Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Find more information on Category:Freemasonry by searching Wikipedia's sister projects
Dictionary definitions from Wiktionary
Textbooks from Wikibooks
Quotations from Wikiquote
Source texts from Wikisource
Images and media from Commons
News stories from Wikinews
Learning resources from Wikiversity

Contents

[edit] Classification of articles

Some articles have been classified by me according to the scale found on the main page. This is not easy, however, and there are bound to be disagreements from what I've chosen for some articles. Please see the assessment page to discuss article rating. OzLawyer 18:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Administrators

If you're an administrator, please list your name as such on the participants page, so we'll know there's someone to check the vandalism section of the main page. If not, then there's not much use for it. OzLawyer 18:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm now an admin, so I'll be able to help deal with blocking persistent vandals. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is in / What is out

Something we need to discuss and reach concesus on before we go too far... What do we include under the Freemasonry umbrella? What constitutes Freemasonry? If we limit it to UGLE recognition, it omits an entire branch of the Craft... and would lead to a lot of controversy about NPOV. On the other hand, do we accept articles about every single self-proclaimed Masonic body? Remember, just about anyone can claim to be Freemasonic... Do we include any group with aprons and an exposé of the ritual to memorize? What about co-masonry?

Here is my suggestion... First, I will remind those of us who are Freemasons that this is wikipedia, NOT a lodge meeting. Recognition and regularity do not apply here. As wikipedia editors, we MAY not take sides on the issue of recognition or regularity. Thus, we will have to apply the term "Freemasonry" to groups that we personally may not agree are legit. GOdF, Co-Freemasonry, Memphis/Mizram, The Ancient Accepted High Supreme Grand Lodge of the Mystic Vale of Masons... all are a form of Freemasonry when looked at from an encyclopedic viewpoint, and thus should be included under our umbrella... What we have to do is make sure that any issues of recognition and regularity are addressed in our articles. If an article relates to "mainstream" Masonry, we say so. If something is based on "Continental" Freemasonry, we say so. And, if an article relates to irregular or self-proclaimed Masonry, we say so as well. As for the real loonies ... such articles probably constitute vanity articles and should be deleted anyway. Comments? Blueboar 21:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I am absolutely with you. I would like the scope of this WikiProject to include all masonic bodies and currents, whether UGLE-recognized or not. As long as the subject is worthy of an article, and is in any real way Masonic, it should be included. The UGLE Masons on Wikipedia will be editing articles on what they think are irregular Masonic entities anyway, so we might as well have them under the umbrella of the project. This will allow us to keep tabs on unfounded statements made by both sides. OzLawyer 02:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree, and think that what your saying is consistent with the approach that most, not all, of the regular editors have taken in related articles.ALR 09:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Blueboar. A bit of help on the masonic Landmarks would be useful as they play such an essential part in the construction of regularity.Harrypotter 21:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't include associated forms of freemasonry, but I think we should make it especially clear exactly what bodies are recognized as "regular freemasonry." So far as I am to understand, Blue Lodge, York and Scottish Rite, and The Shriners are the "main" and "appendent" bodies of masonry. Main being the Blue Lodge, and the appendent being orders that are open only to Masons. The order of Eastern Star, I think, is the only known "ancillary" body that is not specifically youth related. For the youths, there are a bunch of others. I understand we are not in a lodge meeting, and it is important to put for an information rich view of masonry, but I think it is also important to emphasize what "regular" masons consider "masonry." TheGunslinger 04:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Lodges

I see there's a call for Grand Lodge articles. With that in mind, I created Grand Lodge of Idaho today. --Faustus37 21:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of WikiProjects

Guys, I don't see your project listed on the Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects. You might want to change that situation. 207.160.66.129 13:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at the Projects List page... I can not find a category that this project fits into. Blueboar 14:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was just going to ask where should we put it. It's so difficult to place it anywhere. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Personally I'd go for philosophy or culture, it could fit into religion but I'd be cautious of the connotations.ALR 15:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Where now it is: History and society > Social organizations Grye 07:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfDs

