Talk:Royal National Lifeboat Institution/Archive 1

Classes of lifeboat in service

I've reverted to a version that isn't completely broken and spreads the text of the next section all the way up the right hand side but these need sorting out. The boxes aren't even consistent in characteristics listed. I'll have a look at re-doing them completely from RNLI information sometime if someone else doesn't get here first. --Sully 22:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Lifeboats in Action

I've added a new picture which I found from the Lifeboat article on Wikipedia. It isn't mine, but is already on here so why not? Xtrememachineuk 12:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

HQ

Have amended the text on the HQ and image description which shows the lifeboat college, not the HQ. JP 11:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible copyvio

See http://rnli.harwich.org.uk/RNLI/WhatIsTheRNLI.htm.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_National_Lifeboat_Institution&diff=55773141&oldid=55240772

But copying could well be the other way. Rich Farmbrough, 10:23 23 November 2007 (GMT).

See also

• http://www.miade.com/en/node/141
• http://www.gov.im/tourism/activities/seasport/rnli.xml
• http://www.wunderground.com/blog/sandiquiz/archive.html?tstamp=200610

Rich Farmbrough, 10:30 23 November 2007 (GMT).

pre RNLI

I wondered about including the pre-RNLI loss at Sandycove in 1821. But then, where else should they be recorded? It is sad to relate that this loss is rarely mentioned, there is no plaque or memorial. Possibly because its not listed by the RNLI? ClemMcGann (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"adopting the present name in 1854"

This can't be right - they can't simply have adopted the "Royal" prefix; it must have been granted. 81.159.58.45 (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

On this topic, since George IV died in 1830, it seems somewhat unlikely that he granted the royal patronage. Also, he was king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, not 'England and Ireland'. 19:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.46.41 (talk)

Possible Addition

Might I suggest that a list of RNLI medalists should be included.
I believe that there is just one living holder of the Gold Medal, Hewitt Clark from the Lerwick lifeboat, who was awarded the medal for his part in the rescue of the crew of the Green Lily in 1997.
Maybe such a listing exists but I couldn't find it.
regards
85.167.68.158 (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Class spotters wanted

If you are good at recognising the class of RNLI lifeboats from photos then your help would be appreciated at Wikimedia Commons Category:RNLI lifeboats by class where 32 images await classification/categorisation. -Arb. (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Happy to help! ninety:one 22:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Great job. -Arb. (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

RNLI Motto

I think the The Train One Save Many is a current RNLI campaign rather than the motto but then again i cant confirm this There is "To Save Lives at Sea" but i think this is the RNLIs purpose (See Current RNLI report and accounts) The RNLI seems to like to change its branding quite regularly so i can understand the confusion.

I believe the RNLI official motto is "Save Lives" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmountford (talk • contribs) 10:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

Twice recently the term "British Isles" in the lead has been changed to "Britain and Ireland". As the RNLI also covers the Isle of Man and Channel Islands the term "British Isles" is the correct one to use. Further changes will be considered vandalism and dealt with accordingly. Mjroots (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent RNLI sponsored books use the term "British Isles and Ireland". ClemMcGann (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

the RNLI website says "The RNLI is the charity that provides a 24-hour lifesaving service around the UK and Republic of Ireland" (emphasis added) for what it's worth. Guest9999 (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In the most recent (afaik) RNLI sponsored book (Leach, Nicholas (October 2009). Brendan O'Driscol (ed.). Ballycotton Lifeboats. Ashbourne: Landmark Publishing. p. 12. ISBN 97818430664725. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)) the term used is United Kingdom and Ireland. ClemMcGann (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Do the RNLI offer a service to the Isle of Man and/or the Channel Islands? LevenBoy (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

yes to both - so "British Isles and Ireland" ??? ClemMcGann (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. Ireland is already included in the British Isles, so the latter is all that's required. Really we're describing a geographical region within which they operate, so British Isles would make sense here. Leaving aside all other arguments concerning the term, there seems to be general agreement that in matters of geography it's acceptable to use it. LevenBoy (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Officially, Ireland is not a BI. Do read this short sentence: [1]. However we should use a term which can be supported by references in the context of the RNLI. The term "British Isles and Ireland" has long been used in the context of the RNLI. Consider the Port of London Authority from 1972, see page 144 [2]. Other terms have been used, such as UK&I B&I GB&I.

