Talk:Independent Order of Odd Fellows/Archive 1

Archive 1

Links

Regarding the cleanup of external links, WP:EL is very clear about not linking to specific sites from a general topic. Futher explanation can be found at User talk:Pdfpdf. Deiz talk 20:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

International order

There appears to be something on the Internet called the "International Order of Odd Fellows". Is this just a common misnaming, or is it something different? I am going to create a redirect page until I can figure this out. Laconic 20:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"International" in this context is a misinterpretation of IOOF. Originally "I" means Independent as the order in USA became independent of the English Manchester Unity. On the other hand the order is International, i.e. world-wide, if meant in such a way. MKH, 2 Aug 2005

Hi, I live in the Netherlands, and tonight I was reading or local council booklet on what is in and around our area in terms of social clubs and sports etc. when I came across an advert for the IOOF and the words "Independent Order Of Odd Fellows" so although they are "International", they are still named "Independent". Not sure if ths info is helpful, but I hope soNorthern Light 19:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The correct name is "Independent"; I have manually changed all links that were to "International" to now link to "Independent".

(i.e. If you go to the actual International Order of Odd Fellows page, and click on What Links Here

it SHOULD tell you "No pages link to International Order of Odd Fellows".)

Pdfpdf (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

similarities

Will write something later. Meanwhile, once you have been reverted, the accepted practice is to discuss it on the talk page, not re-revert - that's how edit-wars start. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment

this article does not state exactly what the organization is, could someone add a /stub tag or /cleanup tag?

Well said, exactly what does the IOOF do, what are its policies, etc.? -98.221.133.96 (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Read the article and look at some of the websites!

It's an altruistic fraternity, though these days, it has female members too.

Look at Category:Odd Fellows

Also, look at Odd Fellows and Oddfellows.

Then, having done all that, write something useful on this page.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement of purpose, I.R.S. and Canadian tax code references, definitions of words and phrases etc. can be found in the "General code of laws of the I.O.O.F." Additionally the I.R.S. definition of a 501 (c) (8) can also give factual insight here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.173.45.173 (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

How much of that is relevant to the international organisation? i.e. I.R.S. definitions are unlikely to be of relevance to the European or Australasian Lodges. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This code covers statement of purpose wherein lies the difference between Masons and Odd Fellows. They are not "equivalent" to one another especially at their core. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.173.45.173 (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are alluding to. Which "This code" covers which statement of which purposes? Which "They" are not equivalent, and to what equivalence(s) are you referring? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Those of you who seem to be “in the know” about the purpose of the organization, why can you not add a blurb to the article outlining such? Surely it would take you no more time that it has taken you to write your comments here on the talk page. Unless the claim to know how and what the organization does is a bluff … SpikeToronto (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I added a PHILOSOPHY & PURPOSE section briefly outlining what the IOOF does. SpikeToronto (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"why can you not add a blurb" - Well, I don't know about others, but here are my reasons: There are several questions. (e.g. "does not state exactly what the organization is", "exactly what does the IOOF do", "what are its policies") I've answered the first one (i.e. "It's an altruistic fraternity, though these days, it has female members too.")

However, what that means varies from country to country. (i.e. I.R.S. definition of a 501 (c) (8) is a completely different piece of legislation to the Australian "Friendly Societies Act" - IRS definitions are unlikely to be of any relevance outside the USA; I expect that the concept of a "Friendly Society" means nothing in the USA.)

As it happens, I think your choice of "Philosophy & purpose" was an excellent choice, because it is probably one of very few areas which actually are "universal", and hence the section is a very useful addition. (Thank you.)

However, I have my reservations about how much that actually tells you about what the IOOF "is" and/or what it "does". And as for "what are its policies", I suspect that might vary regionally also ...

So, in summary, I don't believe there is a single definitive answer to those three questions, and although it is very useful to give a description of the intent of the organisation, I don't think the Philosophy & purpose section actually answers those three questions.

Well. You asked a question; I have provided an answer. So what? I'm not sure! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

FOOTNOTE #1

Why not take the text from footnote #1 and place it in the article proper? I think the information contained therein might better serve the reader if it were in the main body of the article rather than being located in a footnote. Thoughts? SpikeToronto (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"Why not ... article proper?" - In which part of the article proper?

"I think ... " - Perhaps. Again I would comment: In which part of the article proper?

(To me) It looks like the sort of stuff that would go in the History section; doesn't the History section already cover that ground?

I think I must be missing your point. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If the History section already covers that ground, then the footnote is redundant and should be reduced to a mere reference. If the History section does not contain the information currently in the footnote, then it should be edited into the History section. That was my point. Sorry I was not clearer. I’ll re-read the History section and the footnote, figure something out, make changes accordingly, and then leave it the Wiki community to judge … er, further revise. Thanks for the question Pdfpdf! It made me clarify my thoughts on the matter! SpikeToronto (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(To me) That sounds like a good plan. (And thanks for the clarification.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Linkfarm

I've removed the list of lodges per WP:NOTLINK and WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yes, you're quite right. I think I've addressed (started to address?) the issues you have raised. If not, please explain here rather than reverting. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Pointless, futile and frustrating lack of communication archived at Talk:Independent Order of Odd Fellows/June 2010 Pdfpdf (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Tags

It seems premature to start this new article. I've tagged it identical to the list it's been copied from at Independent Order of Odd Fellows, discussed in Talk:Independent_Order_of_Odd_Fellows#Justification_for_table_of_lodges. I've added WP:N as well, since we're now talking about a complete article. --Ronz (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

There was ample justification for a lengthy list not being in the main article. You and I were never at odds over that. As I understand it, Pdfpdf hasn't expressed a particular opinion about that one way or the other, his primary concern, I believe, has been that the list is not removed in its entireity. See below for further. AusTerrapin (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Justification for table of lodges jurisdictions

Reformatting the links into references borders on WP:REFSPAM, "Citation spamming is the illegitimate or improper use of citations, footnotes or references in a manner inconsistent with accepted standards."

If our goal is to allow readers access to the links, they're available from both of the first two external links.

