User talk:JASpencer/Masonic ritual

A better approach

Hi, JAS... First let me express my appreciation for the fact that you are working on this in your user space. I suspect that we would have had a lot fewer arguments if you had started here in the first place. 20/20 hindsight, but I think it would have helped if, instead of simply creating an article that was just a cut and paste from Freemasonry, you had tried to write a draft here first.

You already know that I have great doubts as to whether this topic can be expanded beyond what is already at Freemasonry, but you are certainly welcome to try. Who knows, I could be wrong. I will keep tabs on your progress, and let you know of any problems and concerns I see as you go along. Whether you do anything about my concerns is up to you (this is your user space after all)... but at least you will know what my concerns are.

My first concern is with the section title: "Symbols used in Masonic Ritual". I think the phrase "used in Masonic Ritual" is going to cause controversy and confusion. What do you mean by "used"? Perhaps what you mean to say is "Symbols mentioned in Masonic Ritual", or "Symbols discussed in Masonic Ritual"?

My second concern is the inclusion of Tracing Boards as a sub-heading... Tracing boards are not symbols in their own right... they are paintings or prints that depict symbols (or emblems - what ever). They are a means of illustrating symbols.

Furthermore, while many of the emblems depicted are discussed at some point during the ritual... others are not. To illustrate what I am talking about. Many Tracing boards will include the beehive (the emblem of "Industry"). Since the beehive has no meaning that is unique to Masonry (it was a common emblem throughout history), it is not discussed in the ritual. So, while the beehive can be called a Masonic emblem, it is not an emblem that is unique to Masonry... and while it is depicted on many tracing boards, it is not talked about in the ritual.

My point is that the way things are currently sructured... the wording give the reader the impression that there is a masonic symbol called a "Tracing Board" that is "used in the ritual". That is inaccurate.

I am not sure if you can find a way to summarize all this... but it would help if you could try. Blueboar (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Blueboar. I've taken out the symbolism paragraph and I've moved the tracing board into its own section. Feel free to edit in your own suggestions on the user page. If it doesn't work then we can revisit that. JASpencer (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation to edit. One more comment re: Tracing boards... You might want look at the change I just made to that article. I think it better explains exactly what these things are and how they are used. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Culture

If we are going to have a Pop Culture section, I feel strongly that we should limit it to pop culture references to actual masonic ritual and symbolism (or at least what the author says is actual masonic ritual) in literature etc. not pseudo-Masonic rituals or parodies of the rituals. I also think it important to make it clear that these are fictional accounts of the ritual and not nessesarily the actual thing. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the Heinlein was inaccurate the first time, I got a citation which says that this was a Masonic initiation. The Stonecutters was obviously Masonic, with its blindfolded leap of faith and the Masonic symbols. It would seem to be a bit odd to keep it out for that. There are three reasons why I like this particular reference, (1) more readers are likely to have seen this, (2) it is neither knocking nor gnostic and (3) it has a great licence compatibile picture which directly relates to the article (can't knock that). JASpencer (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homer_the_Great#Production has the story on how it came up and it seems that it was based on Freemasonry. Not keen on borrowing the cite as I don't have the DVD that it's quoting. JASpencer (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the Stonecutters episode were "based on" Freemasony (that is obvious from the name)... although, my feeling is that it is parodying the pop-culture veiw of Freemasonry more than it is parodying Freemasonry itself. It may even parody some elements of Masonic ritual. My point is that the Simpsons does not claim to actually show Freemasonic ritual or symbolism, while Kipling and Tolstoy do claim to present or discuss actual Masonic ritual and symbolism). I think that is a very important distinction... and forms the line between a legitimate literary/pop culture reference and pure trivia.