This is completely missing the point. British Isles is an accepted geographic term, even by the Irish government. If people use British Isles and Ireland they are quite simply wrong, since there is no such thing. It doesn't matter what the RNLI use. It remains a fact that they provide a service over the entire area covered by the British Isles, and we should say so. The only reason for removing it from this article is political POV. LevenBoy (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot agree with you. In the RNLI context BI is not used. Even if it was correct, which I do not accept, if it can't be supported with a cite or by only a minority, then it can't be used. The reason BI is not in the article is because it is not used in this context. Imposing it would be pov. I'm taking a wikibreak, which I posted on my page earlier, so if you will please excuse me, I will end this conversation now. ClemMcGann (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

To add my little bit, the RNLI website states, "We provide a 24-hour lifeboat search and rescue service around the coasts of the UK and RoI, as well as a seasonal lifeguard service on many of the busiest beaches in England and Wales". I should note that I do have a link to the Lifeboats, and as such it might be inappropraite for me to edit the page directly. I post this comment to amend facts only. QuickHare (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Some edits on the RNLI article

The RNLI's official strapline is:

'The RNLI is the charity that saves lives at sea.'

'Train one, save many', which had been in the slot, is just one case for support.

I have changed 'assists an average of 22 people a day' to 'rescued an average of 21 people a day in 2008'. 22 was the figure for 2007. And 'rescue' is different to 'assist' in the official RNLI Operational statistics. To clarify that this is not the number of lives saved, I have added in the lives saved figure too.

RNLI lifeguards are now patrolling in the north of England as well, and there are plans to bring them to more areas in 2010. I've changed the listing to England and Wales to keep it simple and included a link to the list of current beaches. I have also changed 'employs lifeguards' to 'trains and equips lifeguards', as the lifeguards are paid by the local authorities that oversee their beaches, not by the RNLI.

I have changed 'five classes of inshore lifeboat' to three, as there are three - the B class, the D class and the E class.

I have removed the reference to maroons, as the RNLI no longer uses maroons.

I have removed the mention of the Lynmouth lifeboat's dramatic launch in 1899, as this was under a list of losses, and there was no loss of human life in this incident.

I would like to clarify that I do work for the RNLI and have read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. These edits are merely clarifications of facts, and not meant in any way as a means of self-promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maireadd (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Funding

The recent change to read "RNLI Lifeguards are paid for by the appropriate town or city council for the area in which they serve, for the RNLI." is incorrect as not all of the councils funding lifeguards are town or city councils. May be could say local authority or something that would cover all cases. Keith D (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

At some time in the 1990s when John Major's government were trying to ring as much money out of the UK taxpayer as they possibly could, some Tory or Civil Servant bright spark decided that rescued shipwreck victims should be made 'to pay something towards the cost of their rescues'. Such was the level of education of the 'bright spark' that he/she assumed that the Government was funding the RNLI. Presumably someone pointed out this error, and the proposal, at least as far as RNLI rescues were concerned, was quietly dropped.

The same thing happened when someone also pointed out that the majority of RAF Mountain Rescue personnel, or at least the civilian teams of climbers that supplemented them, were also unpaid volunteers.

I think these both come into the trying to have your cake and eating it category of government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

External links

Currently in addition to the main website, we also have links to the websites of four other stations/branches-

• Bexleyheath RNLI Fundraising Branch
• RNLI Littlehampton Lifeboat Station
• Burnham-on-Crouch RNLI Lifeboat station
• Amble (Northumberland) RNLI Station

If we were to have a link to every station that has it's own website (almost all of them I believe) then it would be overwhelming and an inappropriate link farm. Is there any reason we have these four specifically? If so I think we should note why so that we have an objective criteria that we can use to judge the addition or removal of others by.

