Talk:Freemasonry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a project to improve all Freemasonry-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Freemasonry-related articles, please join the project.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Freemasonry To-do: edit purge Freemasonry COTW Improve to Featured status Freemasonry Improve Order of Quetzalcoatl More... Review Requests All regular Grand Lodges Listed for deletion Grammar corrections Need images Scottish Rite York Rite Sovereign Grand Lodge of Malta Wikify Mystic Order of Veiled Prophets of the Enchanted Realm Watch this list — Edit this list

This article is a former featured article. Please see its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions; Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue. During any such changes, please be careful to cite reputable sources supporting them, and when submitting your edit, please include an accurate and concise description in the "Edit summary" field-box. After making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page. (This message should only be placed on talk pages, please.)

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6	Archive 7	Archive 8
Archive 9	Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15	Archive 16
Archive 17	Archive 18	Archive 19	Archive 20
Archive 21	Archive 22	Archive 23

Contents 1 WikiMasons? 2 Pythagorean Brotherhoood 3 US Presidents 4 Problems with new template 5 Idea for new section 6 Ancients or Antients ? 7 New RFC at Jahbulon 8 ordering of appendix sections

[edit] WikiMasons?

Are there any other Wikipedians who're Masons? --PaxEquilibrium 23:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Lots. Why? Blueboar 23:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Never met another. --PaxEquilibrium 22:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Now you have :>) ... indeed most of the regular editors to this page are Brother Masons (with a few anti-Masons thrown in to keep us on our toes). Blueboar 04:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup (FunkyNassau 13:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC))

You may be interested in this: Category:Wikipedians in the Freemasons :) --Thisisbossi 13:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Although clearly some of the people on that list are not Masons. (And some others including myself just as certainly are) --Bolognaking 20:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it's based on the userbox usage which claims that the individual is a Freemason. Now I'd agree that some of them might just like the userbox, but surely not that many ;)

ALR 20:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pythagorean Brotherhoood

Most definitely a "not proven" fringe theory... the vast bulk of historical evidence does not support this theory... documented evidence says that FM was either a decentant of operative guilds or made up whole cloth around 1600s. perhaps it could be added to History of Freemasonry if properly sourced, but too Fringe for the main article. Blueboar 01:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US Presidents

Given that this article is very long, and that we are attempting to cut things or move them to sub-articles, I don't think we need a section on the US Presidents that were Masons (as has twice now been added by an anon editor). Other than that, I have no real objection to the material. I simply think it would fit better in one of the sub-articles, such as History of Freemasonry. Blueboar 22:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that it's not that many, and it's been less frequent as time goes on, and that they're all listed in the List of Famous Freemasons, I don't think we need it at all in either article. MSJapan 23:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem with that. Blueboar 23:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with new template

Toussaint has added a new template to the bottom of almost all of the Freemasonry articles (it was deleted from this article) ... This is an OK concept, but the execution was flawed. I have already caught a few errors - for example, because he used the article entitled List of Grand Lodges recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England as a section header, and placed links to all of the articles about various Grand Lodge under that head, he ended up implying that some GLs and GOs (such as the Grand Orient of Italy) are recognized when actually they are not. I have corrected those errors I could find... but people may want to check the info (at Template:Freemasonry) to see if there are other problems I did not catch.

Given that he added the template to so many articles, it is probably easier to correct the template rather than delete it from each article. Blueboar 20:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd probably delete it anyway for reasons stated on the template talk page, but I hacked it down quite a bit in the meantime. Good idea, bad execution. MSJapan 01:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Idea for new section

Would anyone be interested in writing about the lodges that were established in British colonies in Empire days? I know very little about Freemasonry, but I'm curious about the history of Masonic activity in (for example) Africa, the subcontinent, Malaysia - places in which the lay person might not expect to find a Masonic presence. Readers might find a useful starting point here http://homepage.eircom.net/~lawe/MASONICFOR.htm Regards, Notreallydavid 11:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

While this sounds like an interesting subject, I feel that it would belong naturaly in the article History of Freemasonry, and not here. After all, this article is currently at 65kb, which is a wee bit more than the suggested lenght. And btw; why would a layperson not expect to find masons in the places you mention? WegianWarrior 12:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This should definitely be added to History of Freemasonry... it is a topic that I have been meaning to address in that article for quite a while. I did some preliminary research on the foundation and growth of Masonry in India and Australia, but want to do more. Thanks for the nudge. Blueboar 13:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ancients or Antients ?

Refer to the edits by 4B54L0M, where s/he changed from ancient to antient. Which form would be the best to use? Would it make sence to - the first time the term is mentioned - to say something like "ancient (sometimes spelled antient)" or simular? WegianWarrior 06:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"Ancient (sometimes spelled antient)" is a very good idea. Only those very familiar with Masonic History will understand the "antient" version of the spelling. if we used the latter version, we would constently have well meaning but uninformed editors swinging by to "correct" the article... not to mention the spelling bots. Blueboar 13:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point Blueboar - There was some inconsistency in the article regarding the use of ancient and antient. I agree with you - many will try to correct it, albeit in a well-meaning manner. Also, if the article is supposed to be objective, then we should use WegianWarrior's suggestion.

First time on this page, and have added to my watchlist - hope I can contribute some meaningful items, and help police its disfacement (such as happened yesterday when the history section became an Islamic rant). Should I stumble on that again, how do I restore the original text? BTW - Royal Edward #585 AF&AM GRC Kingston Ontario Canada --Absalom (4B54L0M) 17:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the page Absalom. FYI I have added the parenthetical on the spelling (I had to drop a different parenthetical about it being called the "Athol" Grand Lodge, as I could not figure out a way to keep that and the sentence syntax... but as the "Athol" tag is even more obscure than the Antients one, I don't think it hurts the article not to mention it.)

As for vandalism... unfortunately this happens. Quite a lot actually. You can revert to non-vandalized versions by clicking on the history button, then selecting the last clean version (by clicking on the date/time text, and not by clicking one of the 'see differences' buttons)... this will bring up the old text. Click on "edit this page" and save without making any changes. Remember to add an edit summary with "Rv vandalism" or simply "Rvv". Blueboar 17:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Blueboar - I appreciate the advice regarding reversing vandalism. That should be posted somewhere (oh, wait, now it is)!

I'll do my best to check in regularly, and will discuss potential content changes here, or on the various other talk pages before posting - unless I find an item I believe to be 100% factually incorrect, or in need of clarification (in other words, I will use common sense). Cheers. --Absalom (4B54L0M) 05:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New RFC at Jahbulon

re: unencyclopedic tag. Please add your comments. Blueboar 04:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ordering of appendix sections

We just had a minor back and forth on the ordering of the appendix sections, and one of the comments said (nope, see Wikipedia:Annotated article and WP:Cite: correct order is 1) see also, 2) notes and references, 3) external links) which, frankly really ticks me off to no end, because neither one of those sections has layout as a policy issue, because it ISN'T, layout is a guideline, as noted at the guide to layout, which says It is okay to change the sequence of these appendices, but the Notes and References sections should be next to each other. For example, you may put "Further reading" above "Notes and references" or vice versa.. So, for Bog's sake, please don't go citing guidelines as if they were policy.--Vidkun 17:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)