Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 24

This is an archive.

WikiMasons?

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There is a user with the userbox who also claims to be 15 years old. So I sincerely doubt that the user is a Freemason. Rarelibra 05:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Mason and am willing to corroborate anything that's not a secret, or that would be in violation of my obligation to not hold Masonic communication with those I'm not supposed to. Lets talk mystery religion. Albert Pike anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.27.118 (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, why don't you register with wikipedia? And why the offensive comments? I have removed them. Rarelibra 06:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

I concur with BB - redundancy is the bane of Wiki. :) Bdevoe 20:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

While this sounds like an interesting subject, I feel that it would belong naturally 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Blueboar, if you need help with this, please let me know. I live in southeastern Ontario, where the United Empire Loyalists settled after leaving the US in the late-1700's. Some of the lodges in this region (Kingston, Belleville, etc.) are tied to the history of Canada (Sir John A. MacDonald, first Prime Minister of Canada, belonged to a lodge in Kingston - his regalia is on display in the atrium; quite fascinating...but I digress...) I would be interested in assisting with research for a section on this, and perhaps even lead it for Canada. Thoughts? --Absalom (4B54L0M) 19:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great. The History of Freemasonry article does need work. As for advice... Keep it as general as possible (ie focus on all of Canada, not just one province) and try to keep it short. Thanks. Blueboar 14:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do,Blueboar - I'll work on a proposed outline for the article, and post it on the talk page for History within the next couple of weeks; I will try to keep it succinct, however initial lodges in Canada were formed as offshoots from GLs in England, Ireland, Scotland, and France - and their eventual amalgamation under one GL of Canada, and subsequent forming of other GLs in Canada with provincial jurisdictions makes it a bit of a hodgepodge. Your comments on the outline will be appreciated.--Absalom (4B54L0M) 16:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

New RFC at Jahbulon

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

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)[reply]

citations

The lead should not have anywhere near this many citations. Everything that appears in the should be a summary of something that appears in the body and is sourced there. The citations on every phrase are distracting and break up the text, and moving them into the main body will cut down on the density and increase readability. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you missed this which suggests that references in the lead section are allowed. Consider, the standard is WP:V, and if something in the lead needs to be verified, assuming the reader will find the reference in the main body is probably not the best idea.--Vidkun 16:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will go one step further... the first few paragraphs of this article are not really a standard "lead" (ie a few paragraphs that tells the reader what is in the rest of the article. Rather, it is a basic introduction to the overall topic of 'what is Freemasonry' (one that gives actual information not found in the rest of the article). This is due to a conscious choice NOT to follow the standard format. This article's topic is far too complex to summarize in a standard lead. Blueboar 16:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I'm not convinced by the argument that the intro has too many citations I would agree that it's quite clunky and doesn't read well. In fact the whole article needs a thorough going over to bring it back into a coherent whole, at the moment the whole does not exceed the sum of the parts. However having thought about it a few times I'm not sure if I could take the inevitable trauma of trying to do it, because I'm conscious that there will be interminable line by line criticism of any effort from some quarters.

In terms of the intro itself it is a little focussed on the privacy aspect at the expense of what the craft is actually about. Also the And X says.... style isn't a particularly academic tone. We're not using citations consistently, at times they're out in full, at others they're referenced in the footnotes.

I think we perhaps need to recognise that a somewhat obsessive approach to demanding references from some editors has led to the rather clumsy style.

I think the content is fair at the moment, we probably need to put a bit of effort into turning it into something more readable and whilst recognising that some people to appear to hobby-horse certain aspects we perhaps need to be more resistant to the clumsiness which results from pandering to that.

ALR 17:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree on the need for nonstandard format. It spends most of the lead expounding on the precise nature of its secrecy and opinions about it, the sort of discussion that belongs in a section on secrecy in the body. You can give a couple of sentence summary in the lead and thus have room for at least a historical and organizational outline as well as a description of their secrecy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, be bold and write it.--Vidkun 17:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "Freemasons are proud of their heritage and are happy to share it," sounds peacocky. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number 24 of the citations doesn't work, but I have the url to have it work. Since the article is semi-protected, I am not allowed to edit it. FAQS. The on the citation is a deadlink, and this is the correct link. Shadowsdogs 8:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Shadowsdogs - what is your account history? Rarelibra 17:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I do is minor edits and spelling corrections. Thinking of an article for Sacramento New Technology High School, though. Shadowsdogs 14:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked it, and it is correct, so i fixed it. The link was either incomplete in the first place, or the docs were reorganized as part of the recent domain move. MSJapan 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masonic Schooling Link

I've deleted the link just posted (A child's experience at a UK Masonic boarding school in the 1940s). It's obviously a sad story, but I odn't think it is relevant to the contents of this page. Perhaps it would sit more happily on a page about teh specific school (if such a page exists), or on a more general schooling article. Hackloon 23:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder to all...

For those of you who are regular contributors, please check the page history before editing anew. MSJapan 00:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for a happy New Year

Fraternally and editorially, Blueboar 01:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copywrite issues

Please check out "Category:Masonic images"... these seem mostly to be logos of various Masonic organizations and Grand bodies... I have no problems with any of the images except that I am concerned that some of them may be under copywrite (and thus should be deleted). Perhaps we should contact the bodies involved and get permission? Blueboar 02:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logos of organizations can be used as low resolution images to illustrate the organization in question, according to Wikipedia:Logos. However, there are exceptions, but I don't think these fall into them. Hope that helps :) Chtirrell 04:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural References

This is an interesting discussion at the Village Pump, on having a "Cultural references" section in articles. The basic idea is to get rid of them. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles and the Essay Wikipedia:Trivia. I really don't have a problem with the Cultural References section in this article, although much of it is clearly trivia. However, we are looking for ways to shorten the article, and cutting the section would be one way to do this. Alternatively, we could keep the section, but trim it ... setting a high standard for what constitutes a "Cultural Reference". Any thoughts? Blueboar 13:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about trimming it, setting - as you suggest - a high standard, and spin the rest out in to a seperate article? That way we'll avoid trouble with editors reverting to get 'their' favorite bit of trivia in. The trouble off course would be where to put the line... WegianWarrior 15:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with trimming if that is the way people want to go... the point being raised by the discussion at the Pump is that 'trivia' should be cut. I can think of several items listed in the section that I think fall into that category. Basically, I would cut anything where Freemasonry was not central to the reference. Under this idea, things like the Magic Flute would stay (as the opera is majorly influenced by Freemasonry), as would reference to Kipling's "the Man Who Would Be King" (Freemasonry being central to the plot)... while things like the fact that "Frank Ross is buried by members of his lodge in Charles Portis's novel True Grit" or that "There are references to Masonic Ladies' Nights in several of John Mortimer's Rumpole of the Bailey stories" are trivial and should be cut.

Obviously some of the references will have to be discussed on an individual basis. I will do a first round to get rid of the absolute fluff... if people think I am on the right track we can look at the next level... if people disagree, they can revert me. Blueboar 21:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I sort of enjoy the type of trivia which you removed. I posted my viewpoint to the Village Pump discussion, so I'll just go with whatever the consensus is. --Thisisbossi 21:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, on to phase II - Not listing the definite keeps mentioned above, here are the rest... I think they need to be looked at individually:

Pierre Bezhukov, one of the main characters in Leo Tolstoy's novel War and Peace, becomes a Freemason.

I am inclined to keep this as I think Masonry is central to the character's actions and thoughts... but we should probably expand if we do keep.

Agreed with keeping it and also agreed with expanding it with 2 or 3 sentences, at least, though I do not know much of the subject. --Thisisbossi 22:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several references to Freemasonry and its rituals are made in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories, notably in "The Red-Headed League" and "The Valley of Fear". Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was raised a Freemason in 1887.

I would love to keep this, but how extensive are the references? If just passing refs, we should cut.

As with Poe, I believe they are only passing references, as are the references in various Rumpole stories. MSJapan 20:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and Sir Doyle is already mentioned in the List of Famous Freemasons, so I'm fine with that cut, as well. --Thisisbossi 22:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasons feature heavily in Robert Shea's and Robert Anton Wilson's satire, "The Illuminatus! Trilogy".

Anyone know something about this?

I do not. If the Freemasons are indeed a key device within the book, then I'd like to see this included with at least 2-3 sentences worth of info explaining their importance to the literature. A topic on "Freemasonry In Literature" may be helpful. --Thisisbossi 22:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Cleese, and other cast members, satirize Freemasons in the "How to recognise a Freemason" and "Architect's Sketch" sketches of Monty Python's Flying Circus.

I think this is a definite keep, especially the "how to recognise" sketch, but others may disagree.

While superficially it might seem to fall into Village Pump's "Family Guy" class, in this case it takes on a central role to the skit rather than a passing reference. I'd support keeping it. --Thisisbossi 22:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Freemasons are satirized in an episode of The Simpsons, titled "Homer the Great", as The Ancient Society of Stonecutters, a secret organisation that controls everything from the British Crown to the Academy Awards.