If there isn't a reason, is there an directory of station websites we could link to? The closest I've found on DMOZ are http://www.dmoz.org/Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/Health/Public_Health_and_Safety/Emergency_Services/Coast_and_Sea_Rescue/Lifeboat_Stations/ and http://www.dmoz.org/Health/Public_Health_and_Safety/Emergency_Services/Search_and_Rescue/Water_Rescue/Sea_Rescue/Lifeboat_Stations/ but they also includes some none RNLI stations, and I don't understand the split. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Controversy in the ROI

I'm amazed that the RNLI has never attracted Irish republican "interest". Has there really been no controversy about the name in the republic? --MacRusgail (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

perhaps there should be more on wp of those who opted out forming [3] CRBI Lugnad (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Water sports/RNLI task force (Royal National Lifeboat Institution)

I noticed that the RNLI taskforce is classified as a watersport, shouldn't this workgroup be part of WP:UK (or WP:TRANSPORT (or possibly WP:MED/EMS)) ? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Freemasonry

This section is properly sourced. Martin Short does make those allegations. An Internet search on RNLI and Freemason shows there are grounds for Mr Short's claims.

No one is asking you to like the observation, or agree with it, simply allow others to note that the allegation has been made, and despite over twenty years for some party to do so, never been challenged. Jahbulon-13 (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

And all we ask is that you pay attention to WP:BLP and WP:RS. many allegations have been made over the centuries about all sorts of things that have not been challenged; does that mean they are all true? Or noteworthy? WegianWarrior (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Short's book is hardly a reliable source for what you are trying to say. His book is, to be blunt, full of sensationalist innuendo and accusations that have been proven to be overblown (at best) or completely inaccurate (at worst) by numerous independent examinations. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

With respect, and I hope I do not offend, but Martin Short's book is a 100% reliable source for the contents of Martin Short's book. I am not trying to say that Martin Short is correct, merely that he said it, and published it, in 1989, and that is difficult to dispute, isn't it?Jahbulon-13 (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

OK... What you are saying is that you are citing Short's book for a direct statement about Short's opinion. I can agree that any source is reliable for a statement about what that source says (a close paraphrase or a quote)... this is one of the acceptable uses of a Primary source (See: WP:PSTS).

However, statements as to an author's opinion are also governed by one of our other core polices... WP:Neutral point of view. Please read that policy, and pay close attention to the section on Due weight. Given that Short is considered unreliable (for fact), I have to ask whether mentioning Short's opinion (at all) gives his opinion UNDUE weight in the context of this article? I think it does... Short's opinion of the RNLI (and of Freemasonry) is essentially an irrelevant Fringe viewpoint, and does not merit being mentioned in this article. Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The section is not really a topic that warrants coverage within this article; it's one person's opinion (and is it the un-named MP or Short's opinion that is being quoted) from 25 years ago and doesn't actually say anything about how it relates to RNLI activities (eg is the RNLI dependent on Freemasons or controlled by them?). That the source in question is about Masons and not the RNLI rather implies its peripheral nature to this subject. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I want to restore reference to Martin Short's comments, with, of course, any reasonable warning his distractors may require. For one, it is not Martin_Short_(author) alone. I remember my school headmaster complaining about their closure of Caister Lifeboat, which, if you knew the area as he and I do, you would understand was wrong, and worse at the time, even though Caister is only 2 miles north of Great Yarmouth, where RNLI kept a service. Caister is almost mentioned. One can find on the Internet many references to RNLI apparently abusing its charitable status, something I noticed in 1979, long before I was told I am a victim of Freemason abuse, in 2007/8, and read Short's book, in 2010.

