This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Discussions from 2/6/09 - 2/7/07 moved to Archive 6
The title may or may not be NPOV, but I think it's too ambiguous. However, I don't know much about conspiracy theory. What does everyone else think? Rustyfence ( talk) 21:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
the title suggest that the theme of this article is conspiracy theories about masonry, than it describes an actual criminal conspiracy that happened in italy (propaganda due) and that the italian masonry lodge participated in. 188.129.83.114 ( talk) 01:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC) 17.9.2015
-
I am cutting the image of the reverse of the Great Seal of the US with the red hexogram on it... there are just too many errors. It simply does not illustrate what the caption claims it illustrates. Note the lines going down the sides of the pyramid (especially the one on the right side)... they had to fudge them to make it even come close to the designated letters... heck, even as drawn, the vertexes come closer to other letters than the ones stated in the caption. Try it with the official version of the seal and it does not work at all. Blueboar ( talk) 00:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
This article is not very long, and I think it would be better to merge it with Freemasonry than have an entire separate article for it. All it consists of is a list of different conspiracy theories relating to the Masons. It would definitely help the Freemasonry article if it were merged into it, though. Xhaoz Talk 23:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I took out the bit that says Freemasons meet at the Bohemian Grove for two reasons:
To me, either of these is enough to dump that bit. Binksternet ( talk) 18:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
"Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims". That is all that is being done here--"The Bohemian Grove theory exists". There isn't some magic number or level of evidence that is necessary in order to say that something exists. My question is, "What is your stake in this?" Why are you so bent on eliminating one bullet in a list of unproven wacko beliefs? All these things are WP:FRINGE anyway, IMHO. ( Taivo ( talk) 13:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC))
I remember reading a fairly old book from the 1800s which claimed of ritual abuse of underaged girls during Masonic ritual ceremonies. There were even American Presidents that had allegedly been invited to these occult ceremonies at the lodges of the Grand Orient of France in Paris. Part of this claim obviously implies the widespread conspiratorial belief that Masons are crypto-Satanists. In any case, it would be interesting if the article were able to find links between conspiracy theories about secret societies such as the Freemasons and modern allegations of Satanic ritual abuse. ADM ( talk) 05:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
According to Christopher Hodapp, the Masons have new competition in their conspiracy to control the world. There is new evidence from arial photography of Washington DC... See: this posting on his blog. (I am suddenly seeing the cartoon strip Peanuts in a whole new light). :>) Blueboar ( talk) 12:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Undue weight ( WP:UNDUE) given to outlandish conspiracy theories ( WP:FRINGE) compared to reasonable concerns an outsider might have, such as institutional corruption or subversion by fraternal organizations (or mutual benefit societies, or societies with secrets, or whatever you're calling them this week).
Perhaps this article could be renamed to "outlandish masonic conspiracy theories", or " disinformation about masonic conspiracies"?
It doesn't help that in the sections immediately preceding this one, there are Masons crowing about howlers they or their associates have dug up. Ironically, a source used on this very page to combat some sources of misinformation about Freemasonry (the Taxil hoax) also supports the contention that some Masons deliberately promote wild conspiracy theories about Freemasonry so as to discredit their critics.
This article and its discussion page make me want to wash the slime off my computer's screen. Jeremystalked T C 10:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The theory most definitely exists... just search Google for "Freemasons Reptilian". The theory was first proposed by David Ickes, but there are a lot of other conspiracy websites that repeat the claim. Blueboar ( talk) 18:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Absent a reliable source, it shouldn't exist as a part of any article here. -- No unique names 03:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, I understand this is a related topic to Masons but most of them are rumors and the links are from pages with poor or no facts. My point is, there could be millions of conspiracy theories based solely on rumors and I don't know if that deserves a wiki page. Even, David Icke interviews as source is not enough taking in consideration his source is imagination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.161.4.105 ( talk) 05:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Many of the references on this page are random conspiracy blogs. One of them that I checked out was so bad that it managed to assert that everything from the Dodge Ram logo to the Microsoft Windows logo were Masonic with no more proof than their containing elements that the author associated with Freemasonry (such as a ram or 13 of something). Ultimately, I think that the conspiracy theories section on the Anti-Masonry page contains everything that can be verified from this page, so why do we need the sub-article anyway? - Miskaton ( talk) 08:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Masonic conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Masonic conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Youtube is not a citable source, moreover, Wikipedia is NOT about "proof". We aren't supposed to prove anything. Don't add that again. Your edits were contested and you can discuss them here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepe Oats ( talk • contribs) 13:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
It is not our job to examine youtube videos, or to make conclusions. Wikipedia isn't a place for Original Research, and OR cannot be put into the article. Moreover, a youtube video is not a citable, nor notable, source. Pepe Oats ( talk) 16:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I'll check the book out, however, it actually isn't our job to examine any piece of info given. Notability is a big requirement, and YouTube isn't notable. Moreover, conspiracy is the accurate word to describe the theories that are being put here. We don't try to prove or disprove tgem, because Wikipedia isn't about proof. We look at reliable sources and I record information. Pepe Oats ( talk) 23:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
quotes:
"Stephen Knight made a very good investigation of the Freemasons. His book is very open minded, and is more of a presentation of facts than it is drawing conclusions."
