and claim that I am inventing yet another wiki-rules violation... I am NOT claiming this... I am just wondering out loud for the sake of discussion... I am not sure if BIO really is supposed to relate to a 142 year old original source making false statements about a chapter in an organization. But it is a question. Thoughts? Blueboar 02:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now, this is now getting downright pathetic. You can't use OR to put something into the article, and you can't use OR to remove sources. If you have a third-party source that makes these or similar criticisms, then you can add those cited criticisms to the article. Period. That's the only range of motion you have here, beside proposing using a different set of public domain obligations. How about this Webb's you're talking about being more accurate? Surely it's in the public domain. Why don't you propose using the Obligations in Webb's? Or maybe the ones in Morgan? How about if we use those instead. They have many of the same point to which Masons swear. Do you think that would be better? 204.122.16.13 02:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down man. He was just tossing around an idea. Seraphim 03:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what we're building is significant doubt around the use of Duncans; internal evidence points to bodies which either didn't exist as far as official sources are concerned, the source is directly compared to mainline sources in a discussion of of ritual genealogy.

It may be that this is a clandestine piece?

ALR 09:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"internal evidence points to bodies [that] didn't exist as far as official sources are concerned" that statement is completly false and unverifiable. Find a source that states "Duncan's ritual is untrue" and then use that source, otherwise all your doing is engaging in OR. Seraphim 17:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, factually speaking, you're wrong. Check the Grand Lodge of New York's List of Lodges in NYC. The only St. John's is #1. We've already shown earlier through official General Grand Chapter proceedings that Duncan's "General Grand Chapter of the US" doesn't exist, and never has. These bodies appear as part of the ritual, as Duncan does not separate the meeting minutes, and the GGC appears in his Royal Arch portion. Most interestingly, W. Kirk Macnulty's Freemasonry: Symbols, Secrets, Significance ISBN 978-0-500-51302-6 claims that false exposures were published (p. 92). So there is room for doubt, with no OR involved. MSJapan 18:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The internal evidence is twofold, the identification of a Lodge which appears not to have existed under a regular Grand Lodge, and the identification of another RA Jurisdiction which doesn't appear in a historical assessment. So coming to a conclusion either way requires OR, but the weight of evidence is leaning towards an irregular or clandestine body.

Given the level of doubt then we either use another method of illustration, or we articulate all of the issues for the reader to come to a conclusion. Now since the article is supposed to be about Obligations I'm not convinced that giving over more than half of it to a discussion of the lack of reliability of the source for the illustration is entirely useful.

Now I think we're getting somewhere in our discussion above regarding how to illustrate the topic without recourse to extensive discussion of source reliability, but I'd be grateful for your thoughts on my posting from this morning.

ALR 18:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim... if I wanted to actually state in the article that "Duncan's ritual is not a legitimate Masonic Ritual", I agree I should find a source that says that. But it would not be OR to say "Duncan uses the name of a grand jursdiction that did not exist, as well as the name of a lodge that did not exist" since I have reliable sources that can attest to these facts. More importantly, even if my research into the flaws in Duncan's ritual did count as OR, there is no prohibition against discussing such research on the talk page... and it might spark someone's recollection of seeing similar statements in a reliable source, one that could be added to the article. Blueboar 21:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem of course being, that we found official period documents that show that the Lodge did exist. Seraphim 22:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - User:204.122.16.13 has been confirmed as a sock of Frater Xyzzy, and has been blocked indefinitely. This probably does not change the arguments for and against deletion of the text, but it does tell us something about motivations. Blueboar 17:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His main account Xyzzy was unblocked since it turns out the original block was incorrect. Since he was blocked for being a sock of someone which he was not. Also "motivations" aren't really anything, since the article isn't POV pushing. Seraphim 17:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]