Putting aside these issues, we have no independent, reliable sources to justify such level of detail. Without such references, it appears to violate WP:NOT (especially WP:NOTDIR #7 and WP:SOAPBOX), WP:OR (specifically WP:PSTS because it consists only of self-published, primary sources), and WP:UNDUE (again, because there are no independent sources). --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hallelujah! At last he says something relevant!! (Wonders never cease!!!!!)

"Reformatting the links into references borders on WP:REFSPAM" - Whether it does or not, so what? i.e What's your point? i.e Explain yourself please.

I'm rather tired of these vague, hand-waving, non-specific, non-informative, generalisations.

Give me something concrete and specific and definitive please. How can you expect me to address vague handwaving generalisations? (By-the-way, that is a specific question. But as you are yet to answer EVEN ONE of the dozen or so questions I have asked you ...

Etc.

I could, as I have previously, address your points one-by-one.

But why should I?

You have yet to respond to ANY of the questions I have asked you. Let's emphasise this: ANY

Let's be very specific here:

• Over the last month, you have wasted HUGE amounts of my time, and we achieved NOTHING!
• Beyond vague hand waving, you have said NOTHING SPECIFIC!
• You are excellent at making numerous vague references to "things" WITHOUT explaining how or why they are relevant.

As an academic exercise, I have tolerated this.

However, I am now no longer willing to do so.

Pdfpdf (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As an outsider looking in on this debate, it seems to me that it is perfectly relevant to have a list of lodges as part of a wider article on the IOOF. The question is how best to treat the list in the context of the wider article. Larger lists may be best cut to a subordinate supporting article in order not to unduly interrupt the article's flow. The list of lodges in this article is probably borderline between remaining in the main article vs being moved to a supporting article. If it the list was suitably extensive, it may even be relevant to split even further, such as by country, however I don't think that the IOOF list is in danger of requiring this treatment yet. There is nothing POV about including a list of lodges unless, perhaps, there is some contention as to whether certain lodges do or don't belong in the list (I am unaware if such issues do or don't exist in this instance). For these instances, NPOV would be trickier to achieve, but referring to both sides' claims with secondary sources should do the trick. For those whose status is not contested, the information provided consists of prima facie facts. WP:SOURCES allows for primary sources/self published sources to be used in this instance ("all self-published sources, whether experts or not, are considered reliable as sources on themselves, especially in articles about themselves, subject to certain criteria, though no article should be based primarily on such sources"), third party secondary sources are not required. In this instance, I do not think that the further guidance in WP:SELFPUB has been breached. There are enough secondary sources used in the article for it to avoid falling foul of WP:SELFPUB point 5, however a few more would be required before the article is ready for GA status. Appropriate linking to the organisations official website is explicitly allowed per WP:ELOFFICIAL, it is desirable to keep the number of links down (ie use a global HQ site or national HQ site in preference to local branches if possible). Having said that, if sufficient detail is not provided on the HQ site to verify the facts in the table, then it may be necessary to cite the official sites of the subordinate lodges. Whilst this does not meet the intent of WP:ELOFFICIAL as well as might be desirable, it is a necessary compromise to ensure that WP:VERIFY is achieved. The fact that the list is part of a larger textual argument means that it does not fall foul of WP:LINKFARM/WP:NOTLINK.

In short, the list as it currently stands if fine, perhaps it could be moved to a subordinate article and if there is an opportunity to thin out the number of sources used whilst still covering off on verifiability requirements, then that should be taken. Pdfpdf has certainly done a good job in getting it to this point. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I disagree. Prior to my addressing this, it was a linkfarm [1]. The external links were changed to internal links in response. I don't understand how further discussions on how WP:NOTLINK and WP:EL is relevant to the article with these changes. If I'm overlooking something, please indicate what it might be.

"it seems to me that it is perfectly relevant to have a list of lodges as part of a wider article on the IOOF." Why? I've stated, and I continue to state that this is a violation of WP:NOT.

I've offered a simple analogy: We don't include lists of offices in an article on a corporation. I'll offer another: We don't include lists of products in articles on a corporation.

Previously, I asked, "why does such a list belong in an encyclopedia article?"

Pdfpdf answered (03:32, 16 June 2010), "The article is about a U.S. Lodge established in the early 19th century that had spread to most of the rest of the world by the end of the 19th century, and in the 20th and 21st centuries it has both continued to exist, and continued to spread. The table provides examples and evidence of the nature and extent of the spread, and of the international nature of the organisation. This is why I think that such a list belongs in an encyclopaedia article."

I think he has some good points. However, I don't see any points justifying a complete listing of all lodges.

"There is nothing POV about including a list of lodges unless, perhaps, there is some contention as to whether certain lodges do or don't belong in the list." My arguments contend that none of the lodges belong in a list. There is one lodge with it's own article, but one entry doesn't make a list. --Ronz (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, at this point your only real concern is whether or not the list exists at all, that if it should exist then you are happy enough with how it has been presented, but that you question its suitability to exist. WP is not just an encyclopaedia, it also is an almanac (WP:5P).

Wearing my historians hat, I consider knowing where an organisation, such as the IOOF, has established itself it quite relevant to enhancing socio-cultural understanding. I would be just as happy to see lists of company offices included in Wikipedia for the same reasons. The utility and relevance increases the older the organisation is, so I would not generally consider it relevant to have detailed lists for organisations that have only been around for a couple of years, but those that have been around as long as IOOF, definitely. Precisely where the transition should occur is a judgement call and is primarily effected by the significance of the role of the branches to their local communities (or a subset of the local community). With the IOOF, the lodge (or equivalent entity for other organisations) is a focal point for its people, but is independant of the premises that the lodge may occupy from time to time. In the case of commercial businesses, it is less certain whether it will be the subordinate business entity or the facility which it occupies that will be most relevant - again, this would need to be judged on a case by case basis. I should also note that notwithstanding that a specific branch, lodge, etc may not meet the conditions I have outlined, if many others for the organisation do, then those that don't can still be included on the basis of ensuring comprehensive coverage. With organisations such as the IOOF it is not unusual for historians specialising in 'local history' to be attracted to writing about local branches. Ultimately whether this occurs is subject to the vagaries of having a historian available and motivated to the task. It would also be perfectly conceivable that the list formed here would serve as a jumping off point for the development of future articles on specific branches. Certainly, there would need to be sufficient, appropriately sourced, material available to justify this, but it is not out of the question. In the case of your example of not including a list of a company's products on Wikipedia, that has actually been done already, see for example the various pages and lists on the entire range of Apple computers (see Apple Inc.#Current products and List of products discontinued by Apple Inc.