AfDs on Masonic Restoration Foundation and Traditional Observance Masonry started. I'm also considering an AfD on Dennis V. Chornenky and European Concept lodges and Knights of the North was prodded. All these articles cite very little save each other, and really look like advertising more than anything else in the hopes of gaining notice for the MRF and what it espouses. It would be great if everyone could look in on the AfDs and the other articles. MSJapan 23:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the EC article has the potential, it's something I've seen discussed elsewhere. tbh TO sounds like it tries too hard to not be EC so more likely to be a political issue than a credible alternative.
As I understood it EC lodges are regular (from the UGLE school of thought) but have a distincitive culture so probably justify being noted, as long as that can be substantiated. At the moment the article lacks authority though.ALR 07:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I tried to rewrite the article, but when I looked for reliable sources to back up the claims, there were none. The further fact that there are only about 22 of them in the world (most in Washington, DC) unfortunately makes this nn, and I have therefore submitted the article for AfD. It's too much like an advertising vehicle for my liking. MSJapan 03:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apendant bodies and degrees

I would like to draw attention to an issue that is developing at both the York Rite and Scottish Rite pages. The question being are we too US-centric?

As they are now, the articles tend to assume the US view of these bodies (understandable as they were written by US editors.) IE, that after being raised a brother can opt to join the York or Scottish Rites. Although these bodies are actually divided up into various sub-bodies (ie HRA Chapter, Criptic Council, and KT Commandry for York Rite and Lodge of Perfection, Chapter of Rose Croix, etc. for Scottish Rite), we tend to join thinking of them as all part of one body and intending to take all of the degrees so we can become KTs or 32nd Degree.

Apparently, in other parts of the world (such as England), when a brother desides to take further degrees he do not think of it as joining the York Rite or Scottish Rite, he thinks of it as joining an individual Royal Arch Chapter or Rose Croix Chapter, etc. Often with no intention of taking other degrees.

At the moment, a few of our English editors are trying to re-word the two Rite articles to account for the differences between US and UK... at least structurally... which is a good thing in my opinion. However, it does Highlight the issue of how we deal with appendant bodies ... ie, is it best to explain all the differences and variations in the two Rite Articles, or would it be better to create seperate articles on the various sub-groups (chapters, councils, etc.)? Think about it and join in. Blueboar 23:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I was going to suggest individual articles for the sub-groups, but thinking about it, it seems that a lot of them might not be much more than stubs with an extra sentence or two added from what they currently are as part of the main Rite articles. Then again, if there are people as dedicated to the work as some apparently have been to a single degree, Knight Kadosh, then it might be workable. It's a tough call. I think I'd like to see separate articles at least for the different aspects of the York Rite, although articles for each degree in the Scottish? Might be a little much. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 00:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't call me English! I just have to live here.  :) ALR 06:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

York Right's an excellent example: It has been well addressed, what with the dedication of some to the distinction between Templars & Freemasonic Templars. Those articles have matured reasonably well -I think.

Problem with the SR+ is, beyond "ancient history", it's pretty US-Centric, until later.

Personally, from a PR background, I feel that communication is central, from here, to Lodge, to the home, so I have, & am really really going to, concenrtate on that side of it, what with the wikiproject & Template(S), Vs. editing (& what ends up mostly being reverting ;~(

To address the subject, if there's communication, then I'd say grow the articles, & when the US-UK+ POV becomes a significant issue, with comm, we can divide-&-conquor from there? Grye 08:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Masonic Architects