"The book has a good reputation, and I can see by the quotes, etc. that Stephen put a lot into this. I believe because of this his work is truthful. However, it was not quite what I was looking for. I was looking more for an explanation of actually what the Freemasons do in their secret world, and what some of their rituals entail. The book was more about proving favouratism and thereby corruption, in the main institutions of Britain by the Freemasons."
"This book was excellent to say the least. The author did a great job at presenting valid sources and documentation. He also did a great job at staying unbiased. Its too bad he died a year after the book was published." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.21.145 ( talk) 18:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
The edits being pushed concerning John Adams and his son do not belong here in the first place, but in the Anti-Masonry article. Moreover, it's in the wrong tense. Pepe Oats ( talk) 13:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I see no reason for the John Q. Adams quote to be placed in the article on masonic conspiracy theories, as the quote is not about conspiracies, but moral wrong. The quote is just generic anti-masonry, not anti-masonic conspiracy. Pepe Oats ( talk) 07:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.ylmasons.com/faq/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sam Sailor 06:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I disagree that patently unreliable sources can be cited as such in this article. Sure, I can cite a mess o' blogs to prove that conspiracy theories are believed, but this is Wikipedia and we base our articles not on unreliable blogs and user-generated sites but upon reliably published secondary sources. Unreliable sources have no place here. Elizium23 ( talk) 14:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that the allegation of Freemasons being involved in "other space agencies" other than NASA is a case of saying that the "sky is blue" and it is very definitely missing from the cited source. @ Partofthemachine, please provide a reliable secondary source for your claim, the WP:BURDEN is on you! Elizium23 ( talk) 20:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Discussions from 2/6/09 - 2/7/07 moved to Archive 6
The title may or may not be NPOV, but I think it's too ambiguous. However, I don't know much about conspiracy theory. What does everyone else think? Rustyfence ( talk) 21:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
the title suggest that the theme of this article is conspiracy theories about masonry, than it describes an actual criminal conspiracy that happened in italy (propaganda due) and that the italian masonry lodge participated in. 188.129.83.114 ( talk) 01:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC) 17.9.2015
-
I am cutting the image of the reverse of the Great Seal of the US with the red hexogram on it... there are just too many errors. It simply does not illustrate what the caption claims it illustrates. Note the lines going down the sides of the pyramid (especially the one on the right side)... they had to fudge them to make it even come close to the designated letters... heck, even as drawn, the vertexes come closer to other letters than the ones stated in the caption. Try it with the official version of the seal and it does not work at all. Blueboar ( talk) 00:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
This article is not very long, and I think it would be better to merge it with Freemasonry than have an entire separate article for it. All it consists of is a list of different conspiracy theories relating to the Masons. It would definitely help the Freemasonry article if it were merged into it, though. Xhaoz Talk 23:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I took out the bit that says Freemasons meet at the Bohemian Grove for two reasons:
To me, either of these is enough to dump that bit. Binksternet ( talk) 18:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
"Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims". That is all that is being done here--"The Bohemian Grove theory exists". There isn't some magic number or level of evidence that is necessary in order to say that something exists. My question is, "What is your stake in this?" Why are you so bent on eliminating one bullet in a list of unproven wacko beliefs? All these things are WP:FRINGE anyway, IMHO. ( Taivo ( talk) 13:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC))
I remember reading a fairly old book from the 1800s which claimed of ritual abuse of underaged girls during Masonic ritual ceremonies. There were even American Presidents that had allegedly been invited to these occult ceremonies at the lodges of the Grand Orient of France in Paris. Part of this claim obviously implies the widespread conspiratorial belief that Masons are crypto-Satanists. In any case, it would be interesting if the article were able to find links between conspiracy theories about secret societies such as the Freemasons and modern allegations of Satanic ritual abuse. ADM ( talk) 05:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
According to Christopher Hodapp, the Masons have new competition in their conspiracy to control the world. There is new evidence from arial photography of Washington DC... See: this posting on his blog. (I am suddenly seeing the cartoon strip Peanuts in a whole new light). :>) Blueboar ( talk) 12:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Undue weight ( WP:UNDUE) given to outlandish conspiracy theories ( WP:FRINGE) compared to reasonable concerns an outsider might have, such as institutional corruption or subversion by fraternal organizations (or mutual benefit societies, or societies with secrets, or whatever you're calling them this week).
