Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Project tools

• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Freemasonry-related articles by quality
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide

Category:Scientologists vs. Category:Freemasons

I am somewhat befuddled by the fact that it is OK to categorize people on the basis of them being scientologists whereas a clear consensus seems to exist that categorizing freemasons is not OK. I'm asking the same question of both WikiProjects (see). What is the significant difference between these two groups in this regard, leaving all POV out of the consideration? __meco (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply on the other page - we're not going to have the same discussion twice. MSJapan (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What it comes down to is two different projects making different choices as to how to deal with articles on people who are members. The Scientology project uses categorization, while the Freemasonry project listifies. Both options are considered OK. No two projects do things exactly the same way. Blueboar (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That response is unsatifactory since the decision not to allow categorizing Freemasons was made through the CfD process, not by unilateral consensus by one WikiProject. __meco (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure which option you are complaining about... is it the fact that Scientologists are categorized, or that Freemasons are listified? If the latter, the CfD (deleting the Freemasons category) definitely took into account the consensus of the editors here at the Freemasonry Project, and I suspect that you would get a lot of resistance if you were to try to recreate the category. If the former... well that is a question for the Scientology project to debate. No concern of ours. Blueboar (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible Lost Key of Freemasonry - The stone that the builders refused

This image is the most pragmatic solution I've ever seen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:godislove.png - I am being forced to use a bad file name for this image and am apparently not aloud to change it to a better one although I would like to. God Bless Everyone --TaylorOliphant (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

--TaylorOliphant (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A solution to what? What is that image supposed to represent? It isn't anything related to Freemasonry as far as I know. Blueboar (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. That looks to me a lot like the Tree of life Kabbalistic image used regarding the Sephirot. I'm assuming that the originator of the thread is trying to imply that Freemasonry dates back to an era earlier than history would seem to verify but that several legends imply, and that this individual believes that the legends are accurate. Unfortunately, there is no solid evidence that those legends are anything but legends, and it would be non-encyclopedic to lay too much emphasis on something which can't be proven at all, like an earlier date of the beginnings of the Freemasons. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record I am not a mason. I don't claim any knowledge other than that I've read a lot and this seems possible. Masons are great people who by in large wont get too much out of this. However, there are definitely a few that will get a whole lot out of it. Love and Blessings --TaylorOliphant (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, except that the Rabbis claim that that's not an accurate representation of Kabbalistic principles either from a philosophical standpoint. In short, by representing them physically in any manner, the principles are diminished or limited. Frankly, Freemasonry has nothing to do with Kabbalah, because real Kabbalah wasn't accessible to anyone who was a Mason until it was gotten hold of by people who took it out of its Judaic tradition and turned it into something else, thereby interpreting it in a manner they found suitable. MSJapan (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

In any case... the image does not belong in any of the articles under the Freemasonry project. If it is posted here simply so those who might be interested in the Kabbalah can see it... thanks for sharing, but it is misdirected. Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a ton of lodges all around the world that study the kabbalah. Some don't and some do. Some barely mention it, and some examine it in the later degrees a decent amount. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I've heard and read this several times. This article is directly relevant to tens of thousands of masons because of that. I do appreciate everyones posts though as I am a huge fan of people giving their personal energy for wikipedia QC --TaylorOliphant (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume you have a reliable source for that statement?... Or are you just assuming this? Can you name a lodge that studies the Kabbalah? I ask because this very much goes against my personal experience. I am a well travelled Mason, and I do not know of a single lodge that studies the Kabbalah. There may well be individual Masons who study it, but that is a very different thing. There are individual Masons who study neuclear physics, individual Masons who study geology, individual Masons who study theology... individual Masons who study host of other things ... but it would be incorrect to say that Masonry studies any of them. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I only know first hand of 1 lodge, but have read of many others that have some level of focus on it. I am definitely not an expert or even an actual mason. I have no legitimacy or reason to argue. My only reason for this post is that I have read many books and spoken to a few 32 degree masons. I will be the first to point out that I am just a 26 year old IT guy with an opinion that I'm hoping others will find useful. I've done what I can to fact check, and have found references both for and against what I'm saying. --TaylorOliphant (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a mason myself. If you can point out the references for and against your statements, though, that might make it possible for content related to the masons and Kabbalah being added somewhere. I should also point out that any degree of mason higher than the 3rd is also a member of what might be called a "non-standard" variation on freemasonry, and statements and opinions made there do not necessarily reflect on "regular" freemasonry. John Carter (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this discussion related to the scope of this WikiProject? The reason I'm asking is to learn if this discussion page allows for more general philosophical or metaphysical discussions which may or may not (vaguely) touch upon Freemasonry. That would make it a much more interesting forum to keep an eye on than an ordinary WikiProject discussion page limiting itself to article- and project-oriented discussions, and it would set a precedent for other WikiProjects to allow more leeway for general discussions centering on the WikiProject subject. __meco (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, this page is not for metaphysical discussions... but to discuss articles that fall under the banner of the project. Blueboar (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