Having written an AfD on the theme of Freemasonic architects I would like to canvass for support and further information on this theme, notably links to any websites on architects who were Freemasons, information on how architectural movements like the Egyptian revival or neo classicism (mentioned in Anderson's constitutions with specific citation of Burlington as -vieing to be- the country's leading architect) were either influenced by Freemasonry, or were conversly influencing Freemasonry. I feel that connections between Freemasonry and architecture are well worth exploring although MSJapan is right ot say that the existing article is little more than a list of architects. However as the movement is based upon representations of architectural concepts (such as the five orders of architecture) then it seems far more appropriate to have a list of masonic architects than say politicians or jazz musicians and yet on the internet it is very easy to discover information about famous masons in professions which have no obvious bearing upon Freemasonry, but almost nothing about architects and the Craft hence the need for an article or sub-entry on this topic. Although many people have argued that Washington DC was built to masonic street plans the evidence is certainly debatable however according to the website of the Britsh Columbia masons there is a town in Ohio which is designed along masonic lines. My main contention would be that surely Freemasonry and architecture are worth linking and writing about on wikipedia precisely because Freemasonry is that peculiar system of philosophical thought that defines itself utilising architectural precepts, therefore Freemasonry and architecture (as, specifically designed by Freemasons) are innately connected. The article was intended as a stub and as a new user and contributor to wikipedia I understand that articles are deleted if they are not up to the mark but if I can't write the article then I hope somebody else can . bamboodragon 00:38, 30 October 2006

I think we need to pay attention to this... Not just because I have a particualar love for architecture, but becaus he's showing interest in an entire potential cat: Grye 08:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Memphis-Misraim/Ancient and Primitive

AFAIK, these were already merged. Someone might want to doublecheck it, though. MSJapan 02:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Freemasons, & Their citation

Moved this page-worth's & growing content/thread to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry/citation

Grye 12:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] some thing(s) to use here

Grye 15:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning out articles

I've noticed that a lot of the articles that were created by certain types of individuals simply aren't very good. Hiram Abiff and Obligations in Freemasonry come to mind because they either have too much OR, or spend too much time arguing a position due to lack of fact. Can someone take a look through Category:Freemasonry and see what's there that might need to go? Overton Lodge seems to be another candidate. Being the oldest lodge in a state isn't really notable, IMHO. The oldest RAC in the US doesn't even have an article (though it probably should, on second thought). MSJapan 19:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There's mad stubs, especially when one looks at the Papal decrees etc, & they're obviously not going to grow beyond stubs, & should be somewhere in a Papal decreee article... But go touch one, see what happens...;~D this is where the dance get's complex (beyond foxtrot?)
Again, lets build communication, & structure of the subject matter, & things like condensing these articles that really just reference uploaded text into one article, w/cites to said txt, w/o offending, & in fact helping ultimately, the.... other POVs.... ?
Anyway, in my wanders I do notice alot of the articles you're talking about. I'm good at pulling it all together, & when I am myself pulled together, doing it by consensus; You, MSJ, are I think pretty (damn) good at asserting stay-Vs-go, & otherwise, alike policies. Some of the things you pull, I couldn't get pulled, be it 10X worse... been-there-(not)-done-that...;-)
point is, a while ago, you said "need some friggin "Freemason" ref/cite system/cleanup". Don't see it happening... I'm working on it, but spend more time responding/talking/RV'ing, then finnishing any templates, meanwhile people get added w/o cites, throwing wood on ye ol' fire...
Maybe what we're really dealing with is, what was once one of the best articels on Wikipedia becomming on of the worst & most vandalized & highest POV categories of articles? I spend most of my time just tryinf to figure out what articles are out there IN this subject, & tagging them aptly, then organizing those cats! But no worries, I'm not complaining...;~D but to what end? are we gonna make it happen? does anyone w/ a NPOV friggin CARE?!?
OK it's late for me in CO, I'm out. sorry for the rant. G'night. Grye 08:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, we run into a lot of issues. The article was pretty awful, and how it was ever FA is beyond me given the content at the time. Believe it or not, the main article is a lot better now. Vandalism has been more or less curbed, actually, and there are plenty of other WP articles that suffer from it as well (and which you might not expect to). Unfortunately, the recent publicity of the Fraternity has raised people's awareness, as well as the tenacity of detractors. I could incorporate a company for $50 and set up a website, toss out a viewpoint that's true, and it could still be just me. No one seeing my page would be any the wiser. So, we have to fight bad information and disinformation. It doesn't matter how many sites parrot the same nonsense - it's still unproven (or disproven) by any reliable source. No one said this was going to be easy, however. Did we more or les throw out the other template, BTW? MSJapan 23:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, uh... You mean the article template Vs. the Talkpage template? The main template is still there, but i didn't work much on the talk page template. I'd like input into the format before I begin...
I had some things to do, & BTW probably won't be "here" much in the next 1-2 weeks, but I can discuss things & implement them after that time, &/or someone else can work on it too, whatevs.
Some concerns:
  1. Is Main page right place for this etmplate? or Talk page? Perhaps do one of each & leave it up to the article?
  2. I'm pretty sure we can make an infobox (etc) automatically put a cat: tag onto an article, so that w/ said infobox, on a Brit's page, there would be no need for a "Brit frem" tag.
  3. I was last working on getting the "sourced" lines to only show up in the code, while having some kind of "sourced" message somewhere, there or on the cat: page, etc. Also was playing with SR, YR, Shrine additions, appearing only if populated.
Grye 20:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emulation Ritual