I think you may be misconstruing WP:NOT. IOOF as a whole meets WP:NOT and I gather that you are comfortable with that. For separate articles to be raised on individual IOOF lodges, they would need to separately meet WP:NOT, in particular having sufficient secondary sources available. Meeting WP:NOT of all list elements is not a requirement in order to formulate a list. The list merely needs to have a suitable covering article that meets WP:NOT which, in this instance, it does. WP:STAND also provides further guidance; in the section treating inclusion criteria, one of the allowable examples WP:STAND cites is where most/all of the entries in the list fail notability criteria, ie to have articles in their own right - creating the list provides a means of legitimately talking about them in a consolidated fashion when they can't be talked about in separate article because their is insufficent secondary material available to warrant this.

My thinking at the moment, in line with my earlier post is that perhaps the main page ought only have a list of the grand lodges representing each country (or region if there is not a single national HQ - Apple Store#Locations provides an example of how this might be done on the main page). A more comprehensive list with any subordinate lodges at sub-national/regional level should then be the subject of a sub-ordinate list page. Having said that, I would not be opposed to the entire list being moved to a sub-ordinate list page - that is a judgement call on whether the list unduly interrupts the flow of the main article. I would be very reluctant to see Pdfpdf's work removed entirely. Wikipedia is currently the host, quite happily, to a wide range of lists, many of them very detailed. I don't see any why the list of IOOF lodges should not join them. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 08:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for another detailed response. Glad to see we understand each other.

"at this point your only real concern is whether or not the list exists at all" Not really. I'm concerned that we cannot justify the level of detail that the table presents. This same concern could be applied to many other sections of the article, but I'm starting with the table because it had more obvious problems before I pointed them out and they were resolved.

Yes, Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia, but it's not an almanac either. WP:SOAP, WP:NOTDIR, and WP:IINFO provide some guidance on where we draw the line.

"I would be just as happy to see lists of company offices included in Wikipedia for the same reasons. The utility and relevance increases the older the organisation is, so I would not generally consider it relevant to have detailed lists for organisations that have only been around for a couple of years, but those that have been around as long as IOOF, definitely." Good points, but such utility appears beyond the scope of Wikipedia, or is at least severely limited by WP:NOT.

I'm glad you understand the analogies I gave, and have offered another. Yes, there are lists of products for certain companies. They all have many independent, reliable sources.

Yes, I think this table we're discussion is most like Apple Store#Locations, which does not offer a complete list. However, IOoOf is not Applem, and lodges are not stores.

I think a more acceptable approach would be a simple summary containing the number of lodges, approximate total membership, and the number of countries with lodges. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I have at last realised that we are misunderstanding each other's definitions.

The IOOF includes many hundreds (thousands) of Lodges. These are subordinate to their Grand Lodges - the superior Lodge of the jurisdiction. The table is NOT a table of Lodges. It is a table of Jurisdictions. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Justification

Ronz, I am starting to go around in circles here. Notability is established by the parent article, the parent article uses secondary sources. Per my original points on WP policy, third party sources are not required to reference the existence of lodges, primary sources are perfectly adequate and are indeed superior for this purpose - this is WP policy! You may disagree with having an extended list, but you are the only one expressing dissent on this. The list has been moved outside the article to avoid the problems of lengthy lists in the article. I have attempted to calm things down in the ongoing dispute between you and Pdfpdf.

• You cite WP:SOAP:

1.Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: This list does not constitute advocacy propaganda or recruitment - it is a list of entities with selected data about them, no more, no less.

2.Opinion pieces. Opinion is not provided in the list.

3.Scandal mongering, something "heard through the grapevine" or gossip. The list is not scandal mongering, see comments for point 1.

4.Self-promotion. The list is not self-promotion. I am not a member of IOOF and it does not even promote the organisation - see remarks for point 1.

5.Advertising. There is no bias in stating a list of entities and associated facts.

WP:SOAP is written around the needs of prose articles not list articles.

• Ergo, WP:SOAP is not relevant so why did you use it?
• You cite WP:IINFO:

1.Plot-only description of fictional works. The list is not a fictional work - this point is completely irrelevant.

2.Lyrics databases. The list is not a fictional work - this point is completely irrelevant.

3.Excessive listing of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles [emphasis added] should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. This has passing relevance - it is the reason why the list was moved out of the main article. This point is aimed at the provision of excessive statistics within larger prose articles - it is not applicable to stand alone lists.

4.News reports. The list is not a news report, or even ephemeral - this point is completely irrelevant.

5.Who's who Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. The list is not a who's who - this point is completely irrelevant

6.FAQs Wikipedia articles. The list is not a FAQ - this point is completely irrelevant.

• Ergo, WP:IINFO is not relevant.
• You cite WP:NOTDIR:

1.Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic (for example, Nixon's Enemies List). Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. (See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists (WP:SALAT) for clarification.) This is not a collection of loosely associated topics, it is a clearly defined set of information, I have previously drawn on WP:SALAT

2.Genealogical entries. The list is not of genalogical entries - this point is completely irrelevant.

3.The White or Yellow Pages. This list does not provide telephone directory style information - this point is completely irrelevant in the current context.

4.Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules may be acceptable. Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. This list does not do any of these specific things. I have already spoken about the historical utility of the lists.

5.Sales catalogs. The list does not do this - this point is completely irrelevant

6.Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". This list is not cross-categorisation - this point is completely irrelevant.

7.A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.[4] Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight. This point explicitly refers to articles not to lists.

You state that WP is not an almanac - you clearly did not read WP:5P so I shall quote the first pillar for you, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs [emphasis added], and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, newspaper, or a collection of source documents; that kind of content should be contributed instead to the Wikimedia sister projects". I have just been over all the elements of what Wiki is not in the treatment of WP:SOAP, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR, so I won't do it again here.