Perhaps this article could be renamed to "outlandish masonic conspiracy theories", or " disinformation about masonic conspiracies"?
It doesn't help that in the sections immediately preceding this one, there are Masons crowing about howlers they or their associates have dug up. Ironically, a source used on this very page to combat some sources of misinformation about Freemasonry (the Taxil hoax) also supports the contention that some Masons deliberately promote wild conspiracy theories about Freemasonry so as to discredit their critics.
This article and its discussion page make me want to wash the slime off my computer's screen. Jeremystalked T C 10:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The theory most definitely exists... just search Google for "Freemasons Reptilian". The theory was first proposed by David Ickes, but there are a lot of other conspiracy websites that repeat the claim. Blueboar ( talk) 18:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Absent a reliable source, it shouldn't exist as a part of any article here. -- No unique names 03:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, I understand this is a related topic to Masons but most of them are rumors and the links are from pages with poor or no facts. My point is, there could be millions of conspiracy theories based solely on rumors and I don't know if that deserves a wiki page. Even, David Icke interviews as source is not enough taking in consideration his source is imagination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.161.4.105 ( talk) 05:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Many of the references on this page are random conspiracy blogs. One of them that I checked out was so bad that it managed to assert that everything from the Dodge Ram logo to the Microsoft Windows logo were Masonic with no more proof than their containing elements that the author associated with Freemasonry (such as a ram or 13 of something). Ultimately, I think that the conspiracy theories section on the Anti-Masonry page contains everything that can be verified from this page, so why do we need the sub-article anyway? - Miskaton ( talk) 08:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Masonic conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Masonic conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Youtube is not a citable source, moreover, Wikipedia is NOT about "proof". We aren't supposed to prove anything. Don't add that again. Your edits were contested and you can discuss them here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepe Oats ( talk • contribs) 13:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
It is not our job to examine youtube videos, or to make conclusions. Wikipedia isn't a place for Original Research, and OR cannot be put into the article. Moreover, a youtube video is not a citable, nor notable, source. Pepe Oats ( talk) 16:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I'll check the book out, however, it actually isn't our job to examine any piece of info given. Notability is a big requirement, and YouTube isn't notable. Moreover, conspiracy is the accurate word to describe the theories that are being put here. We don't try to prove or disprove tgem, because Wikipedia isn't about proof. We look at reliable sources and I record information. Pepe Oats ( talk) 23:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
quotes:
"Stephen Knight made a very good investigation of the Freemasons. His book is very open minded, and is more of a presentation of facts than it is drawing conclusions."
"The book has a good reputation, and I can see by the quotes, etc. that Stephen put a lot into this. I believe because of this his work is truthful. However, it was not quite what I was looking for. I was looking more for an explanation of actually what the Freemasons do in their secret world, and what some of their rituals entail. The book was more about proving favouratism and thereby corruption, in the main institutions of Britain by the Freemasons."
"This book was excellent to say the least. The author did a great job at presenting valid sources and documentation. He also did a great job at staying unbiased. Its too bad he died a year after the book was published." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.21.145 ( talk) 18:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
The edits being pushed concerning John Adams and his son do not belong here in the first place, but in the Anti-Masonry article. Moreover, it's in the wrong tense. Pepe Oats ( talk) 13:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I see no reason for the John Q. Adams quote to be placed in the article on masonic conspiracy theories, as the quote is not about conspiracies, but moral wrong. The quote is just generic anti-masonry, not anti-masonic conspiracy. Pepe Oats ( talk) 07:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.ylmasons.com/faq/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sam Sailor 06:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I disagree that patently unreliable sources can be cited as such in this article. Sure, I can cite a mess o' blogs to prove that conspiracy theories are believed, but this is Wikipedia and we base our articles not on unreliable blogs and user-generated sites but upon reliably published secondary sources. Unreliable sources have no place here. Elizium23 ( talk) 14:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that the allegation of Freemasons being involved in "other space agencies" other than NASA is a case of saying that the "sky is blue" and it is very definitely missing from the cited source. @ Partofthemachine, please provide a reliable secondary source for your claim, the WP:BURDEN is on you! Elizium23 ( talk) 20:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)