Of course Short, and I and all the others could be wrong, and you have a right - better, an obligation - to make the position clear, but money centred Freemason domination is certainly a plausible explanation for RNLI's closure of Caister. Jahbulon-13 (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless, Short's (or another author's) works refer specifically to Freemasonry affecting the RNLI's income, or its direction of policy then there it would be Synthesis or Original Research to draw a conclusion that Freemasonry is the reason for the closure of a station. Reliable sources are needed, and fringe positions need good reason to be included - eg high profile in the press - out of proportion to their significance to the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Short does say Freemasonry affects RNLI's income.

As to the closure of Caister, I've no idea, but it was a strange decision, given its history. Perhaps we can say that the closure of Caister has never been explained in the light of geography round there?

Jahbulon-13 (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I object... all of this is off-topic and trivial to the subject of this article. At best, Short mentions the RNLI in passing (his focus is on Freemasonry)... so, including what he says (or that he says anything) about the RNLI give him much more weight than he deserves. Blueboar (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to even see what the point of the claims are. Are we expected to believe that those with masonic connections get rescued better/quicker by the RNLI?! The whole thing is preposterous, and has no place on this page. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You're expected to believe that people have a right to know, even when you personally do not like the observation in question. RNLI and the Freemason religion are proud of their long association with each other. funding Is there any prospect of agreement about RNLI's major funder? Jahbulon-13 (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

How much "control" does a bequest of £250 buy? The fact that you keep erroneously referring to "the Freemason religion" says a lot. You'll also need to come up with a pretty robust source to back up your claim that Freemasonry is the "RNLI's major funder." Nick Cooper (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

(Today, the lifeboats... tomorrow, the WORLD! Mwahahaha)... Look, no one is denying that the Freemasons (on both an organizational and an individual level) have given generously to the RNLI through the years. Charity is one of Freemasonry's purposes, and the RNLI is a very worthy cause. However, I seriously doubt that the Freemasons are the RNLI's only major donor. And, if they are, we would definitely need to find a more reliable source than Martin Short to support the statement. Blueboar (talk)

If you want to know how much control of RNLI one gets for £250, you can them yourself, can't you? As far as I know, that sort of thing is not alleged. Here is yet another source, for you, Blueboar: [4] Jahbulon-13 (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You're the one claiming "Freemason control of the RNLI," but random donations of a few hundred quid out of a budget of almost £150 million doesn't really cut it as evidence. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

And again, no one denies that the Masons give generously to the RNLI. What I question is why this article needs to highlight that fact. Lots of people and organizations give generously to the RNLI... it is a very worthy cause. So why single out the Freemasons? Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. I daresay Round Table clubs are regular donors, but nobody's weaving conspiracy theories around them. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Apparently Round Table clubs do not control the RNLI, unlike the Freemason religion, which is fairly well known for doing so, as we can see from the disproportionately high number of Freemason apologists with an active interest in Wikipedia's RNLI page. Jahbulon-13 (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile there is no credible evidence that the Freemason fraternity "control" the RNLI, either. It is only "well known" in the fevered minds of conspiracy theorists. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

There was a Waveney-class lifeboat called "Louis Marchesi of Round Table". GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should Wikipedia mention RNLI and Freemasonry?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is abundantly clear that coverage of these allegations does not belong in this article, principly because of WP:UNDUE but several other reasons given are also valid. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Do readers have a right to know of the allegations made by Martin Short, and many others, about Freemasonry's involvement with the RNLI? Jahbulon-13 (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

No, because beyond some conspiracist join-the-dots, you've not shown why it's significant. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

No, as for the same reasons as Nick points out. It might warrant a small mention over at Masonic conspiracy theories, if it can be shown to be a reasonable widespread theory. WegianWarrior (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether people have a "right" to know about Short's allegations or not... the question is whether Wikipedia should be the medium of passing on this information, or not. It shouldn't be. Wikipedia is not a soap box. If you are worried that the public is not sufficiently informed about Short's allegations, you have other options... create your own webpage dedicated to raising their awareness. Create a video and post it to YouTube. Write your own book about it. There are lots of ways of informing the public. But, in this case, Wikipedia is not one of them. Blueboar (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