Dave

I think an article on ELoI and Emulation ritual in general would be useful, it would help us make clear how ritual developed and the diversity of ritual available. You might want to think about two though, the second growing from the first.ALR 15:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category problem

Can somebody figure out why this talk page in the Category:Freemasonry listing (I've commented it out here) and fix it? I've looked twice and can't find the source of the problem. MSJapan 03:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the problem was in 'Cleaning out articles'. WegianWarrior 04:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Masonic Manuscripts created

I combined Halliwell/Regius, Kirkwall, and Matthew Cooke into one article. MSJapan 05:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

A suggested alteration to the statement in the scope section.

All editors with a genuine interest in Freemasonry are encouraged to join and participate, not just those who are brothers in the Craft.

- Fred (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Freemasons

Would this be an appropriate place to discuss the recent CfD for this series of recently deleted categories? I would like to make a few observations on this topic and learn the opinions of others. Opposition to these categories ran along two lines:

  1. Verifiability - this is not unique to this category. All information in Wikipedia should be verifiable, and should not be included if it isn't. Removing a category for this reason, therefore, isn't logical. Removing unverified membership from an individual's article is.
  2. Notability - many editors argued that membership wasn't important to the individual or their notability. That may well be true in some cases. Here's an interesting observation, though. Biographical articles tend to contain birth/death dates, spouse's name(s), and perhaps children's names. Except in rare cases (like Kennedy or Lincoln), this information is hardly important to the individual's notability - yet we include it anyway. More interestingly, though, this information is also very commonly found on an individual's tombstone - just as are Masonic symbols indicating their membership. So the question arises, how important must freemasonry have been to these individuals given that it is often included in what little space is available on a tombstone - a marker that summarizes a person's life down to its barest essentials? Rklawton 15:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Why was the CfD not brought to anyone's attention? MSJapan 22:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't notice it until the category started vanishing from biographies like Franklin, Washington, etc. So that was after the fact. Perhaps they were concerned about a "special interest group" flooding the CfD with "keep" votes. One of the problems cited (per #2 above) was that the subject's membership was never once mentioned in the article itself. Rather than resurrect this category, I suggest we start by addressing this concern. If Freemasonry played a significant role in the subject's life, let's document it accordingly. If we do this with enough articles, then we may have more luck bringing back the category - perhaps in a year or so. Rklawton 22:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought everyone'd seen the CfD tags on all the cats, & BlueBoar had commented there, so I knew he saw it.
Anyway, I was neutral, but then in favor of deletion, because of the citability issue. If citation were required in the cat tag somehow, then I'd be entirely in favor of the cats, i.e. if the addition of someone's properly cited name to "List of Freemasons" added the cat to their page (or reversed), then OK, but really, it's nearly impossible to watch about 200 cats (you ever try??? meow...;~), + plus chase down cites too.
As to "pertinant info", yes I think it is worthy of a simple cat tag. It's just the cite thing I care about. For some, I think it's worthy of a BIO-like template.
In general, I think GL's, & their subordinate Lodges, should use wiki software for their membership... but that's for another place.
Grye 00:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
A tangential question that has some bearing on this. Is there a general requirement that all categories used in bio articles have citations or be mentioned (and properly cited) within the article? Given V, RS, and OR, policies that sounds reasonable. If so, then I think it's our own fault that we didn't meet this standard in many of our articles. Anyway, at present I think it's incumbent upon us to see if this information can and should be added to some rather notable biographies. Rklawton 01:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