I would actually keep this one as well.

Agreed for the same reasons as the previous Monty Python sketch. --Thisisbossi 22:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco deals with Masonic themes.

I'm not really sure about this one. Masonry is not the central theme, but it is mentioned a fair amount.

If the Freemasons are indeed a key device within the book, then I'd like to see this included with at least 2-3 sentences worth of info explaining their importance to the literature. A topic on "Freemasonry In Literature" may be helpful. --Thisisbossi 22:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Brown's novels, Angels and Demons, The Da Vinci Code and The Solomon Key also draw heavily on supposed Masonic and Christian lore and symbolism.

Angels and Deamons should probably go (very little Freemasonry in it from what I remember). DaVinci Code is iffy (he gets most of it wrong, but does discuss Freemasonry a fair amount), and while I have not read Solomon Key, I gather Freemasonry figures a lot.

DaVinci the movie mentions the word Masonic all of once in the entire film, so I wonder how plot-central it really is in the book. It may need a qualifiying statement. MSJapan 20:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DaVinci code book mentions Freemasonry a little bit more than that (but not much more)... mostly in passing, and in the context of being a front for the Priory of Sion (yeah, I know... but). Has Solomon Key even come out yet? Blueboar 20:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Angels & Demons, The DaVinci Code, and Solomon Key... as stated above, Brown's first two books really don't talk all that much about Freemasonry except tangentially... and according to this Solomon Key is not out yet (and is actually a regected working title). Given this, I am going to cut the reference. If his new book does center around Freemasonry we can add that when it comes out. Blueboar 20:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the DaVinci Code is a piece of fiction, the general populace nonetheless associates its themes with that of Freemasonry. Due to the ongoing popularity of the book and movie, I feel that references to Dan Brown's works should be mentioned and expanded upon as to some of the more prominent truths and/or inaccuracies (though I suspect that in doing so, it may be a slippery slope list of anything and everything right or wrong with the book -- quite possibly leading to controversy and edit wars). --Thisisbossi 22:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The plot of the 2004 movie National Treasure revolves heavily around the Freemasons and is somewhat unusual in that it depicts them in a benign light.

Sadly, this is a keep... while absolute garbage as far as fact goes, the plot is all about Freemasons.

Agreed for much the same reason as DaVinci Code. As compared to Dan Brown's works: what this film lacks in popularity, it makes up for in additional references to Freemasonry (be they accurate or not). --Thisisbossi 22:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In The Baron in the Trees Italian writer Italo Calvino includes Masonic Lodges branching out into the lands of Ombrosa with the protagonist of the novel, Cosimo di Rondo, mysteriously and supposedly involved with them.

Any idea on this? I have never heard of it.

Neither have I. If the Freemasons are indeed a key device within the book, then I'd like to see this included with at least 2-3 sentences worth of info explaining their importance to the literature. A topic on "Freemasonry In Literature" may be helpful. --Thisisbossi 22:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Kurtz and Deborah Turner Harris use Freemasonry in their series "The Adept", most notably in "The Adept Book Two: The Lodge of the Lynx", and in Kurtz's American Revolution historical novel "Two Crowns for America", which links Freemasonry and Jacobitism.

I don't know about the Adept book, but Freemasonry is indeed central to "Two Crowns". Probably a keep

I am not particularly familiar with any of them. If the Freemasons are indeed a key device within the book, then I'd like to see this included with at least 2-3 sentences worth of info explaining their importance to the literature. A topic on "Freemasonry In Literature" may be helpful. --Thisisbossi 22:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Meltzer discusses Freemasonry in his 2006 novel, The Book of Fate.

Anyone read it? I know he puts the Square and Compasses symbol on the front cover, but is Freemasonry central to the book? Blueboar 14:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it. As Brad Meltzer is a comics writer, I thought this was actually a book about Dr. Fate when I saw the title. Our GL librarian has it on display, but apparently it's got nothing really to do with Masonry at all. MSJapan 20:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, maybe all the trivial stuff deserves a mention someplace. Maybe save it for another article? It serves to illustrate something, obviously, if so many films and books feel a need to incorporate a reference. MSJapan 20:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the Freemasons are indeed a key device within the book, then I'd like to see this included with at least 2-3 sentences worth of info explaining their importance to the literature. A topic on "Freemasonry In Literature" may be helpful. I also agree with MSJapan's recommendation to keep all these tidbits within its own location, as my posting to the Village Pump discussion indicates. --Thisisbossi 22:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Society with secrets

Yes, I too have heard this phrase from (former-/) Masons.

"It is an esoteric society only in that certain aspects are private;[4] Freemasons have stated that Freemasonry has, in the 21st century, become less a secret society and more of a "society with secrets."[5][6][7] "

However, this does set off my BS detector just a little. The Masons have always been a "society with secrets", and this is just a semantic variation on "secret society". They have long publicised their existence, but not their rituals. It was only after the initiation ritual became common knowledge that they have performed it publicly. --MacRusgail 19:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is, MacRusgail? My BS detector goes off to any of those who are merely visiting this article to raise suspicion without education. There are thousands of books out there with information on freemasonry. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of websites out there as well. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read books and educate oneself about a topic - whether 'secret' of not. Rarelibra 14:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself point out the reasoning behind this language ... while the fraternity may have once been a "secret society" in a traditional sense, they no longer are. The rituals have became common knowledge, their membership rolls are public, their meeting houses are prominent, etc. ... in short it is no longer "secret". Thus the shift from "secret society" (which in todays world has negative, "conspiracy theory" type conotations) to "society with secrets". Blueboar 19:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masonry is a society with secrets, but the same can be said about other organizations like the BPOE.

This is very true. Rarelibra 14:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if rituals are common knowledge, etc, then why won't current Masons talk about the "secrets" of the Lodge? C'mon, you can't have it both ways. Either it is a secret society and it's members aren't allowed to divulge the ritual, secret words, secret signs (Grand Hailing Sign of Distress anyone?), or it is an open society since everything is "common knowledge" anyway.—the preceding comment is by 216.129.235.178 (talk • contribs) 21 February 2007 : Please sign your posts!.

To use an analogy; You'll find that the majority of people don't want to talk about the grades thay got in Junior High - but that does not mean that Junior High is a secret school... WegianWarrior 11:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know what BPOE was at first... but within 5 minutes of searching on the web, I came up with the fact that it is what I knew as the "Elks" or "Elk Lodge" ("BPOE" being the formal abbreviation of the formal name "Benevolent & Protective Order of the Elks"). I bet within a little more time of searching, I would be able to find out more and more about the Elks... especially since ALL of these organizations (Lions, Elks, Freemasons, VFW, etc) operate on membership and formal meeting rules (Opening, Secretary/announcements, Treasury, Old Business, New Business) - all operate in some form of charitable (non-profit) fashion, all operate in some form of uniformity and ritual - yet only the masons were cast aside by Papal decree and have such an aura of "mysticism" around them. I didn't know much about the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity either, but after a few web searches I can tell you their common greeting is "phi alpha" (and I am not a member, nor do I know any members). So what exactly is your whole point, unsigned user? You act as if "secrets" as a bad thing - so should, say, the NSA or CIA walk around talking about their "secrets"? Should corporations such as Mrs Fields Cookies or Frango (Marshall Field's) mints publish their "secret" recipies? Stop picking on the masons - because it is people like you that only feed the 'mystic' aura that surrounds freemasonry. Rarelibra 14:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our anon editor (216.129.235.178) limits us to two choices... that Freemasonry is "either a secret society and it's members aren't allowed to divulge the ritual, secret words, secret signs... or it is an open society since everything is 'common knowledge' anyway"... but he leaves out a thrid option - that dispite the fact Freemasonry is an open society where everything is 'common knowlege' Masons chooses to maintain the concept that some things should be 'secret'. In other words, while the entire ritual, all the passwords and signs, etc, etc, are indeed 'common knowlege', Masons still promise to keep them "secret" and choose not to discuss them with non-Masons (not because they aren't "allowed" to... but because Masons like to follow tradition and one of those traditions is a promise not to). If you consider this third alternative then, yes, Masons can indeed have it both ways... since everything has been divulged multiple times, nothing is truly secret anymore, but Masons still pretend that some things are still secret (and act accordingly) ... even when they no longer are. Blueboar 15:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Membership and religion section unclear

Specifically:

[2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence] "A wide range of faiths, drawn from the Abrahamic religions, other monotheistic religions, or non-monotheistic religions, (subject to candidates answering Yes to the Supreme Being question), include, for example, Buddhists and Hindus."

