Difference between revisions of "Talk:Freemason"
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I definitely don't think a comment should be added to a lgpedia page unless it contributes significantly to the article. This comment in no way does and is inflammatory/nonfactual.--[[User:Tannhaus|Tannhaus]] 14:23, 3 December 2006 (CST) | I definitely don't think a comment should be added to a lgpedia page unless it contributes significantly to the article. This comment in no way does and is inflammatory/nonfactual.--[[User:Tannhaus|Tannhaus]] 14:23, 3 December 2006 (CST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I don't know anything about Freemasonry, but I am skeptical about quoting comments from the boards or citing them as sources. They are not definitive sources of information on anything like this. You should edit out that part of the article if you think it's wrong; ideally you would replace it with something quoted from the book you mentioned, but I don't want to burden you with that. [[User:OwenIsCool|OwenIsCool]] 14:35, 3 December 2006 (CST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Unfortunately, not a single book of mine on freemasonry survived the hurricane. I only had two or three though. But, I will try and rework that wiki page when I have the time. References should be checked at least somewhat, I think. Just because it's a comment or found SOMEWHERE on the net doesn't mean it's worth a mention. It's got to add to the article in a legitimate manner or shouldn't be included, IMNSHO. --[[User:Tannhaus|Tannhaus]] 15:02, 3 December 2006 (CST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Nice job Tannhaus! --[[User:Treefunk|Treefunk]] 16:18, 3 December 2006 (CST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Thanks --[[User:Tannhaus|Tannhaus]] 20:20, 3 December 2006 (CST) | ||
Latest revision as of 02:20, 4 December 2006
This article is inflammatory and does nothing but attack Freemasons. I am not a Freemason. But, the rituals of freemasonry have been published. It's easy enough to get a copy of Albert Pike's "Morals and Dogma" to see that this person's "comment" is complete rubbish.
I definitely don't think a comment should be added to a lgpedia page unless it contributes significantly to the article. This comment in no way does and is inflammatory/nonfactual.--Tannhaus 14:23, 3 December 2006 (CST)
- I don't know anything about Freemasonry, but I am skeptical about quoting comments from the boards or citing them as sources. They are not definitive sources of information on anything like this. You should edit out that part of the article if you think it's wrong; ideally you would replace it with something quoted from the book you mentioned, but I don't want to burden you with that. OwenIsCool 14:35, 3 December 2006 (CST)
Unfortunately, not a single book of mine on freemasonry survived the hurricane. I only had two or three though. But, I will try and rework that wiki page when I have the time. References should be checked at least somewhat, I think. Just because it's a comment or found SOMEWHERE on the net doesn't mean it's worth a mention. It's got to add to the article in a legitimate manner or shouldn't be included, IMNSHO. --Tannhaus 15:02, 3 December 2006 (CST)
Nice job Tannhaus! --Treefunk 16:18, 3 December 2006 (CST)
Thanks --Tannhaus 20:20, 3 December 2006 (CST)