• I have previously referred to WP:SELFPUB:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1.the material is not unduly self-serving; It is a list and is not self-serving

2.it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or entities); No such claims are made

3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; It does not make claims related to the subject

4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; No one has expressed any doubt on the authenticity of the material on the cited IOOF sites.

5.the article is not based primarily on such sources. Whilst it can certainly be improved, the main article is not primarily based on self published sources. In regards to the content of the supporting list, WP:COMMON has to be exercised. The overall subject has had notability established on the main page. The list is in support of the main page. The best source in accordance with WP policy for the type of information provided in the list is the organisation itself. Ergo it is not reasonable to demand a preponderance of secondary sources solely in order to establish the notability of this nature of list.

• I have previously drawn on WP:SALAT:

The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination. To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the number of lists.

Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). This is best done by sectioning the general page under categories. When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See new list link. When all categories become links to lists, the page becomes a list repository or "List of lists" and the entries can be displayed as a bulleted list. For reference see Lists of people, which is made up of specific categorical lists. This does not prevent the development of comprehensive lists, it merely provides guidance on how to most effectively manage them. Depending on how much further the current list is expanded, it may be appropriate to split into further componets. At present, however, it is not large enough to warrant this.

Lists that are too specific are also a problem. The "list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" will be of little interest to anyone (except the person making the list). The list is not too specific.

Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in What Wikipedia is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colors of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge. I have already provided a moderately detailed justification based on socio-cultural significance.

Ergo the list meets the criteria of WP:SALAT. Is the more work to be done, absolutely. As a stand alone list, the lead certainly needs to be developed a little more and there is further work to be done on referencing where this is absent. This just means that it is a work in progress and is currently not ready for Featured List status.

• In an earlier post I referred to WP:NOT when I was actually thinking of WP:NOTABILITY. So I will rehash that IOOF as a whole meets WP:NOTABILITY and I gather that you are comfortable with that. For separate articles to be raised on individual IOOF lodges, they would need to separately meet WP:NOTABILITY, in particular having sufficient secondary sources available. Meeting WP:NOTABILITY of all list elements is not a requirement in order to formulate a list. The list merely needs to have a suitable covering article that meets WP:NOTABILITY which, in this instance, it does. WP:STAND also provides further guidance; in the section treating inclusion criteria, one of the allowable examples WP:STAND cites is where most/all of the entries in the list fail notability criteria, ie to have articles in their own right - creating the list provides a means of legitimately talking about them in a consolidated fashion when they can't be talked about in separate article because their is insufficent secondary material available to warrant this.
• If, after all this you are still not convinced, then I am invoking WP:IAR as I believe Wikipedia will be enhanced by its presence for all of the socio-cultural reasons I've already raised. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

SOAP - the information appears self-promoting in nature.

WP:IINFO - excessive listing of information.

NOTDIR - #7 as I've pointed out repeatedly.

SELFPUB - the list appears self-serving.

Yes, I caught that you referring to WP:N earlier when you wrote WP:NOT.

Without any independent, reliable sources, I feel the material is too promotional.

I think an WP:RfC would be appropriate at this point. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

SOAP - you fundamentally don't get where I am coming from. If having this list is self promoting, then let's start wielding an axed to every other organisation that has listings for subordinate entities - eg lists of military bases, etc.

WP:IINFO - again you don't get where I am coming from. Looking further into this, I am even more convinced of the appropriateness of the information. Pdfpdf does not intend delving into the detailed specifics of every lodge, just the grand lodge tier and above. Given the nature of the organisation, this is an eminiently justifiable depth of information.

NOTDIR - #7 - Pdfpdf and I fundamentally disagree with your judgement on where the line lies on this. It is clear that you will never agree with our position.

SELFPUB - again, you don't get where I am coming from and I clearly don't get where you are coming from. I have no idea how you arrive at the conclusion that the information is self serving.

Without any independent, reliable sources, I feel the material is too promotional. I don't know what you understand by the meaning of the word promotional, but it is clearly different to my understanding of it.

I have provided a detailed logical justification based on WP policy and guidelines. I am quite happy for it to be referred - that was my next step. In doing so, input should be requested from WP:ORGZ. AusTerrapin (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we just differ on where to draw the line. We understand each other. I don't expect that further discussion is going to get either of us to change our perspectives. WP:ORGZ is a good suggestion prior to an RfC. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have just found a more useful comparison with an equivalent fraternal organisation, Freemasonry. General list of masonic Grand Lodges is endeavouring to provide a comprehensive list of masonic Grand Lodges across the world. Its referencing is overwhelmingly to self published sources and has been through two AfD debates hinging around similar issues to here. The first debate resulted in lack of consensus and hence retain, whilst the second debate resulted in keep. Essentially, I see that the list of IOOF Grand Lodges should take on a similar form. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Good comparison. It's a much better list. The websites need to be removed, and I've noted it with a tag and a note on the article talk. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Article tags

{{Multiple issues|section=y|primarysources=June 2010|npov=June 2010|advert=June 2010|examplefarm = June 2010}}

Let's make sure we both clearly understand a few things:

section=y

So you are complaining about this section, which contains the table. Is that correct? Please answer Yes/No.

primarysources=June 2010

Agreed.
Note, however, that this issue is addressed (but not yet solved) by:

This list is incomplete and needs third party sources for verification.

and the {{under construction}} template.

npov=June 2010

As there is NO point of view expressed I fail to see what possible justification you can have for making this claim. It is a table containing facts, information and/or data. Facts, information and/or data are neutral.
Either explain EXACTLY what you are complaining about, or stop wasting everybody's time.

advert=June 2010

Same answer as to npov=June 2010.
Either explain EXACTLY what you are complaining about, or stop wasting everybody's time.

examplefarm = June 2010

That is your point-of-view, unsupported by any editor, including yourself.
Either explain EXACTLY what you are complaining about, or stop wasting everybody's time.

Pdfpdf (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Agreed" Glad we're in agreement that the tag applies!

I've restored "examplefarm" as well, given the relevance of the linked essay WP:LC to the previous discussions.

Detailed discussion has been continuing at Talk:List of Order of Odd Fellows lodges, after the discussion here stalled. --Ronz (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

How completely consistent and predictable you are.

Once again, you have yet to answer EVEN ONE of the questions you have been asked. (Let's emphasise this so that there is NO ambiguity.) You have yet to answer EVEN ONE of the questions you have been asked.