Oh... and unless there is a clear reference that the lodge Bobby Bumps started was a Masonic Lodge, there is no tie to Masonic ritual... he could have started an Elks lodge, a Moose Lodge or any other type of fraternal body that uses "Lodge".

finally... in case you did not know, there is a guideline that covers pop culture sections... see:WP:TRIVIA. It definitely does not ban them, but it does discourage them... and sets some limitations on them. Just be sure to read it if you haven't. Blueboar (talk) 01:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want the section on literary references to become a trivia section. The literary mentions are a part of the notability of masonic ritual and although not a source on current (or past) usage they are a source on how it is externally perceived at different times. JASpencer (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no... a work of fiction does not accurately reflect how masonic ritual is "externally perceived at different times". Any referenece to Masonic ritual that is included in a work of fiction is driven purely by the needs of the plot of the work and the characters in it. If the work requires a "sinister" ritual, that is what the author will write. If the work requires a "positive" ritual, that is what the author will write. To illustrate, take a look at the differences in how Masonic ritual is portrayed between From Hell (film) and National Treasure (film). Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some truth in that, but if a portrayal is totally out of synch with the public perception it will not work. So Opus Dei can be portrayed as a monastic order (which is false) but not a Hindu group (which is not credible). JASpencer (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the "external perception" being reflected by The Man Who Would be King? Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this was more Kipling's perception that Freemasonry was some kind of universal and primitive tradition rather than the invention of bored and leisured Eighteenth Century British aristocrats. Not external but still something that many Freemasons found credible. JASpencer (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't suppose... that would be Original Research. To say that this was Kipling's (or anyone else's) perception of Freemasonry and its ritual, we would need a reliable source that said this was Kipling's (or anyone else's) perception. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tracing boards

If you are going to focus this article on Masonic ritual, then you should probably drop the sub-section on Tracing Boards. They are not part of the ritual. Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that. JASpencer (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving out of user space

I think that the article is ready to move out of user space. It seems fairly stable, notability is established and there seems to be a decent structure going forward. If no one objects I'm going to put it out soon. JASpencer (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would indeed object... or at least I would immediately propose that it be merged back to the Freemasonry article. You have not added anything of substance since the last time we addressed this issue. In fact, your proposed article now says less than it did before you copied it to your user space. There is nothing in this draft that is not already said better at Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is unnecesarily negative (as well as inaccurately recalled). I have tried to set it in cultural context, which has at least been started and is not dealt with in the main Freemasonry article. As far as the amount of repetition being removed this is a good thing, and the quantity over quality argument is irrelevant. JASpencer (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural context? What cultural context? Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural context is when instead of looking at what is actually done you look at the effect that it has had on the wider culture, such as the literary representations and the way it is shown (or otherwise in exposes). JASpencer (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All you do is mention that a few books referred to Masonic ritual and that a few exposés exist. You don't actually say anything about the effect of these books and exposés on the wider culture. If you wish to "set it in cultural context", you would need to actually discuss what the effect actually was (or rather what reliable sources say the effect was). Blueboar (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the start of an article. It will never be fully formed if left in user space. The question is is it substantially different from the Freemasonry article. If two of the four sections are completely absent from the main article then that indcates that it is different. Of course the dreadful purple prose from the Freemasonry article is still there, but again this is a start article. JASpencer (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree... given that the sections in question don't really say anything of substance, I don't think you can say that the article is substantially different.

Furthermore, I would disagree that two of the four sections are all that different... the Freemasonry article may not include a list of exposés, but it does discusses exposés in several places. That means that the only thing that is substantially different is the list of "literary references"... which is essentially trivia.

For this article to get moved back into article space without my immediately redirecting it back to Freemasonry, you need to say something of substance about the topic... something that is not said in different (and I think better) words the main article.

I do understand that the article will not be fully formed here in user space... but it does need to be fleshed out a lot more than it currently is. If you can not do that, then it shouldn't be moved into article space. Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further areas

I would like to start a discussion on further areas for the article. What are people interested in when writing on this subject?

A google search will be a starting point, but I've got other things to do at the moment and will be coming back to this later. JASpencer (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources in the search... Masonic writers tend to be interested in discussing the history and developement of the ritual, and the differences between rituals. Anti-masonic writers tend to be interested in demonstrating that the ritual "proves" their anti-masonic POV.

If, on the other hand, you mean "what are people interested in when reading about this subject?", I would venture to guess that most people are interested in discovering what the ritual is... ie, what do Masons actually do behind the closed door. Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]