So far it's one 25-year old book. I did type "RNLI Freemason" into google and the first result listed was in a forum on David Icke's website. Thereafter it seemed to be all news notices about Freemason lodges handing cash over to their local (I wonder now if say Wolverhampton lodges give to the RNLI or pick air ambulances instead?) RNLI station - but no websites making suggestions of impropriety about the donations. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you to refrain from the usual Masonic canard of assigning mental illness to every critic of the Freemason religion? [5] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=RNLI+FreeMason does not mention David Icke (whoever his is) on its first page. Very clearly there is a great deal of Masonic money in RNLI, but I cannot find any mention of your brethren trying to help the poor, perhaps with a donation to a charity for the less fortunate, such as CPAG, Child Poverty Action Group. This must be covered, with possible explanations as to why Freemasons favour the richer members of society, such as themselves, and boast of supporting a "charity" they set-up and still control. The rich do not sail their yachts in the seas near Caister, it's far too dangerous, and that is doubtless why the Freemason controlled RNLI withdrew Caister's much needed lifeboats. Jahbulon-13 (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Um... I don't see where anyone involved in this discussion has "assigned mental illness" to anyone else. Are you perhaps reading something into a comment that isn't actually there? Blueboar (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

As for the Freemasons helping the poor... do you mean something like this homeless shelter? Blueboar (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

"(Today, the lifeboats... tomorrow, the WORLD! Mwahahaha);" "It is only 'well known' in the fevered minds of conspiracy theorists." A £5 grant will not house many unfortunate people, will it? If RNLI has nothing to do with Freemasonry, why are Masonic canards used in its defence? Jahbulon-13 (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you can refrain from the usual conspiracist canard of suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you must be a part of what you are seeking to attack, i.e. by using terms like "your brethren." A few points to note:

• There is no proof that Fremasonry "set-up and still control" the RNLI.
• The RNLI has a budget of almost £150 million a year, or which a relatively small amount seems to be coming from disparate Masonic lodges, which is no real surprise for organisations that tend to give money to charity.
• The suggestion that the RNLI closed the Caister station because, "the rich do not sail their yachts in the seas near Caister, it's far too dangerous," is palpable nonsense considering that the RNLI cover many other bits of coastline just as if not more treacherous, and in fact the Caister area is still covered by them.
• The characterisation of the RNLI as serving only a rich yachting elite is unfair, grossly insulting, and utterly untrue. The RNLI will turn out for anyone in danger at sea, whether it's a cargo, fishing, or pleasure vessel, someone carried out to sea on an unsecure inflatable, or downed aircraft (private, civil, or military).

Nick Cooper (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

How else do you want me to refer to your fellow adherents of the Freemason religion, Bro. Nick Cooper?

• No one has alleged there is proof of Freemasonry's involvement in the RNLI, simply that such allegations are made, for example in Martin Short's bestseller about the Freemason religion, and RNLI's behaviour, with that of its supporters (such as you), give grounds for the belief that it may be correct, so clearly Wikipedia's readers have a right to know about the allegation.
• So why did RNLI put more lives at risk by closing the much needed Caister lifeboat?
• Why is the somewhat psychopathic decision to close Caister not even mentioned in Wikipedia's article and why if RNLI is not a branch of a religion, can it not admit that closing Caister was a mistake? Is it because the Freemason god Jahbulon never makes mistakes?
• We're not here to characterise RNLI, but simply to tell the truth, and help people gain access to the whole truth.