Unless you VERY QUICKLY come up with some sort of sensible SPECIFIC reason, and justification, for the "linkfarm" tag, I will remove it.

I'm interested in the discussion HERE, on THIS talk page, about THIS article. If there's something RELEVANT somewhere else, by all means incorporate it here.

Pdfpdf (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You have yet to come up with some sort of relevant sensible SPECIFIC reason, and/or justification, for the "linkfarm" tag.

Is there any reason why I should NOT remove this tag?

If you provide no relevant sensible SPECIFIC reason or justification by the weekend, I will assume that you agree that it should be removed, and I will remove it. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Feedback from ANI

I've copied the following here for reference and comment, from ANI --Ronz (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that Pdfpdf went to a lot of trouble to build a list of lodges which included 69 external links (in this old version). However, such lists are a problem for Wikipedia because thousands of articles could have comprehensive lists, and there are many dedicated promoters and fans who would like to use Wikipedia to document every facility connected with a topic. That is why WP:NOTDIRECTORY states that it is not our purpose to build comprehensive lists (except for navigational lists showing our articles that relate to a topic), and why WP:MOS#External links states "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article". If http://www.ioof.org has a list of lodges, we do not need one; and if they don't think such a list is warranted, why should we include one in an encyclopedic article? Johnuniq (talk) 05:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's one interpretation, and one POV. There are others that say other things.
Anyone who thinks there is a Yes/No answer to this situation is not considering all of the issues. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq's comment was made without having seen the precedence set with the list of Masonic Grand Lodges and fails to distinguish between grand lodges and ordinary lodges. He also overlooks WP:ELOFFICIAL, WP:ELYES paragraph 1 and the exception stated in the pre-amble to WP:ELNO, all of which take precedence over WP:MOS#External links. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I find neither of the two responses above compelling reasons for inclusion. Neither address Johnuniq's WP:NOTDIRECTORY concerns.

Editors can start an RfC if they'd like. Until then, I'm removing it. --Ronz (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruption
Oh my goodness! What a HUGE surprise!! Ronz is unable to understand anything that is not his own opinion. How surprising - not. Dear Mr Ronz: Please stop: Contributing NOTHING positive to WP. Changing other people's contributions. Threatening people. Attempting to bully people. Wasting my time. Wasting your own time. Wasting everbody's time. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Johnuniq and Ronz. Wikipedia is not a directory and text-based external links have no place in the article text, even in tables. All text-based links belong either in the external links section or in references. Yworo (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(Clarification) By text-based external links, I was referring to the older version linked in Johnuniq's comment blockquoted above. That certainly is wrong. I am less certain about linking as refs. Certainly linking to some one or more central listings for citation is better than linking to each individual website. We are only supposed to be verifying existence here, not providing a directory of links. Yworo (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly linking to some one or more central listings for citation is better than linking to each individual website. - Good point. Thanks for the suggestion. I have started working on it, and think I have addressed USA and Europe. Please provide feedback. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Listing the url as a reference (eg "^ Grand Lodge of Europe, SGL entry, www.ioof.org") is linkspam, inappropriate per WP:NOTDIR, WP:EL, and WP:SPAM. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Not it's not, in my opinion. It's an official website and can be used to source the individual member lodges. NOTDIR applies to a listing on Wikipedia, not a listing on an external website. Official websites always meet EL and are not SPAM. While having a link to each individual lodge's page does indeed violate NOTDIR, entries do have to be sourced and Grand Lodges are the correct sources to use for verification of the existence of individual Lodges. Yworo (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

We're discussing references here. References should be reliable sources that verify information. The addition of the url as text within a reference looks like WP:REFSPAM. This was my concern when the external links imbedded in the table were changed into references. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Typically in a membership organization that has bodies, the organization's website is the only source available. Organization websites are considered reliable source for non-controversial information about the organization. You are going too far here, IMO. Yworo (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I 've tried to clarify further below. I'm not objecting to the proper use of sources. At the moment I'm discussing the inclusion of the text of the url in addition to the actual url itself. --Ronz (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Text urls are inappropriate, as were these. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, text urls are inappropriate. Links to history documents could easily be valid links, though, as long as the provide reliable information beyond what is contained in the article. Yworo (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

So Ronz, that would be why the web citation template expects the web site to be used, not just the specific page? Are you now going to go to every page on Wikipedia that uses the web site in the web citation template and tell them that they are inappropriately using external links? AusTerrapin (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As I show in the examples above, I'm objecting to showing the url as text, as in "IOOF Jurisdictions, IOOF Sovereign Grand Lodge, www.ioof.org" and ""History and Traditions, Manchester Unity (U.K.), www.oddfellows.org.uk" (text url bolded by me to indicate what I'm discussing). I've changed the latter to ""History and Traditions, Manchester Unity (U.K.)" by removing the text url. --Ronz (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with that in the external links section (or the references section, or the further reading section). It's only in the text sections of the article that such links are not correct. But nothing should be bolded in those sections, you are right about that. Yworo (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

On closer examination of the template usage, the work field should usually contain the name of the web site, not the actual website address, notwithstanding that common practice on many Wikipedia pages is to use the website address in this field (the observation of which informed my previous, now struck out, remarks). This does make more sense as the full (specific) url can be expected to yield the website address to those who want it without resorting to providing two urls. Thus: "History of the Oddfellows" (Microsoft Word). The Oddfellows website. Manchester: Manchester Unity (U.K.). yyyy-mm-dd. Retrieved yyyy-mm-dd. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help) AusTerrapin (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! Including the name of the site is perfectly acceptable and can be very helpful in case the domain is changed. --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

So why the list?

(Trying to get the discussion back on track)

Johnuniq wrote above, "If http://www.ioof.org has a list of lodges, we do not need one; and if they don't think such a list is warranted, why should we include one in an encyclopedic article?"