What's the point of this sentence? It has an awkward construction and I don't know what it's trying to say. I doubt it's even correct grammatically. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.187.32.169 (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have fixed the section. Blueboar 13:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart and Freemasonry

Masonic Funeral Music, by Mozart, K. 477 - Does it have anything to do with Freemasons?

Yup, written for Masonic funerals. Blueboar 14:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

spelling question

we have both organis- and organiz- spelling variants here. It should be consistent through the article.--Vidkun 18:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes... two nations separated by a common language. I know I recently changed one occurance of the word to the z spelling, but I did not do so because I care one way or the other (my edit was due to reverting a vandal and then trying to replace subsequent edits). If I have to pick one over the other, I would say go with British spelling... only because organized (or is it organised?) Freemasonry started there. I will discount the other side of the argument, (that there are more Freemasons in America so we should use American Spelling) only because Freemasons love traditional language (and thus the spelling that goes with it). Hey... at least it's a reason. :>)

Blueboar 18:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand from somewhere, can't remember and it was a year or so ago, that actually american speeling is probably more traditional. Since your use of English is derived primarily from an already traditional community and it hasn't evolved in the same way that those of us here in the UK use it. ;) But don't ask me, english is a second language as far as I'm concerned. My mother tongue is Glaswegian! ALR 18:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I am a Noo Yawker who was taught my basic spelling by a Canadian... I'm wrong in two languages! Blueboar 18:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter which we use, just as long as we are consistent throughout the article. MSJapan 02:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to remember is that whatever we deside, casual editors will still come here and spell things as they want (not knowing our conventions). We will have to do periodic sweeps to conform to whichever we choose. Blueboar 14:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why not just use both I mean come on they both mean the exact same thing. Freemasons dont won wikipedia or else it would be called the "secrepedia: the secret yet free encyclopedia" except everyone would know about it. Dappled Sage 02:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC) wait nevermind thats against the rules just use the z spelling because thats what a lot of people use at least im pretty sure thats the american spelling[reply]

I agree with Blueboar's top statement, but just wanted to note: that more people worldwide speak American English, so in a global medium, American English mostly is defaulted to. I know, it's often an horrific thought... (Please don't make me cite this...;-) Grye 02:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To rif off of Dappled Sage's comment... why not spell things however we want, and if anyone questions it we can say we are using "Ancient Craft Spelling"... (We could even spell it like this: "Freemasonree iz a fratternol organisation whoze membership is held toogether by shaired morel and metafisical ideels and, in most of its branchs, buy a constitootional declaraysion of beeleef in a Soopreem Beeing" and no one could challenge us! Oh wait... if we did that, someone would complain that we call it "Antient Craft Spelling" Damn... never mind. Blueboar 13:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem is, they'd quickly learn the true name of our True Gods: FiZAFO WhoRIs, HeTooBy, SMAn MetIAIM, OI'BraBuy AconD'eclar, & O'BIAS B...;~D Grye 18:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh jeez... don't even kid... I'll give it a week before what you just wrote pops up on one of the Anti sites! :>o Blueboar 19:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

who was that directed to? blueboar? Dappled Sage 22:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Grye was responding to me, and I was responding to him. Blueboar 23:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Sorry for the chatter, yes that was Blueboar <--> I...

Anyway. Wiktionary says...

organization is described as the Commonwealth English variant
organisation is descibed as (most common variant of organization -- note: many in the Commonwealth, especially Canadians, as well as Oxford University Press and many British publishers prefer the 'z'-spelling"
With that, check some GL sites. Colorado's shows it with a Z; CO PH GL shows it with a Z...
Given those points, plus I personally tend toward Z, lets make it "Z"...?

Grye 06:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary isn't a Reliable Source for the purposes of identifying the more appropriate usage, although I appreciate that you're active over there. The OED does list the Americanised spelling first and most style guides tend to say use the first spelling in the OED which results in a level of usage. I have to say that I rarely see the Z spelling in British publications so I'm curious as to how that statement is justified, and I do notice the z usage when it appears because it just looks plain wrong, bearing in mind that I've been edumacated in British English it is wrong but that's just to illustrate how little it's seen, although I don't read the tabloid papers only the heavyweights (Telegraph, Independent, Economist, Financial Times).

I'm not entirely surprised that USian Grand Lodge sites use a USian spelling.

Personally I prefer the S usage and would prefer to stick with that, in part because it seems like a waste of time to go through the whole portfolio.

ALR 17:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reality check... which ever we choose, I can guarantee that someone is going to come by with a bot and change it. Some of us spell one way, some another. In reality all of us are going to spell using what we are more familliar with, as that is what comes naturally when we are actully writing. This means that which ever form we choose, we are alsways going to spend some time correcting eachother. For the sake of consistancy, however, we should just pick one. The only way I can see this happening is to do a simple majority vote. So...

Those in favor of American Spelling:

Those in favour of British Spelling of organiZation:

Grye 23:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC) I go with "organiZation", as per all my reasons mentioned here.[reply]

Thos in favur of Mis-speling:

Blueboar 18:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just making sure it's clear...

OED = organiZation. I just checked OED & it has organiZation. It mentions organiSation but does not actually have a seperate entry for it.
- OED defaults to most-used
- The publishing world usually defaults to OED
Commonwealth English uses organiZation
Who, actually, currently uses organiSation?
It's organiZation. Period. The only possible exception would be if it were in a quote, or.. a quote.

Grye 23:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Segregated organization

My father was a mason and asked to join it when I was 20. The article doesn't go into the fact that it is a segregated organization which is why I didn't become one. I was rejected because I was not the correct race being mixed. Speaking here for the US southern jurisdiction (which a US mason should understand). Why is that not included in the article?--Solent 08:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the topic is addressed ... see the section on Prince Hall. Saddly, racism has been just as prevelent in Masonry as it has been in society in general. There was indeed a time when it was nearly impossible for a black man to join a mainstream Lodge in the US... especially in the segregated South. The good news is that this blot on the fraternity's good reputation is being corrected. Today, all of the US Grand Lodges officially abhore racism, and men of all races are welcome. Are there a few local lodges who have not got the message? Of course... Masonry reflects the attitudes of the society in which it lives, and society is FAR from perfect. Racism still exists. But please do not let the bigoted actions of one small lodge tarnish the whole fraternity. Just as the United States is finally begining to realize that Jefferson's words, "that all men are created equal," means ALL men, so too is Masonry. We (in the US, and in Masonry) still have room for improvement... but we have come a LONG way towards reaching that goal. Would your father try to join another lodge (and perhaps even the same lodge)today, I have every hope that he would recieve a more favorable response. Blueboar 14:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Blueboar.

Grye 23:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I phrased that right. My father was a mason, Scotish Rite 32, York Rite Royal Arch. I meant when he wanted me to become a member they rejected me as a biracial person. That was 15 years ago. The Masonic southern jurisdiction includes both southern and western states including California (my home state) so it's not just southern geographically.--Solent 06:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that Solent's complaint has been adequately addressed. If "there was indeed a time when it was nearly impossible for a black man to join a mainstream Mason Lodge in the US", why is it not included in the organization's history article or its general article, and relegated to one sentence in a sub-page on Prince Hall Freemasonry? I think that's important information, and these articles should provide more detail about the history of the organization's racism and its still-incomplete attempts to overcome it. Coming clean about its past would help demonstrate that the organization truly has "come a LONG way."Tsg946 08:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More added about beliefs

I am no expert in this topic, which is why I cannot correctly add to it. I would like to see more about the beliefs of Masons, and something about the 'new world order' that I have heard from time to time should be added. Also, some famous Freemasons, like Benjamin Franklin should be added in a list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarkBollett (talk • contribs) 16:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It should already be fairly clear in the article that an individual Freemasons beliefs are his, or her, own and that Freemasonry itself does not dictate what these should be. There is a List of Freemasons article already. And given that the New World Order is a conspiracy theory which has nothing to do with Freemasonry it has no place in the article. OTOH if you believe, on re-reading, that the point about the individuals beliefs isn't clear then we'd be grateful if you could highlight where the deficiencies in communication are.ALR 17:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This does bring up a point... looking back through the talk pages we have had several people post similar questions. Some are obviously Anti-Masons who really are asking "why don't you admit that the Masons worship the Devil? What are you trying to hide?" Those we can ignore. Others, however, seem to be from the simply curious but misinformed, who assume that Masonry teaches some form of "belief" system. Perhaps we do need to clarify this misconception more explicitly. Something along the lines of "Freemasonry does not teach a belief system, nor does it tell its members what to believe. Such concepts are left to the religious teachings of each individual member's religion." Food for thought. Blueboar 17:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will (& has) become a long & time-consuming address, as it will bring up every issue ever, from every side. Look at BPOE talk, just about Atheism. It just has to be NPOV facts (duh), & little hand-holding (links & cites provided, so do your homework before debating/editing) , as discussion will quickly become factors longer thn the section itself...Grye 21:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for suggesting these additions, especially about the 'new world order'. As I said, I am no expert in the topic, and did not know it was a conspiracy theory. Please don't view me as a bigot, or take that with offense, as I was ignorant about the topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarkBollett (talk • contribs) 23:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Not at all, you have highlighted a useful point about the position with respect to beliefs not being clear. The article does need some work and anything that points that out is useful. Actually, I think on reflection that the response to your talk page should have been to the editor of the topic above here. There is no way that your point should make anyone believe that you are a bigot and I'm sorry that there has been some confusion.ALR 23:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While freemasons have differing beliefs as people from all walks of life do. The Interest in the thoughts of certain key freemasons guide and lead others and more considerably other freemasons into similar lines of thought. Central figures such as Albert Pike have been leading freemasons for decades. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.186.27.118 (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Well, he is the "Supreme Pontiff of Universal Freemasonry" after all (/sarcasm). Frankly, Pike is a load of crap sometimes; he knew what he knew, but he also thought he knew what he didn't know, and made a lot of incorrect assumptions as a result - it's a generalized problem with esoteric scholarship of the era. I'd also point out that even in his own time, folks up in the NMJ could care less about what Pike had to say, and it's generally only Pike specialisits and Masonic detractors that consider Pike central to Freemasonry as a whole, and Pike never professed to be teaching any sort of belief. Only the uncritical eye would believe he did. MSJapan 14:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks in references