I enjoyed your Wikipedia User page. Jahbulon-13 (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

We have yet to see that the allegations have been made outside of that one book. That's what gives editors concern that it is a case of "Undue weight". GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

J - you say you want to present the "whole truth"... but you have not established that what you say actually is true. What you have presented to us is a series of unsubstantiated allegations and accusations (about the Freemasons, about the RNLI, and about your fellow WP editors). We can all accept that you believe these allegations and accusations to be true (everyone is entitled to their opinion)... but belief is not enough for Wikipedia. Wikipedia demands reliable sources to support the allegation. Blueboar (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL! What makes you think I can possibly have "fellow adherents of the Freemason religion" when I'm not actually a Freemason myself? As to your less paranoid (but no less baseless) claims:

• Short appears to the the only source for his bizarre claims about the RNLI and Freemasonry, which is the very definition of WP:FRINGE.
• The Caister RNLI station became redundant with the provision of improved vessels at other nearby stations, and there seems to be no concrete evidence that this closure was in any way a "mistake." Other stations have similarly been closed or re-sited (e.g. Flamborough), so Caister is hardly unique.

Nick Cooper (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I note that widespread concern about poor management and Freemason domination of RNLI has been discussed as extensively as possible, the only result the usual Masonic insults. Whether or not the allegations are true, it does seem to me that they are sufficient for people to know. I note your personal comments about me, but my character is not at issue. Jahbulon-13 (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You have yet to prove any claimed "poor management and Freemason domination of RNLI" with reliable sources.

It seem very hypocritical of you to whinge about "personal comments about [you]," when you're the one falsely accusing everyone who disagree with you of being Freemasons and therefore part of your silly conspiracy. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

NNOT: I certainly am accusing you of being a Freemason (of some kind or other), Nick Cooper. Jahbulon-13 (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

CAUTION... given what Nick says about himself on his user page, there is a possibility that he is Catholic (Nick, please correct me if I have it wrong)... and, given the Church's current stance on Freemasonry, your accusation could be construed as a Personal Attack... one that could have real life, off-Wiki consequences. That is a Bozo no-no on Wikipedia that can result in your being blocked from further editing. I strongly suggest that you retract your accusation and apologize. Blueboar (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

NNOT: Nick can speak for himself, but I like your idea of a Wikipedia page listing well known Freemasons who make false claims to be adherents of Roman Catholicism. Jahbulon-13 (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, so what makes you think you have a sliver or a whisper of a shred of evidence that I am "a Freemason (of some kind or other)"? Nick Cooper (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem, Blueboar - I'm quite happy to self-identify as Catholic, albeit somewhat lapsed. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

J- another point... if "concern about poor management and Freemason domination of RNLI" actually is "widespread"... then surely you should be able to provide sources other than Martin Short that discuss it. This is one reason why we are insisting on reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it agreed that we have now discussed the question of whether or not to mention the common allegations of RNLI's Freemason domination as extensively as possible? Jahbulon-13 (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

In the absence of evidence it doesn't seem there are allegations commonly made. So we appear to have discussed it as much as possible under the circumstances. GraemeLeggett (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly... I would say there is a solid consensus that we should not mention the allegations (precisely because it has not been established that the allegations are commonly made.) Blueboar (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

NNOT: There is nothing wrong with being in a minority, even a small one. For the majority view, for example about what a wonderful man your Roman Catholic Bro. Jimmy Savile was, the UK has plenty of Red Top newspapers. Jahbulon-13 (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Non-free files cant be included in talk pages, so the picture that did appear in your post, has to be linked to instead - File:August_Landmesser.jpg August Landmesser GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(Invited by the bot) Is this about the material recently taken out in the last edit before this post? If so, IMHO it should stay out. The substance of it is near-nothing...that there is some type of a connection. To me a "connection" of donating money is a good thing. That deleted material is a bunch of tortured creative vague unenclyclopedic wording to try to imply that whatever connection there is is a bad connection. North8000 (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

(From RFC) As North8000 inclusion of unproven gossip from one author would give it undue weight in the article. Freemasons giving money to charities is not unusual or noteworthy. MilborneOne (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.