I agree with Johnuniq's perspective. Does anyone want to make an arguement against it? I think we're wasting time discussing how to present the list when we have no compelling reason to present the list at all. --Ronz (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree - the argument has already been made above and I am not going to regurgitate it again here. Please bear in mind that Johnuniq did not consider facts like the comparison with the list of Masonic grand lodges, nor the distinction between grand lodges and ordinary lodges and the fact that the list here is of grand lodges not ordinary lodges (these were raised on the talk page here after he made his comment on ANI, I suspect he still has not seen them). I also do not know what experience Johnuniq has with editing comparable organisations, but his primary interest here seems to be with his stated anti-link farm position (per his user page and user contributions history). Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful to simply provide the timestamp(s) indicating when you responded earlier. You might also want to rewrite your comments without assumptions about what other editors may or may not have known or considered when making the comments. I think the quote should be considered without such assumptions, and have presented it as such. --Ronz (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither you nor Johnuniq have addressed the comparison with the directly equivalent list of Masonic grand lodges which has established a relevant precedent when it gained consensus for its merit. My comments were intended to provide context for the casual reader who has not been immersed in the previous debate as you and I have been. DTG stamps:

• 00:20, 7 July 2010 (→Feedback from ANI: Further observations)
• 03:39, 2 July 2010 (→Justification: Comparison with General list of masonic Grand Lodges)
• 03:22, 2 July 2010 (Copied closely related debate across from Talk:List of Order of Odd Fellows lodges)
• 18:32, 26 June 2010 (→Justification for table of lodges: update)
• 06:23, 26 June 2010 (→Linkfarm)

Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the timestamps. I'm guessing they are from your edit history, adjusted to your local time settings. In the sigs above they are respectively:

• 14:20, 6 July 2010 (→Feedback from ANI: Further observations)
• 17:39, 1 July 2010 (→Justification: Comparison with General list of masonic Grand Lodges)
• 17:22, 1 July 2010 unsigned (Copied closely related debate across from Talk:List of Order of Odd Fellows lodges)
• 08:32, 26 June 2010 (→Justification for table of lodges: update)
• 20:23, 25 June 2010 (→Linkfarm)

The Masonic list is better, but not by much. As I've learned today, it's highly problematic because some grand lodges are self-professed, having no recognition from any others. If it was being created at this time, I'd be for it's deletion. --Ronz (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Basically, we disagree on the interpretation and application of the relevant policies and guidelines. As I said 15:55, 27 June 2010, an RfC would be an appropriate next step. --Ronz (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that WP:ORGZ is dormant - my earlier request for a second opinion on classification has gone unanswered and trawling through the site there is precious little evidence of current activity. Consequently I have placed an open request at WikiProject History to comment here. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Let's give them a bit of time to respond. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Table with many errors

A version of the following table has been placed in the article. It contained MANY errors. The following table has some of those errors corrected. I am working on correcting the remaining errors. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems strange to quote a subordinate lodge website, but ignore the official website of the Sovereign Grand Lodge. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help. We should be using subordinate sites only when necessary, independent sources whenever we have them. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary of Grand Lodges by region

The corrected table has been placed into the article Pdfpdf (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Establishment dates

A problem I have with the new table is the "year of establishment" has been removed, and there's no really obvious place to put it back in. I'm thinking about it, but before I put too much effort into it, I'd be interested to read others' opinions. Pdfpdf (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If the present table format is maintained, I suggest adding it in brackets after each grand lodge eg 'Australasia (1800)' (this date is of course made up, but it serves to highlight the suggested format). Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You're a champ! (That was my first idea.) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant to say it earlier - the heading or a footnote would need to explain the usage. Cheers AusTerrapin (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

IOOF by Country and date established

Thoughts under development. (Work-in-progress.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This table provides the raw data, with sources, (and other information) that do not appear, and are not explained, in the "new improved" table now appearing in the article.

It is preserved here for historical, refererence and verification purposes. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

---

There are IOOF lodges in at least 29 countries:

Continent	Country	Founded	Notes
Europe	-	2006	Grand Lodge of Europe
Europe	Austria	?
Europe	Belgium	1911	Grand Lodge of the Netherlands and Belgium
Europe	Czech Republic	1877	(Organisation name unclear)
Europe	Denmark	1878	Grand Lodge of the Kingdom of Denmark
Europe	Estonia	1993	Eesti Odd Fellow Ühing
Europe	Finland	1925	Suomen Odd Fellow Veljeskunta
Europe	France	1884
Europe	Germany	1870	Deutscher Odd Fellow-Orden
Europe	Iceland	1897	Grand Lodge of Iceland
Europe	Italy	?
Europe	Netherlands	1911	Grand Lodge of the Netherlands and Belgium
Europe	Norway	1920	Grand Lodge of Norway
Europe	Poland	1938	Grand Lodge of Poland
Europe	Spain	?
Europe	Sweden	1895	Grand Lodge of Sweden
Europe	Switzerland	?
Europe	United Kingdom	-	There is no IOOF Grand Lodge in the UK - see Odd Fellows and Oddfellows for more information.
Americas	Belize	?
Americas	Canada	1843	There are lodges in Alberta, Atlantic Provinces, British Columbia (established 1864), Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec (1878) and Saskatchewan
Americas	Chile	1874
Americas	Cuba	1883
Americas	Dominican Republic	?
Americas	Mexico	1882
Americas	Puerto Rico	1999
Americas	U.S.A	1819	There are IOOF Lodges in ALL U.S. States and Districts: Sovereign Grand Lodge, AZ (1884), CA (1847), CO (1860), DC, GA, HA (1846), IL (1838), IA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MO (1834), NH, NJ, NM, NY (1806), OH, OK (1875), PA (1821), SD, TN, TX, WA (1878), WV, WI (1835)
Americas	Uruguay	?
Americas	Venezuela	?
Australasia	Australia	1836(?)	Australasia, NSW (1836), SA, Tas, WA
Australasia	New Zealand	1843	Grand Lodge of New Zealand
Asia	Philippines	1872	Philippines
Africa	Liberia	1874
Africa	Nigeria	2008