I figured since I've been reverted twice now I should point out explicitly here that it is not forbidden to have wikilinks inside references. Take a look at the first usage example given at Template:Cite book, it has a wikilinked title just like I've been doing here. The key point to understand here is that what is being referenced is not the linked-to Wikipedia article, but rather the book that the Wikipedia article is about. Bryan Derksen 05:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why didn't you put it in like a {{cite book}} in the first place? As it stands now it's better, allthought not perfect. However, my, and I'm sure BlueBoar's, problem was the fact that the reference, as written, simply pointed to the Wikipedia article on the 1911 EC. WegianWarrior 06:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't because I didn't think it was a big deal one way or the other. I've been trying to accomodate with subsequent edits. Bryan Derksen 09:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mine as well; that's not how a citation works. You need volume and page info so that someone looking for the ref where you say it is will find it. I'm pretty sure a vague reference to the Wiki article on Britannica is not going to help me find the ref on Freemasonry contained in the book itself. MSJapan 06:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is not a reference to the Wiki article on Britannica. Bryan Derksen 09:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally speaking I don't actually see what value the reference adds, given that the line you're using it to support is a direct lift from the ritual, which is already referenced.

It does strike me as odd to use an out of date encyclopedia which has only tangential relevance to the subject.

ALR 11:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, I will say that the 1911 EB has one of the best discriptions of Freemasonry that I have read in any teriary source. It would be nice to cite it somewhere in this article. However, I'm not sure that this is the place. Blueboar 13:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And for future reference... here is an online copy of the 1911 (11th ed) that looks good. Blueboar 16:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the link to the "external links" section... It works there.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's where the reference was originally, it's been long-standing practice on Wikipedia to add {{tl|1911}} to the bottom of articles that were imported from the 1911 Britannica. This template is no more specific than this particular ref tag was, and even includes the same wikilink that was in it. I don't see what's worse about including a reference like this in association with a specific statement than it is when attached to an article as a whole. Bryan Derksen 05:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the {{tl|1911}} template is for articles where either the entire article or significant amounts of text are copied from the 1911 EB... that is not the case here. Nothing in this article was imported from the 1911 Britannica, so the template does not fit. While the quote about "a peculiar system of morality..." does appear in the EB, it did not originate with it. It dates at least to the mid 1800s. Blueboar 13:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute

This article is clearly written from a masonic point of view, and was presumably written by a freemason in view of the reference to various masonic terms (e.g. Obligation, Craft, Landmarks) without adequate explanation.

Anything which suggests freemasonry is a worthy cause is stated as fact, while criticisms of freemasonry are introduced with words such as "supposedly", associated with extremist views or attributed to conspiracy theorists.

The most widespread criticism of freemasonry, that it is widely used as a front for dodgy deals and corruption (or as the article puts it "Even in modern democracies, Freemasonry is still sometimes accused of being a network where individuals engage in cronyism, using their Masonic connections for political influence and shady business dealings" [my italics] ) is flatly denied on the basis that it is "officially and explicitly deplored" - the implication being that it is unthinkable that freemasons (despite their oaths of secrecy) would ever do anything other than what they publicly declare they are doing.

Let's have at least some kind of attempt at neutrality.

HairyDan 00:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The three terms are defined, if you read the entire article: The Craft is another name for Masonry, Landmarks are (formerly) unwritten "rules" we follow over what makes a lodge regular or not, and I would think that an obligation would be something to look up in a dictionary, as it means the same thing here as it does there. It is not encyclopedic to redefine a term every time it is used.

You seem to be saying that the criticisms are fair ones. Do you have any objective documented evidence for the truth of any of the criticisms? What we have found is that when one looks at reliable sources, criticisms are quickly debunked, thus we use the term "supposedly". Many views do come from extremists, and they are labeled as such. Would you rather the article called a spade a heart instead of a spade? I think that the issue is that you aren't in favor of clear delineation of sources.

As for cronyism, it is deplored - a man is simply not allowed to join Masonry for monetary gain ("mercenary motives", as it is stated in some jurisdictions), nor will that result.

Also, if we were trying to be POV, clearly, we would have left the criticism out entirely. Why give undue weight to that which is provably false?

You've posed your statements, and I've posed mine. I look forward to a legitimately and reliably sourced response. If none is forthcoming in 48 hours, the POV tag comes off. MSJapan 00:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the use of terms with special meanings because it suggests to me that the author is a mason (are you the author, MSJapan? are you a mason?) and therefore unlikely to have an objective point of view. "Obligation" is obviously not used in its original sense in a sentence like "A candidate is given his choice of religious text for his Obligation..."; this is clearly a term with a special meaning in freemasonry (hence the capital O) and it seems that the author has forgotten this meaning may not be familiar to a wider readership. Telling me to look it up in a dictionary is just patronising.

An obligation is an obligation is an obligation, capital letter or not. That's splitting hairs. I'm not the only author of this article, either.

Of course I am "in favor of clear delineation of sources" - but I note most of the sources for the article are from masonic publications - hardly neutral, surely.

They're neutral if they cite their research objectively, which they do. The anti sources are neither neutral nor well-researched (if at all), and they generally fail WP:RS (the policy on reliable sources). Much of what is said negatively is anecdotal, and WP doesn't do anecdotal, nor does it do original research.

For an example of how to present both sides of the controversy on corruption (rather than pretending there isn't one), see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/57463.stm

Read it, and it even admits that much of the evidence against Masons is flimsy. So where is the controversy except for those who make it their business to foment the controversy? Part of the NPOV policy is also to not give undue weight to minority opinion. You might also find it interesting that Martin Short, mentioned in the article, is an avowed anti-Mason. His statements have an agenda behind them, and aren't supported by fact. Why doesn't he have a case docket for the issue with the Asian businessmen, for example?

I'm not saying that freemasonry is a sinister global conspiracy, I'm not saying that all freemasons are corrupt, or that all (or even most) of the criticisms are founded on fact; I am saying that pretending a link with corruption does not exist, simply because it is theoretically not allowed, is a clear case of bias.

It's not "pretending"; there's no sources that show it, and WP doesn't deal with speculation. That's simply not what it is. Another item: the article states "some feel keeping Masonic secrets is at odds with public duty". Reconcile that with the fact that in every degree it says "this Obligation will not affect any duty you have to G-d, your country, your neighbor, or yourself". So who's mistaken? The article on its outside perspective, or the members who know?

Another example of a neutral source on the involvement of freemasons in corruption: Andrew Arden Q.C.'s enquiry into Hackney Borough Council "Freemasonry, Institutional Deficiencies of the Authority, L.B. Hackney (1985-87)".

That I would like to see. Is it available online?

And why not let others contribute to the debate before you unilaterally decide that the neutrality of the article is not disputed? HairyDan 02:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll point out here that you've breached Wikiquette by not looking over past discussions. That's important because we've been through this all before, and we've come to consensus on the NPOV issue; coming in and slapping a POV tag on the article and being somewhat heavy-handed is not the best way to solve the problem. I would therefore suggest you look at the various policies I've mentioned, and then come back with specific items that you would like to see revised, and also with some sources with which to do it. MSJapan 03:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the article seems to be written mainly by freemasons, based on sources written mainly by freemasons. As freemasonry is a controversial topic, that in itself is enough to throw doubt on its neutrality. As for what I would like to see revised, I would be quite satisfied with some minor changes in the wording to make it clear which side of the debate the sources come from. A neutral article would introduce claims based on masonic sources with phrases such as "according to freemasons...", which the article as it stands does not. If you intend to remove the POV tag, then please revise the wording in such a way that the article reads like an analysis of all points of view rather than a defence of freemasonry.

