Talk:Prince Hall Freemasonry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prince Hall Freemasonry article.
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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Freemasonry To-do:

[edit] Proposed merge

I don't think I'm convinced yet that this proposed merger would be useful; PH Freemasonry has a long history after the death of Prince Hall himself, and I'm worried that this article will never be expanded to cover that if it's subsumed into Prince Hall. It might make more sense to merge Prince Hall into this article, but Prince Hall seems like a weighty enough figure to sustain an article on his own, too... any thoughts? --Dvyost 15:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I just wandered in, so I have no strong opinion. I think expanding the article as you describe would be fine. If you want to, you could replace the merge suggestion with a 'Please expand' tag. I know nothing about the subject, but both articles are interesting and well-written. Tom Harrison (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


What would the beneifits be to merging Prince Hall Freemasonry with Prince Hall?

  • Although PH was an original member of the Lodge of which PHF was eventually born, He died in 1807. PHF did not exist until Sometime after 1813. it was African Lodge #1. They seem like fairly distinct subjects these days, & all-days.
  • Prince Hall Vs. Prince Hall Freemasonry: What was begun by any group or person could evolve at any time into something antithetical to the original idea. That product is probably already distinctly different from the person, and at any time it could be more so. Or not. It remains distinctly different.
  • How about we just pop PHF in there with Freemasonry, as there's already a couple paragraphs there already. Why into Prince Hall? Why not into Freemasonry? Why not put Prince Hall in with Freemasonry, for that matter ?-D
  • Should we combine Scottish Rite into Albert Pike, or vice-versa?
  • Why'll we're at it, how about that pesky Symphony No. 5? can we not get that merged into Mozart?!?
  • Ooh! Ooh! Howzabout Alexander Graham Bell & AT&T?!? What's that about? We seriously have two different pages from these two???
  • Are we still discussing??

Grye 05:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and have pulled the tag accordingly. I'm holding off on an expand tag for now, because I don't see any reason to mark this article in particular (I generally think of all non-featured wikipedia articles as having an "expand" tag)... --Dvyost 07:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. The issue itself was not mildly irritating, the logic was. & agree on the expand thingie. Exactly. Oh, & I'm not good at saying this, historically, here on Wiki-, but very good points, your first lines there, D. Plus it looks like PHF is going through a lot right now, which perhaps will be reflected here soon.Grye 12:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The article twice says "Africian", when I think it means "African". I didn't change it myself, in case it was deliberate or historical. --NoJoy 15:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Context Tag

It is unclear from the first paragraph whether this is about an institution, a philosophy or an offshoot of free masonary. It simply needs an introductory sentence written in lay terms. Maustrauser 02:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What's unclear about "Prince Hall Freemasonry' derives from historical events which led to a tradition of separate, predominantly African-American, Freemasonic fraternal organization in North America."? MSJapan 22:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Try reading the policies on writing articles - inflammatory unsourced statements are not the way to go about things. You are transposing later history back onto 1775, which is inappropriate. Leave the article as-is until I can pull some material from Walkes' Black Square and Compass to clear some of this up. MSJapan 02:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, let me rephrase that: your rewrite was inaccurate with respect to the rest of the article. Did you read the article at all before you changed the introductory sentence, or is that what you think happened? 1775 is not the same as 1813, and the split had nothing to do with racism at the time, as you imply. Source it, and discuss it first, and then maybe it can go in in a less inflammatory form. MSJapan 02:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, haven't you heard of "assume good faith?' I have nothing to do with free masonary. I know nothing about it. I cannot understand why you think I am writing inflammatory material? I am a professional editor by trade and I simply try and improve articles which I come across that I cannot understand. I read the entire article and it is confusing and difficult to understand. It assumes large amounts of prior knowledge from a lay person. In my edit summary I asked if I had got it right - I didn't ask for a punch in the nose. I am re-instating the context tag, as the article is unclear. Maustrauser 02:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Hard to assume good faith when the edit is wholly inaccurate. Being a professional-level editor myself (though not by trade), when I see something I don't think sounds right or is hard to understand, and I don't know anything about it, I don't touch it until I can fact-check with someone who is knowledgeable in the area, or until I find enough research on my own to support a change that I think might be correct. I therefore find WP:AGF hard to follow when someone who knows nothing about the area and confesses to such, rather than discussing an edit, makes said edit, and it is wrong. Talk pages exist to prevent the very thing you are doing: if you elucidate exactly what it is that you find unclear, we can discuss how to fix it.
For example, you say it requires prior knowledge; I'm sure you know at least that Freemasonry is a group of some sort. If not, there's a Wikilink to the article; that's what Wikilinks are for. Prince Hall is defined in the article as an African-American version of Freemasonry - as long as you know that Freemasonry is a group, no knowledge of Masonic content is necessary for the purposes of this article. The "historical events" that led to the formation of Prince Hall Masonry are laid out in the article. Therefore, if you want an assumption of AGF, you need to explain exactly and specifically what the issue you have with the introduction is, and why. For example, let's start with why you think the article assumes foreknowledge. MSJapan 03:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Regularity

Many State Grand Lodges do not consider Prince Hall Freemasonry regular in any way. I have removed this from the opening. I will do some research and post references if they are needed. I'm not an avid wikipedia user, but I am a Freemason, and the Grand Lodge in my State does not recognize Prince Hall Masonry to be regular or legitimate in any way. The State's Grand Lodge has supreme authority over Masonry in that state, in the U.S.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.91.49.141 (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2006

I'm flat out disagreeing here with the comment that MANY do not, and citations already exist in the article. 38 out of 51 US Grand Lodges Recognize their PHA counterpart. Recognition != Regularity, and vice versa. Grand Lodge of France (GLdF) was Recognized by a number of other GL's, and was deemed by them to be Regular as well, in the 20th Century. However, some Mason split from that GL, and got sponsorship from the United Grand Lodge of England, and became the French National Grand Lodge (GLNF). Most GL's in amity with UGLE Recognized this GL, but SOME also Recognized GLdF at the same time. This shows that Recognition and Regularity are not, and never have been, the same, as does Kent Henderson's book Masonic Guide. --Vidkun 17:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/i/Talk%7EPrince_Hall_Freemasonry_3919.html"