---

Pdfpdf (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Scandanavian Kings

On the one hand, there are a number of American websites that say Olav V of Norway and Gustaf V of Sweden were members of the IOOF in those countries.
On the other hand, we have recent statements from senior officials of the Scandanavian IOOF Lodges saying that there are no records of such membership.
Whilst the matter is unresolved, I feel it is inappropriate to make such claims on the wikipedia pages. Accordingly, I have removed the claims, and hereby open a discussion for more supporting information - either way. However, I'm not sure how it's possible to provide supporting information that something did NOT happen, so information that it DID happen needs to be more than a simple statement. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Olav V of Norway, King of Norway (1957–1991)
  • ref name=GLCA - Grand Lodge of California, IOOF (n.d.) A brief sketch of Odd Fellowship, http://www.realstockcertificates.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=186_ODDFEL&Show=ExtInfo RealStockCertificates.com. Retrieved on 2009-09-18
  • ref Olav V has never been a member of Odd Fellows - this can be verified by contacting Den Uavhængige Norske Storloge av Odd Fellow Ordenen (I.O.O.F.). Stortingsgt. 28 0161 OSLO NORWAY - NTA 08.11.2010
• Gustaf V of Sweden, King of Sweden (1907–1950)
  • ref name=GLCA - Grand Lodge of California, IOOF (n.d.) i.e. same source
  • Same counter-statement.

I've just been on the website of the Grand Lodge of California and after I sent them an e-mail regarding the Scandinavian kings, I cannot find any more references to them at www.caioof.org. Could you please verify? I this is correct, then I think the subject is closed since this is the website that was referred to in the original article?

Med Broderlig hilsen i Vennskap, Kjærlighet og Sannhet, OrdensBroder (talk • contribs) 08:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"I've just been on the website of the Grand Lodge of California and after I sent them an e-mail regarding the Scandinavian kings, I cannot find any more references to "them" at www.caioof.org."

- By "them" I'm guessing you mean the Scandanavian kings?

:-) Yes--Med Broderlig hilsen i Vennskap, Kjærlighet og Sannhet, NTA 13:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

- Does that mean you DID find reference to Scandanavian kings at http://www.caioof.org? If so, where?

:-) My fault - wrong website.... I found references at Oregon Grand Lodge - no references found at GL California, which is odd since it is this Grand Loge it is referred to on realstockcertificates.com --Med Broderlig hilsen i Vennskap, Kjærlighet og Sannhet, NTA 13:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

a) Agreed. (It is odd.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

b) Where on Oregon Grand Lodge? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

-) http://www.oregonioof.org/Pages/Notable%20OddFellowss.htm if you look at this it references to the same realstockcertificates website that has been denounced by the Grand Lodge of California in the e-mail below. --Med Broderlig hilsen i Vennskap, Kjærlighet og Sannhet, NTA 11:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OrdensBroder (talk • contribs)

"I sent them an e-mail" - Did they reply?

:-) I've just sent another e-mail. Awaiting reply - but you know how these organisations work.... It's like watching a glacier move --Med Broderlig hilsen i Vennskap, Kjærlighet og Sannhet, NTA 13:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting! There are no glaciers in Australia. Our expression is "like watching paint dry"! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"Could you please verify?" - I put "Olav V IOOF" into google, and got "About 455 results". Everybody and their dog seems to mirror and/or steal from wikipedia - I've had experiences where google tells me that something I've added to wikipedia appears on a dozen pages within 10 minutes. Just what is it that you want verified?

:-) As I wrote above - sorry, wrong website... --Med Broderlig hilsen i Vennskap, Kjærlighet og Sannhet, NTA 13:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"then I think the subject is closed" - I hope you are correct, but somehow, I doubt it ...

:-) Same here.... --Med Broderlig hilsen i Vennskap, Kjærlighet og Sannhet, NTA 13:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, Pdfpdf. I just sent you an e-mail - here's an excerpt from it:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Don Smith wrote to Real Stock Certificates:

On your website you list a Stock Certificate for "186_ Odd Fellows Hall Association of Sacramento", and the information contained in the listing has an error or errors. Your information indicates that King Olav V of Norway is a member, and this is incorrect information. I will appreciate you removing the information about King Olav V of Norway from your listing.

You apparently received incorrect information from California, but I am unable to determine where you received this information so we may make contact to remove the information from the original source. Some of the numerical figures are also incorrect, so some of this information must of been obtain from an out dated source. I would like to have you remove the information as it has been used as a source for incorrect information on other websites.

>>DOES ANYONE IMPORTANT BELONG?

>>• International Odd Fellowship claims many outstanding and prominent individuals as members including King Olav V of Norway and King Gustav of Sweden.

Don R. Smith, PGM and PSGM

Grand Lodge of California and

The Sovereign Grand Lodge

Now, the really interessting part is this:

1: you can see from the e-mail above that it was sent also to realstockcertificate.com asking them to remove the information

2: Guess who I received an e-mail from? Go on, have a guess...... Yep, our over-enthusiastic Philippino friend :-) :-) :-)

Well, well, well. It's a small world, isn't it! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Louie Blake Sarmiento wrote:

Greetings!

All information I gather are verifiable and I only get it from sources like California, etc. On Facebook, you can see an album with word (verifiable) which means everything there is not yet 100% sure but it is still to be verified. Two weeks ago, I advised Odd Fellows in West Virginia to remove King Olav and Gustav in their page as they copied my article whom I wrote before I received a message from Norway.

Fraternally,'

Louie

And this despite the fact that the email was originally sent to realstockcertificates.com and NOT to mr. Samiento.

Naturally, I am inclined to reason thus: Mr. Samiento creates an entry on Wikipedia stating that HRH Olav V was a member of IOOF and then, as a way of proof, references to a webpage (realstockcertificates.com) where this also is stated - although it now turns out that Mr. Samiento is responsible for the information on this webpage as well.

As Mr. Samiento himself writes in the e-mail above: Other websites are using his dis-information as well.

Conclusion: Can we now finally put this case at rest?
--Med Broderlig hilsen i Vennskap, Kjærlighet og Sannhet, NTA 09:37, 16 November 2010 OrdensBroder (talk • contribs)

1) ROTFL!!

2) Yes please!!

3) Good detective work! Well done! And many thanks!