The full text of Arden's report into corruption in the London Borough of Hackney does not seem to be available online; here are a couple more references to it: http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/aio/1701911, http://society.guardian.co.uk/councilsincrisis/story/0,,635987,00.html. I will come back to this discussion when I have had time to do some more research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.7.20.133 (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Source-wise, would you expect the article on the New Testament not to be sourced from books written by Christians? At some point you have to take the sources as a given, otherwise you might as well doubt everything in the world. The same way that Christians are the best (and only) sources for the New Testament, what is the problem with Masons being the source for Masonry? Most non-Masonic sources tend to say "Masons worship Satan!" Would you have us then use spurious sources just because Masons didn't write them?

As for the Hackney reports, it's one line in the article as a sidenote to a different and larger problem (and it's "alleged"; anyone can allege, even without proof), and I don't know where the mention is in the 26-page document. Unless you want to make (and be responsible for) an implied connection that isn't there, we're going to need the original report.

If you think about it, though, the judge could be biased, so we'd actually need to see the evidence. however, maybe the police were biased and only toook down what was useful to their version of the case. Maybe the witnesses were paid to lie. So is it even reliable? It might be a government conspiracy! My point with the preceding is that if you want to be skeptical of a source, it has to stop somewhere, or nothing has any value. I'll certainly wait to see what you come up with, though. MSJapan 15:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two citations provided re Hackney do not really tell us anything other than the fact that back in the 80s, there was an investigation into Freemasonry, and that a few Freemasons on the Hackney counsel were implicated in corruption (no details are provided). As far as this Wikipedia article goes... The question that needs to be raised (and isn't) is this: is this story typical of Freemasonry in general, or an isolated event in Hackney. One thing I get from these articles is that Hackney seems to have an ongoing problem with corruption - one that goes beyond these few Freemasons. In other words, it looks like the problem is Hackney, not Freemasonry.

On the broader NPOV issue... I have to agree with MSJapan. If this article were POV, it would avoid discussing criticisms. It doesn't. In fact, it goes into quite a bit of detail about the criticisms. That is hardly POV. I suspect that the real issue is one of weight... HairyDan seems to want more article space devoted to criticism, and for the article to not point out the falicies and problems with such criticisms. It is a common misconception that what makes an article NPOV is equal air time... but that is not how Wikipedia works. Read WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Blueboar 15:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socks!

Thanks to everyone who has kept an eye on things (users and admins) through this latest round of puppetry. MSJapan 22:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't do too shabby yourself MSJ... but I'll echo your thanks... especially those to the admins. Blueboar 00:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're both welcome. Dappled Sage 19:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

where is the section on scandals and controversies?

Greetings all, as a newcomer to subjects Mason, and as an investigative reporter, I am intrigued by the fact that the French version provides links to scandals and controversies as well as "anti" masonry.

However, on the English side, there are only links to the last category.

Why the difference? Are English Masons purer than the French? Or are they just better at covering things up? As an information specialist, the lack of a category common to all sorts of other subjects on wikipedia emits a faint whiff of smoke.

Comments welcome. Avaiki 22:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Avaiki - English speaking masons (remember - there are English speakers in Australia, Canada, United States, England, etc.) have a difference due to the fact that some masonry - such as that practiced in France, is clandestine. Besides, there is no 'covering up' as you infer. It is also not necessarily a 'common category' just because it is featured in the French wiki and not the English wiki. Furthermore, IMHO, I don't see the need, do you? Rarelibra 23:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... there's anti-masonry links and references, and an entire section and article. Thus, the comments you make emit... I dunno. Respectfully, Grye 23:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Hope I didn't sound too hostile. I am a complete newcomer to this area, apart from a general knowledge of conspiracy theories that floated by in cyber space. So yes there is already plenty of "anti" sites out there, but that is not what I am asking about?

If I may, equally respectfully, suggest that sections on controversy are common right across wikipedia - all the little bits of grit that stuck in the ridges on those shiny coins we all like to polish.

One of the criticisms that I have read of Freemasonry is it's pretend-it's-not-there approach to public criticism. I am suggesting here that the absence of a common category under the heading of Freemasons is a rather too glaring a gap for even the most amateur of researchers to spot ... miss! rather.

This is not a matter of signing up for the for or the anti camp. It is a matter of getting criticisms on the record and beginning a process of debating them. Wikipedia is an ideal format for such endeavours and I look forward to friendly debate to come.

Just go easy on the self-deprecation, alright?

Kia toa,

jason brown

editor

avaiki news agency

avaiki.nius@gmail.com

Avaiki 10:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Could part of the confusion I read between the lines be because of a language barrier? Having english as my second language, I know all about how hard it can be to get something across at times... but anyway.

As Grye ponts out, this very article has a section on Opposition to Freemasonry, which further links to the articles on Anti-Masonry, Christianity and Freemasonry, Catholicism and Freemasonry and Freemasonry under totalitarian regimes - I would argue that this article isn't trying to hide any criticisms others may have of Freemasonry. As for scandals... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; if a scandal is of encyclopedical value it should off course be mentioned here (or have it's own article, but the vast majority of scandals are not.

As a sidenote, I see that the french wikipedia article has listed P2 under scandals and as far as I can tell (I don't read a word of french so I have to rely on Babelfish) thats the only 'scandal' mentioned. And P2 is discussed in this article... perhaps you missed that?

WegianWarrior 12:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason, As several people have pointed out, we DO have a section that discusses the various criticisms and controversies surrounding Freemasonry (which includes links to Sub-articles that discuss such criticisms and controversies in exaustive detail) ... so I am not sure what you are talking about. Is there a particluar scandal or controversy you feel is left out and should be mentioned? Blueboar 13:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, it's not a "pretend-it's-not-there" approach. It's actually that the Fraternity in general simply does not respond. Any members found to be in violation of any Masonic principles or in serious violation of the law (embezzlement, murder, etc) are expelled. Furthermore, Masonry is united but separate, in that all Masons are Masons (with exceptions), but every jurisdiction does its own thing, meaning that anything that happens in a jurisdiction doesn't matter to anyone not in that jurisdiction. I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding you have somewhere about Masonry, but I can't quite figure it out from what you've said here. I'm also concerned because it looks like you're fishing for something; why else identify yourself as a news editor? In any case, this bears discussion, but not here just yet. MSJapan 20:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Perhaps I can make my point clearer. On any subject, of any consequence, in the pages of this website, there are a number of standard categories. Among them, there is a category for controversies with sources presumably considered independent. There is ANOTHER category for recognised opponents, e.g. established critics, rather than, say, an article in the Independent. This category is called, appropriately enough, opposition. Here is a link for sections linked as controversies

http://www.google.co.nz/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2006-04,RNWE:en&q=controversies+site%3awww%2ewikipedia%2eorg

And here is a link for sections headlined opposition

http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&rls=RNWE%2CRNWE%3A2006-04%2CRNWE%3Aen&q=opposition+site%3Awww.wikipedia.org&meta=

Again, to repeat my question, why in other areas but not the Freemasons? At the moment, it reads a bit like the articles in Microsoft Encarta, which are also strangely free of ... controversy.

Or, even, opposition. Like I say, interesting.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avaiki (talk • contribs) 3 Feb 07.

Hmm, perhaps you're reading a completely different set of articles to me, but I see plenty of discussion of opposition to Freemasonry, some well written some of it written quite badly and with a clear agenda in mind

I don't think there's anything more that can be added because it looks like this is turning into a sequence of there isnt, yes there is, look here, here and here, there isnt, yes there is........