*Is there a reason why Freemason:US is not a Wikipedia category that could be added to the bottom of articles on individuals? 69.19.14.31
  • I just noticed that there's also a Category:Fellows of the Royal Society, which either would have to go, citing the arguements for cat:freemason going, or cat:freemason come back, w/same arguements applied. Not that I approve really of the uncitability of a cat:freemason, & thus their (the cat & subcats) existance, so it's just a thought... Grye 22:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • reply to opening:
  1. Verifiability : Perhaps I mistsated, dunno & don't care, but anyway, my issue isn't Verifiability, directly, rather the Citation for the verification, (OK, which is co-dependant on verification). the problem that I see with a cat is, in an articlespace on wikipedia, one can see something & slap a "fact" tag on it, OK, verify w/reference tag, OK, remove "fact" tag, everyone's happy. You can't do that with a cat: addition. If you could I would be all about this system!
  2. Notability: I think the cat system is a great research tool. Personally, spiritually, I think one of the major differences in animal conciousness is, less the concept of "soul", rather an species' ability to interconnect various peices of information, which perhaps can be seen in great minds creating great theories, & unfortunately, turns idle minds into conspiracy theorists ;~D So anyway, yes the conspiracy theorist can put all kinds of great threads together: "ooh, he was a Freemason! And a gravestone rubber! & an avid junior botanist! & a Ford Motorcars fan! he must be a Nazi!!!", it also lets me quickly satisfy the wonder "so how many Members of the Royal Society were Freemasons, anyway?" Very encyclopedic!
    1. addressing this concern: Yes, it was "once mentioned". Look at GW for starters... But yeah, absolutely good point, although you will invariably get sections yanked as people against Freemasonry for any one of a hundred reasons don't agree with the opinion that it was important to their life. Yes you can say "not important enough to keep those pesky symbols off their tombestone?" it's a battle, is all...
  • So anyway, the above Cat:Fellows of the Royal Society note is fuel for the fire for those interested in this issue; Yes, work on how Freemasonry was important to a given person &/or place would be great (if we can get torn away from base "policework" to actually make contributions again ;~) ; some kind of cat: programming work suggestion, &/or freemason template work? Grye 22:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ACID nom of Simón Bolívar

Hello WP Freemasonry, I just realized I never alerted the relevant WikiProjects to the fact that Simón Bolívar is a current ACID nominee. I'm not trying to votestack, I just want all of you to be aware of this and those that are interested can help out. Best, Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Childhood Identification Program (CHIP)

A number of state GL's do this (at least MA, MO, IL, FL do, I'm pretty sure there are more). We've got one editor thinking that onje article on just his state's program is good, and we've got me on the other side saying one umbrella article about the concept of the program, with subsections for each state that does it, would be better. I'm done with the discussion, it seems like the other editor is taking offense, and I see no resolution that involves the two of us.--Vidkun 15:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are some sources for the national program (whose website claims NY and MA as having started this program in 1990 and 1996 respectively) http://www.ctchip.org/links.php MASONIC CHIP Support Committee: In February 2004 the Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America, formally recognized the need to support a methodical generation of identifying items for parents to keep on hand as a safeguard, and then in the event of a missing child, turned over to law enforcement agencies as an aid in recovery and identification. By a vote of 54 out of 58 Grand Masters present, a standing committee was formed known as the MASONIC CHIP SUPPORT COMMITTEE (MCSC). http://www.masonichip.org/ Masonic Child Identification Support Committee of the Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America.--Vidkun 16:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Freemasonry_d3ae.html"