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. It's wise not to put personal information on wikipedia. It's a bad idea to put personal information about other people on wikipedia, particularly without asking them first - if they want such information to be on wikipedia, let them put it there. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Admin note: I've deleted a couple of edits that revealed personal information from emails apparently without the senders' consent, and would suggest that emails are not reliable sources anyway. Wikipedia may only use information that is in the public domain, since only that satisfies our verifiability policy. Sorry, if it can't be sourced to a public source, we cannot use it. Rodhullandemu 23:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

IOOF Cemetery, Roseburg, Oregon

There is an Odd Fellows cemetery located in Roseburg, Oregon. (I.O.O.F Cemetery) [2] [3] [4] For more information: http://amorbidfascination.blogspot.com/2010/03/ioof-cemetery-roseburg-oregon.html 216.110.199.218 (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

'Notable members'

The intro para to the 'Notable members of the IOOF' is far from NPOV, it refers to the group as "ours" and is obviously written from the POV of a very supportive, convinced member. Would like someone other than myself to edit this since this page has been the subject of a fairly recent 'edit war' or at least a near-edit war. 75.201.192.115 (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh? a) It is a direct quote with its source attached. One does not "edit" or "correct" or "rewrite" quotes. b) No, "someone" will not edit it - if "someone" were to do so, then it would no longer be a direct quote. c) Please explain what you are referring to by "a fairly recent 'edit war'".

Pdfpdf (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, as a direct quote then it cannot be edited, and if this is the best way to introduce thi list, fine. But you don't think the back and forth of June '10 qualifies as at least a near-edit war? Really? 75.201.246.89 (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

and if this is the best way to introduce thi list, fine. - I have no real opinion as to whether or not this is the "best" way. I didn't write it. If I had, I probably would have done it differently. But it has the overwhelming advantage of being there and doing the job. If I'm going to devote more effort to this page, it would be to add to the page - not to rewrite what's already there. (Unless what's already there is inaccurate, or completely over-the-top - this just qualifies as "a-little-bit-cheesy".) However, if that's how others choose to spend their time, "all useful improvements are enthusiasticly welcomed!"

of June '10 - Oh. (I didn't categorise that as "recent".) Yes, I agree that you could safely and conservatively categorise that as "at least a near-edit war", (with added emphasis on the "at least".)

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Philosophy

The section beginning "Fellowship in the IOOF entails:" reads like an ad. Is this appropriate for this article? 75.77.35.236 (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

reads like an ad. - Fair comment. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this appropriate ... - In the absence of anything else, what's the alternative? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I changed this to: "The stated goals of Oddfellowship include . . ." Hope that resolves the issue.VaneWimsey (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Architectural Impact

I started to fix the links under the Architectural Impact section since none of them went anywhere specific, but just to disambiguation pages (i.e. why bother having a list?), but when I got to what I thought was just about the end, I discovered that there were already two other pages with actual lists of these buildings: One titled "Odd Fellows Halls" and another that was a list of Odd Fellows buildings. Neither or these (nor the disambiguation-list-linked list on this page was comprehensive; however, it seems that there are just too many of them to include on this page. I'm not sure what to do with them, since I don't know a relevant standard. If anyone else has a good idea what to do with them, please do. Archarin (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I, also, don't know a relevant standard, but to me it seems pointless to duplicate the contents of existing lists, and I agree that "there are just too many of them to include on this page".

This issue first arose some years ago (see the talk page archives for the boring details), and the consensus was as follows:

Although in Britain the Odd Fellows tended to meet in pubs, in the US the lodges often built their own facilities. Many of these are now on the US National Register of Historic Places:

• IOOF Building
• Independent Order of Odd Fellows Building
• Independent Order of Odd Fellows Hall
• Oddfellow's Hall
• Odd Fellows Block
• Odd Fellows Building
• Odd Fellows Building and Auditorium
• Odd Fellows Hall
• Odd Fellows Lodge
• Odd Fellows Temple
• Odd Fellows' Hall

On 24 July 2011, an IP editor (who hadn't bothered to read the talk page history) decided to create a detailed list. As he had put a lot of effort into it, I didn't have the heart to revert. (Perhaps I should have.) My personal opinion is that the consensus solution is perfectly adequate, (and much easier to maintain.)

Does that help?

How do you feel about that approach?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Independent Order of Odd Fellows. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110317134635/http://www.caioof.org:80/Books/IOOFHistory.html to http://www.caioof.org/Books/IOOFHistory.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090930101459/http://www.keyinvest.com.au/ioofsa/network.htm to http://www.keyinvest.com.au/ioofsa/network.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110219103850/http://www.keyinvest.com.au/ioofsa/history.htm to http://www.keyinvest.com.au/ioofsa/history.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Independent Order of Odd Fellows. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090914231808/http://www.keyinvest.com.au:80/ioofsa/ to http://www.keyinvest.com.au/ioofsa/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120423125053/http://www.oddfellow.is/is/page/storstukan to http://www.oddfellow.is/is/page/storstukan

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Independent Order of Odd Fellows. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090914130609/http://www.keyinvest.com.au/ioofsa/career.htm to http://www.keyinvest.com.au/ioofsa/career.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Independent Order of Odd Fellows. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130119055213/http://mill-valley.freemasonry.biz/marin_odd_fellows.htm to http://mill-valley.freemasonry.biz/marin_odd_fellows.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101021081215/http://www.oddfellows.co.uk/site/content/Gen_Content.aspx to http://www.oddfellows.co.uk/site/content/gen_content.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090414040945/http://portal.oddfellows.nl/linklist.htm to http://portal.oddfellows.nl/linklist.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528094315/http://www.ioofbc.org/international.htm to http://ioofbc.org/international.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313004632/http://ioofmindanaonlodge.webs.com/ to http://ioofmindanaonlodge.webs.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110101095651/http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/edwinhubbellchapin.html to http://uudb.org/articles/edwinhubbellchapin.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

'Czech Republic'

The article says: "The first attempt to establish the Independent Order of Odd Fellows in the Czech Republic was in 1905 through the formation..." However, there were no Czech Republic in 1905... Sirmax07 (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Independent Order of Odd Fellows. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130128110850/http://www.ioof.org/aboutus.html to http://ioof.org/aboutus.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705132202/http://www.ioofmichigan.org/cantons/ to http://www.ioofmichigan.org/cantons/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151011093022/http://ioofchile.cl/ to http://www.ioofchile.cl/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151011093022/http://ioofchile.cl/ to http://www.ioofchile.cl/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)