ALR 09:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have seriously got to take issue with this. The claim made is that there is no Masonic controversy or opposition (taken down a notch from "scandals", may I add) represented here on Wikipedia because there is no section or article titled as such. Try the following articles as a start: Anti-Masonry, Catholicism and Freemasonry, Christianity and Freemasonry. It isn't that it's not here, but that you were looking in the wrong place. Wikipedia policies forbid POV forks (separate pro and con articles, for example), and thus that material is part of articles on larger relationships and movements. MSJapan 17:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition, becomming PHA discussion

MS Japan - you've touched on the only one possible drawback with regards to how Freemasonry operates. In the US, some Grand Lodges do not recognize other lodges due to the differences regading Prince Hall. Some states have chose to 'reconize' Prince Hall masonry, while others have chosen not to recognize them (and do not allow practicing masons to attend lodge in their state!). It is shame to see racism in its deepest roots still in existence in the Craft. Rarelibra 20:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "scandal", though, and it's not universal, either. It very much depends on where you are. As far as recognition goes, PHA Masons are simply not allowed to go to non-PHA meetings in those states; they are still allowed to attend PHA meetings. However, according to Paul Bessel's site, there are 41 states that have PHA GLs. Out of those 41, 29 are recognized by the "mainstream" GL (as he puts it), and that number seems to be increasing (TX joined the recognition list as of Dec. 2006). So things are changing, and again, it only affects those states, most of which are former Confederate states. Therefore, Masonry is only reflecting the larger societal attitudes in those areas. It's not a justification, simply a fact. MSJapan 20:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We also discuss this issue in our article. see: Freemasonry#Prince_Hall_Freemasonry. Blueboar 20:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where I used the word "scandal" (?). I know it isn't universal - I just find it rather appalling to even consider the fact that the "larger societal attitude" still exists within the "confederate" states. But it doesn't stop there. I have personally witnessed such attitudes at blue lodges in Illinois. And there have been events where PHA masons were told they "weren't welcome" at southern IL lodges. As you said - this is fact. I thought as masons we see all as equal... but this is the ugly side, IMHO. It also reflects generational attitudes (with most of the 'older' masons), for I have seen very little of this in many of the younger masons I have met. IMHO - PHA masons have a much more disciplined approach with regards to the Craft. But then again, I also know of PHA masons who can "purchase" a 33rd degree. :( Rarelibra 20:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rarelibra - no, you didn't use the word "scandal"... but look at what was being discussed in this section before you posted... our minds were on scandals, so it was logical to assume that you were thinking along the same lines.

I don't want to be rude, but I do have to ask... is there a point to your statement? If you just want to discuss racism in Masonry, this really isn't the forum to do so. This isn't a chat room. Let's focus on the article please... it's why we are here. Do you have a suggestion for something to add to the article? Blueboar 22:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't "logical" to assume that I was thinking along the same lines. I guess that is the dimensional problem with reading and not hearing. As for being rude, duly noted. People discuss many things in talk pages. I will suggest additions when the time is right, I suppose... only hoping that assumptions won't occur again. Rarelibra 22:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that there are 23 archived talk pages in this article alone, & consider that many of the editors here have contributions in most if not all of those archives. Looking at said archives, one will find these & associated topics well discussed, many times... & then, in regards to both these subject matters, each is well-addressed in sections of this article, as well as in their own respective articles. That, I think, is the reason for the "Discussion Vs suggestion" tone/statement(s). Everyone, or I at least, tire of reshashing these subjects over & over, resulting in "chatting" more than editing, & talk pages 50-times longer than their articles. That's all... Everyone means for the utmost respect (I think), but the archives are there for this reason specifically. Please do consider checking them & the associated articles out...:~) Grye 22:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, I appologize if my tone was harsh, it was not intended. Harmony being the support of all institutions, even Wikipedia... I have offered to continue the discussion with Rarelibra elsewhere, and he seems willing to do so. Blueboar 00:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to say one thing to Grye. Be careful at the treatment you issue forward in both your text and your tone. You see, the "go check the archives" answer smacks very much the same in many forums and blogs - users who are 'veterans' or 'regulars' and have 'experienced this before' are very quick to criticize or critique a 'newbie', 'noob', etc. to a topic of conversation that is brought up. I am going to repeat the same philosophy I read on a forum. Imagine if you are standing with a user face to face, because psychologically online users tend to say things they wouldn't in real life. If you were standing face to face with someone that asked you what time it was, would your answer be to tell them to find a clock shop? Or to buy a watch and find out? If someone asked you directions, would you tell them to buy a map? Would you tell them they should consult mapquest? Get a GPS/navigation system? I think you would be considerate enough to help them out. Then why is it any different online? So please utilize the same courtesy and care instead of "I'm tired of rehashing these topics" statements and "go check the archives" statements... because they are very ugly statements to make. I apologize if this seems harsh, but I am tired of the "why don't you go find out" treatment instead of a kind discussion. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you had the best intentions, and there is no harm or ill will here. However, you have to always remember that there will always be someone 'new' to a discussion or topic. An expert is one who would generously share their knowledge and thoughts, understanding this fact. So years from now when you are still thoughtfully contributing, you will still have someone who discovers wikipedia (or a forum) and wishes to dive in about a topic. Food for thought :) Rarelibra 02:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to side with Grye in spirit on this one...basic Netiquette states that one should always be cognizant of what is going on on a forum or website before jumping in, precisely to avoid asking questions that have already been answered. More importantly, neither Wikipedia nor this article is a place for debate on issues that we cannot resolve.

Look at it this way: you post on a talk page about a controversial topic (Freemasonry), under a thread about scandals (and the supposed hiding/overlooking therof), regarding PHA recognition (which is a touchy subject for some). There is a modicum of personal responsibility involved here. I would not consider what you did to be a good thing for any new user anyplace. Giving the impression of wanting to cause disagreement is not the best way to "dive in" in any new area. Hopefully we can put this behind us as a lesson learned, and focus more on the article content from here on out. MSJapan 02:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To all... "Harmony is the support of all institutions, especially this of ours" (ie Wikipedia). Perhaps we can agree that we all got off to a bad start here, and move on? Blueboar 03:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, Blueboar. MSJapan - there are no 'sides' here. To allude to any 'sides' is only stirring the pot. ;) Rarelibra 05:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on Scandals/controversy/opposition

Many thanks to all those who took the time to respond to my original question.

It seems there is a healthy level of debate here, at least on the particulars of Freemasonry and how its multiple personalities appear in Wikipedia. No doubt there are more inhouse ‘scandals’ than even the most enthusiastic conspiracy theorist could shake a big stick at.

However, after some 2,511 words, I do not get the feeling, as an information professional of some 25 years, that my initial query has been answered. This, too, is a criticism that I have read about – that serious questions about Freemasonry get lost in a morass of Masonic meanderings. So let me now rest my question, as no one else seems to want to play any more, as a criticism.

Generally accepted practice in (okay, some parts of) Wikipedia seems to be list a section on controversies AND a section on opposition or anti-camps. This serves to give the clear impression that the section on controversies is a Wikipedian attempt at neutral reporting, whereas any section headed opposition can be expected to link to, natch, critical viewpoints.

These kind of categories are invaluable to guiding newcomers into any topic, and I would strongly urge the editors of this page to reconsider their stance. I do not intend to make any changes myself because I do not yet have any deep grasp on this area but rest assured that I welcome input from all quarters.

And, yes, my reporting will follow Wikipedia example on pages outside Freemasonry and reflect the ‘controversies’ and compare them with ‘opposition’ to Freemasonry, in an attempt to separate hysteria from fact.

To give historic context, let me just put the idea that any organisation with roots tracing back centuries, possibly as far as the mists of the middle ages, will have been around long enough for at least a little dust to get on its cloak ? Anyone claiming otherwise seriously stretches credibility – would the Catholic church for example be free of either scandal or controversy after two millennia? Or even a more recent example, like the Jehovah Witnesses perhaps?

Speaking of which I must apologise for forgetting to do so on my last post !

jason brown editor avaiki nius agency Avaiki 13:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr Avaiki News Agency - if it is comment or a story you are looking for, contact me offline to discuss. Otherwise, leave your politiking and news dredging out of wiki articles. Just because your "initial query" hasn't been answered doesn't mean you should continue to comment and push for 'answers' (those the like that you already said you know nothing about). Part of the mysticism surrounding freemasonry is the continued belief in the mysticism itself. One can go to many websites and libraries and check out books on freemasonry (even more so now after the release of The DaVinci Code and other masonic-oriented books and films) to reveal its 'secrets' (if such 'secrets' exist, right?). Thus, like the Lions, Elk Lodge, Knights of Columbus, VFW, etc. freemasonry is a 'private' fraternal organization that has certain membership requirements and performs a number of various charities throughout the world - did you realize that the Shrine spends over $1 million (US) EVERY DAY to keep its Shrine hospitals and clinics open and operating? Do you realize the amount of charity created by freemasonry that goes out and touches the world each and every day (without the typical overhead cost of, say, the United Way or Red Cross)? Is it because you are not a freemason that you continue to push for some 'controversy' to be able to publish something worthwhile that readers will indulge upon? Or is it because you were never a part of any organization such as Scouting, Exploring, the military, a fraternity, etc. that you do not understand the primary function of such. I don't see you on pages for various fraternities, begging for a controversy or "anti-" section to be added. Why is this? Fraternities typically have secret handshakes, signs, passwords and the like - why aren't you suggesting 'controversy' and asking for proof of their own existence as well? Is it because the charter of Freemasonry goes back a long historical time, merged and mixed with various organizations? Given the information age we live in, I would think it would be incredibly easy for you to do research. Ask me offline, I will suggest numerous titles and authors for you, or even send some to you, if you are willing to pay for the shipping. Rarelibra 14:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that you're writing some form of, presumably, feature article and then expect us to give proper names?

So just to clarify, is the subject of the article Wikipedia in general or Freemasonry in particular?

ALR 13:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So basicly you're upset because we don't have a big heading in the article saying "Controversies and scandals!"? Y'know, reading comprehension is such a wonderfull thing.. and I do believe that the wast majority of the people who read Wikipedia is able to recognice sections that deal with controversies and opposition, even if they have a more descriptive heading. After all, we're writing an encyclopedia here, not a tabloid... WegianWarrior 10:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is this thread

I'm just trying to figure out what exactly this article-worth of posting is about? the issue(s) brought up are addressed in the wrticle itself, and in several indie articles too:

Freemasonry#Opposition_to_Freemasonry

Anti-Masonry

Christianity and Freemasonry

Catholicism and Freemasonry

Freemasonry under totalitarian regimes

Freemasonry#Prince_Hall_Freemasonry

I count about 110 immediate & obvious lines of text in the main article alone, all referencing additional articles, about some very real form of opposition to Freemasonry &/or Segregation in Masonry. I don't see a valid arguement, or even discussion here, for 1/100th of the conversation existant. To answer (any/all) question(s), there it is, complete with links to additional articles. End of conversation. Have fun with that.

Grye 06:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I ask a general question on heading treatment and are answered with what eventually degenerates into personal attacks, by anonymous posters, who avoid the original question. My suspicions are heightened. If masonry fans cannot tell the difference between opposition (and anti-Masonry), and, controversy then I question the worth of their contributions to this forum. As the wikipedia frame tells me right this instant, "encyclopedic content must be attributed to a reliable source" - there seems to be reams of unsubstantiated pro-Mason puffery lacking exactly that. Clearly, in this subject, Wikipedia is not fulfilling its obligations as an independent and reliable source. And I am happy to sign my name to this, my last post on the matter, unless anyone has anything encyclopediac to say! Jason Brown Avaiki Nius Agency

202.36.33.100 01:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Topic?

Should there be any reference to the various masonic cemeteries and their respective design/symbolism? Rarelibra 05:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it... I have a few pictures of stones, & in general began a project of pictures & rubbings. They are on another HD & will be available in a few weeks. I'll post them on commons then & let you know. Sounds like a good section/article. Start writing...;~D

Grye 06:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S&C image

User:DakotaDocMartin seems to have taken on a project to change the logo images used on all of the various articles about Masonic organizations. See his recent edits at York Rite, Scottish Rite, and his recent edit to this article. Personally, I kind of liked the image he put here (a fancier version of the Square & Compasses). Sure, the one we have is fine... but the fancier one is fine too. Any thoughts? Blueboar 17:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked him to source the images, otherwise they will be deleted as unknown copyright. MSJapan 19:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... The delete makes sense now. Thanks. Blueboar 19:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personaly, I prefer the plain (original) one. WegianWarrior 19:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with WegianWarrior. Plain isn't bad. Rarelibra 20:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, it's a moot point unless he comes up with a source. And one is as good as another to me, so I have no problem staying with plain. Honey glazed, on the other hand... :>) Blueboar 21:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust

There is no proof (we have only anecdotes written after the fact by individuals who stood a lot to gain by the downplaying of the actual, unpleasant truth) about Freemasons wearing the forget-me-not. If Freemasons had worn it during the one year/winter season that the pin was used for Winter Relief purposes, they surely would not have worn it at any other time... The Nazis (the Gestapo, the Kripo, the Sipo, the SS, et al.) would surely have detected German citizens wearing a non-Nazi/regulation pin, especially one that was supposed to have been used for a specific time period and one that was supposed to have related to a particular activity (i.e. winter reflief). Any Mason seeing another Mason he knew who was wearing that pin would have known that the individual in question was a Freemason already and those who did not know the individual was a Freemason would not have known the symbol was being used to signify the brother was a Freemason. So, maybe some brothers used it for only a short time and as a sort of inside-joke, silent protest, and/or self-referring sign of Masonic membership. I find it ridiculous to believe that the pin would have been used by Freemasons before the time period of the Winter Relief or after that timr and/or in the concentration camps. In addition, this pin was made/used by the brothers of only one German Grand Lodge so the amount of brothers using it, if any, would have been incredibly small. It would have hardly been worn throughout Germany or Nazi-occcupied Europe. But, again, I haven't seen any proof of it being used at all. The individual who started the story after the war had a lot to gain by the circulation of this story... the reputation of the German fraternity was in tatters and it would look good if it was thought and taught that German Freemasons had resisted the Nazis and the Third Reich.

The fact is that most Freemasons in Germany were members of lodges and Grand Lodges that deliberately excluded Jews and other non-Christians from membership. When Hitler came to power, most German Grand Lodges tried to appease the Nazis and to have their members and subordinate/blue lodges survive the Third Reich by changing their names and ritual (as well as formally adopting an Aryan Paragraph) to lessen any perceived Jewish influences. (For more about this, read Ralf Melzer's book and/or his article in Heredom, the annual of the Scottish Rite Research Society)

Lastly, most Freemasons who were rounded up and put in concentration camps were placed there because they were (first and foremost) Jews or members of the Nazi's political opposition (communists or socialists or social democrats) (there were less than 3,000 Jewish Masons in Germany in the immediate years before Hitler came to power). I have not heard or seen any definite proof that any individuals were killed or put in concentration campsts purely because they were Freemasons (there were articles written during the war years that allege this taking place, but those articles also did not take into account that the individuals written about might also have been Jews and/or communists and socialists). I don't know how that web-site figured that 50-80,000 Freemasons died in World War Two unless it is counting the numbers of Jews, communists, and/or socialists who also happened to be Freemasons. User:ATK1966

Thanks

ATK1966 (January 31, 2007)

Whether the forget me not was or was not actually worn by Masons in Nazi Germany, is irrelevant. The story (true or false) has inspired today's Masons to adopt the symbol in memory of those who were slain.

It is not a proven "fact" that most Freemasons in Germany were members of lodges and Grand Lodges that deliberately excluded Jews and non-Christians. Yes, there were such bodies... but there were also several Grand Lodges and hundreds of lodges that accepted such men.

It is true that when the Nazis came to power, and it became clear that Masonry was going to be surpressed, some Masons disavowed their membership and tried to form organizations that they hoped would be more acceptable to the Nazis... no one said Masons are not human, and when the choice is between corrupting one's ideals or death, it is understandable that some choose to live... Many others, however, took the more risky step and continued their Masonic affiliations underground. MOST, simply closed their doors and prayed that the situation would change some day.

Finally, It does not matter if the Masons who were killed by the Nazis were also Jews, communists etc. They were still Masons. Their religious or political affiliations just meant that they were doubly "undesirable" in the eyes of the Nazis. There were still thousands of men who were thrown into concentration camps and killed simply for being a Mason without any other reason.

Fact - The Nazis outlawed Masonry and killed thousands of Masons. Nuff said. Blueboar 02:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ATK - masons 'outlawing' jewish membership is no different than Catholics "condoning" the Nazi involvement in the concentration camps... the Pope sat by idly and let it all happen. Known fact. So is the Nazi persecution of masons. Rarelibra 03:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. See Simon Wiesenthal's bio; it's on the first page. Also, it is very likely that ATK is Lightbringer again, and if not, we've again gone over this 35 or 40 times. If he's not LB, I'll look at this and disassemble it point by point later. MSJapan 17:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever it is, their signature is incorrect, there is no "ATK1966", he is "Atk1966" and "ATK" is another user altogether! 68.39.174.238 05:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Distribution

Here's a good question for you. How many of us are there? :) Jachin 19:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are 'over 18000'[1] here in Norway... WegianWarrior 19:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an interesting number. Rarelibra 20:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, are you talking in general, or of a particular segment? Generally, according to Colorado. USA GL, as of some point in 2006 there's over 16,000 in CO, presumably not counting the welcome & recognized PHA Freemasons... I'm pretty sure the number in the USA is just under 1m in 2006. Grye 06:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lo, ask and ye shall receive. Freemason (magazine), the Official Journal of the United Grand Lodge of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, February, 2007; p38 cites that there are approximately 5,000,000 Freemasons around the world, with 75,000 of which in this UGL. 211.30.71.59 05:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

confusing diction

Having just read this article i am entirely confused. The article makes extensive use of masonic (?) vocabulary without first defining the terms or not defining them at all. as this is an article on free masonry its sort of expected to be confusing and not with complete information but still. this page would be much more understandable with the concepts illustrated in a simpler manner that any one could understand or with definitions coming at the beginning of the article. Beckboyanch 05:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps give a few examples of what you consider to be 'masonic vocabulary' that need to be defined? It's pretty useless for others to try and guess as to what might confuse you... even more so because all mason specific terms that I can see is either explained in the article, or links to articles that explains them. WegianWarrior 05:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As this has come up before, I just read through about half the article. I can't find anything specialized that isn't either defined or linked to. MSJapan 06:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have trouble with; "the ritual" in the introduction; the use of (and perhaps the whole section) regularity; jurisdiction; the use of constitution as both a founding document and a religious text. also much is a matter of order, phrases like landmarks are defined significantly after their initial use. Beckboyanch 06:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ritual is ritual; it's a dicdef, not a special usage. Regularity is confusing, but it's important; it's what defines where one can and cannot go. Jurisdiction is a dicdef. I'm not sure where you see two different usages of constitution; it's pretty plain the need for belief is set down as part of the constitution. The landmarks, while mentioned earlier, are defined in their own section, which is perfectly adequate, as to define them initially would skew the section away from its focus. Anything in the introduction does not have to be elaborated upon in the introduction. Now, wth my opinion out of the way, how would you fix this? MSJapan 16:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need more specific instances of where the article might need clarification. The intent is that most of these terms are being used in their normal English usage... The words "ritual", "jurisdiction", "constitution" and even "landmark" do not have some sort of special "Masonic Meaning" that is different from how the average person would use the the words. "Regularity" does have a somewhat special meaning in Masonic context... but that meaning is explained in the text (and linked to an article that goes into it in even more detail). So I have trouble understanding where things confuse you. If you could point to specific paragraphs and sentences where something in the article confuses you, we can try to clarify. Blueboar 17:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too much mindreading

I am inclined to be very friendly toward the Masons and their ideals. However in an encyclopedia we can not engage in mindreading. We have no way to know that Masons are proud and happy or that they are held together by shared ideals. These things may all be true. (I am sure they are, in fact!) However other words need to be found to express these concepts in this article. Thanks. Steve Dufour 06:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point... excpept for when such words are directly quoted (which in many cases they are). Blueboar 13:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article would be more interesting if it were a little more neutral in tone rather than obviously using the Masons' own words to describe them. Steve Dufour 21:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it, right now. That's like saying "don't use ESPN to report the sports events" or "don't use the Weather Channel to report the weather". The words are brought from valid, viable sources - masonic or otherwise. There are so many books out there, yet there are so many in need of more knowledge. There are a lot of documentaries out there that report on freemasonry, yet still the kind of statements like the one you make. Why is that? Have you ever considered reading more about freemasonry to check if the wiki page rings true? You may very well find out the same. Rarelibra 22:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not questioning that the information in the article is true. I learned quite a bit reading it, BTW. However the average reader will be put off if the article reads like an public relations press release. Steve Dufour 23:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd that! Oh, and no I don't think that an article on Hitler should be written by Neo-Nazis. —the preceding comment is by 216.129.235.178 (talk • contribs) 21 February 2007 : Please sign your posts!.

And an article on European history shouldn't be written by Europeans... and an article on American history shouldn't be written by Americans... and an article on vegetables shouldn't be written by vegetarians... right? I mean, subject matter experts shouldn't contribute because of such a bias in information, correct? If you have a section that you wish to contribute as a rewritten text, submit your proposal and see what the consensus says. Yes, Neo-Nazis would have the potential to have a biased POV writing, however, to offer up an exclusion simply based on the judgmental prejudice is simply wrong. EVERYONE has something to possibly contribute, no matter what their affiliation. It makes sense that a lot more freemasons would be interested in such an article here (as well as so many that wish to scream "controversy" or those who don't wish to reach out to a local library or website to read more on freemasonry). Rarelibra 01:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that Freemasons are contributing to the article! My only complaint was that the wording wasn't neutral sounding enough. BTW I think that critics should also be allowed to express their views, and neo-Nazis should be allowed theirs as well. It makes for a much more interesting article. Cheers. Steve Dufour 03:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, It is a bit hard to address your concerns when they are made as broad sweeping statements about the entire article. So let's go through this bit by bit please. Where is the first place you feel the wording is not neutral sounding? (we can go to the others after we address that one.) Blueboar 14:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked, and once again I am very inclined by my own beliefs to be pro-Freemason although I don't know much about them, here is the first sentence of the article:

Freemasonry is a fraternal organization whose membership is held together by shared moral and metaphysical ideals and—in most of its branches—by a constitutional declaration of belief in a Supreme Being.[1]

Rather than an objective appraisal of what Freemasonry is and why it is important we are told how the members are held together. How can anyone know this? Can we read their minds to know that it is the shared ideals that are doing this? Also I am very glad that Freemasons have a belief in the Supreme Being (I believe in Him too!). However is the fact of their belief in Him remarkable enough to be mentioned in the very first sentence? Steve Dufour 18:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it is The primary requirement, it very much is remarkable enough to be mentioned. It is the common bond - no matter if the person is Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist... Also, how is the fact that Freemasonry is a fraternal organization objective? Or incorrect phrasing? Wouldn't a statement about, say, a professional engineering fraternity be the same? Held together by shared ideals and professions? I don't see anything wrong with this. Rarelibra 18:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve can correct me if I am wrong, I don't think he is saying that the statement is incorrect, but rather that the words "held together" are a form of "mind-reading"... ie how do we know that the moral ideals of Freemasonry and a belief in God are what holds Masons together? Perhaps "bound together" would be a better term? Blueboar 19:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can always rework the statement. I made a minor change, but I think the intro needs work again. It's getting too detailed too quickly still, and there's on mention of charitable stuff at all, and there should be. MSJapan 19:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Blueboar and MSJapan. I am not saying the statement is incorrect. Another problem with it is that it is mainly telling us how the Freemasons think of themselves, not about what they are from the point of view of history or social science, that is their importance to other people. And I certainly think the Freemasons' faith in God is very important and should be mentioned in the article; but that is not what distinguishes them from other people, most of whom (in the USA anyway) share the same faith. Steve Dufour 22:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an incorrect statement, Steve ("most of whom... share the same faith"). In fact, "faith" is not discussed in terms of masonic membership. It doesn't matter Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Christian, Orthodox, etc. as long as they worship Deity. This is something that is inherently not discussed at meetings, or within the bonds of the fraternity. It really doesn't matter - and that is the significance of their "point of view". As far as the importance to other people, there is not enough space to list the accomplishments and charitable actions of a single Lodge, let alone Freemasonry in its entirety. As far as distinguishing from other people... Merriam-Webster defines "distinguish" as "to perceive a difference in" or "to mark as separate or different." How it is that one distinguishes himself is as varied as the world itself...I 'distinguish' myself from you by wearing my military uniform with medals and ribbons. Firemen, Police officers, Nurses, any uniformed service distinguishes itself by the very uniform it wears. Membership in an organization - no matter what organization - is, in itself, a distinguishing attribute from others, simply by definition of membership. Rarelibra 23:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I only meant to say that most Americans now, and I could have mentioned most Europeans in the early days of Freemasonry, believe in the existence of a Supreme Being so the masons doing so is not remarkable. I didn't mean anything special by the word "faith". On the other question, an army is distinguished by the uniforms its members wear, true. However I don't think the uniforms should be mentioned in the first sentence of an army's WP article. It would be better to talk about their role in defending the country. Steve Dufour 23:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we need to re-work the intro. Several well meaning editors have swung by and commented that we don't really have an intro... ie a paragraph or two that summarizes the information contained in the rest of the article. Instead we go right into substantive issues such as why Freemasonry is not really a Secret Society (an important topic, but one that really should get it's own section later in the article as opposed to taking up half the intro).

As long as we are thinking about how to re-work things, I am beginning to think that we need to be Bold and do a major overhaul. And, if we are going to do a major overhaul, I would suggest that we should step back and think about what a non-Mason would like to know when they read this article.

I have never been all that happy that our first topic area is the "Organizational Structure". Yes, I know that, to some degree, it is necessary that we do this - as we use those sections to define terms that the reader needs to understand to put later information into context. But the main question a non-Mason will ask is: "What exactly is Freemasonry?" and I am not sure that we actually answer that question. Granted, it's not an easy question to answer (Freemasonry being different things to different people) ... but I would like to at least try to answer it in the first few sections, and then move on to how it is all organized. Blueboar 16:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I already mentioned that the article has no reference to masonic cemeteries (which I am currently compiling a list). Also, I do not see any reference or mention of OES, Job's Daughters, etc? Rarelibra 19:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know such a thing as a Masonic cemetery existed, and while we have links and articles for appendant bodies, I don't think we could possibly mention them all. IIRC, OES, JDI, and some other groups require a Mason for existence, but that's it, and couldn't be explained succinctly anyhow. The article is huge as-is, and we need to draw a line someplace. MSJapan 19:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we do mention OES... under the "Women and Freemasonry" section. As for the others, I don't think it is vital, but it would be nice to have a brief listing of the various youth organizations (DeMolay, Job's Daughters, Rainbow etc.) if doing so would not take up too much space. I would suggest a simple section called: "Youth organizations", listing the organizations, and simply stating that these orgainizations exist under Masonic sponsorship (without explaining them or going into details). Blueboar 20:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]