My personal intent was not to set a WikiProject precedent. I was hoping to give this information to someone who is credible -relating to this subject specifically, and who has the desire to use the graphic as a visual aid, not to rewire this page. Sorry to everyone in advance that this post is getting so long too, I just wanted to add one bit of trivial but interesting information. Thanks again to everyone trying to do the right thing with this info --TaylorOliphant (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Blueboar (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it is a problem, and the image is on IfD. This user tried to create an entry for "kaneh bosem", which is supposedly cannabis. Take a look at the picture again, particularly at what has been made green - the user is trying to make a point that the interconnections of the ToL are related to cannabis, apparently, and that's simply imnappropriate. MSJapan (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

MSJapan: How's that Shinto information treating you? I will refrain from all negativity as I really want your support in finding a safe home for that image. Thanks again. TaylorOliphant (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, MSJapan: I am new to this community and I have massive respect for you and everyone else here. Please understand that I too am trying to help people. One thing I would like you to notice as well is the title: "The stone that the builders refused" - It's a Bob Marley song about this very situation, or at least some believe that. Look at it this way: Help me find a place to put that image so that a professional can shoot it down. If this goes online perm you will either help lots of people rediscover a great time-tested industrial resource, or get it ripped to shreds so I can stop believing this and go on with my life. You could save my mental well being, because I actually believe this "spam" as you called it. So do many others. Help us. Bring us back to the system. =) --TaylorOliphant (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Then put it on your own website; WP isn't for furthering anyone's POV or personal interests, good or bad. It could be considered disrupting Wikipedia to make a point if your only concern is that that image go someplace. MSJapan (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, agreed. There are numerous articles on songs in wikipedia, and certainly it would be possible for that song to have its own article, if it can meet the standards of WP:NOTABILITY. The disadvantage, however, is that, unless you can produce sources which really do explicitly say that Kabbalah was influenced or related to cannibis, the image fails the WP:OR guideline and would in that way very likely be disqualified for use. John Carter (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I Suggest that we end this conversation ... We have established that the image in question was placed on this page in error. Let's leave it at that. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My final comment: I think I was wrong to bother the good people of this project with Kabbalah related issues. Thank everyone very much for the time that was put into my wikification.

But just for reference, there is a tangible link from Masonry to the Kabbalah via Morals and Dogma, for one example which is currently cited on the main page. As far as I can tell it references the Kabbalah as being of interest to Masons. I'm new and I honestly didn't know it was so far beyond the scope of this discussion page. I'm sure the hemp/cannabis link didn't help either. Live and learn, Thanks again and God Bless --TaylorOliphant (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You have made a number of erronious assumptions here... may I politely suggest that you learn more about Freemasonry, it's history, traditions, rituals and teaching before you claim connections that don't exist. Please stop trying to convince people that you are right... either provide sources to back your claims or move on to other topics. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely: http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Builders-Alchemists-Rosicrucians-Freemasons/dp/157863329X I have 100 more sources linking freemasonry to the kabbalah but the more I write the more you get offended. I'm using "The Golden Builders" as a source because I actually read the whole thing and am not just citing one part of it. I think the fact that I liked Morals and Dogma should tell you we are coming from different places, which is fine by every Mason I've met. Keep in mind that you also think "Pike is a quack". If Pike's insight isn't valid to you, how could mine ever be? (Pike is used as a refernce on the freemasonry page btw.) Your standards are amazing. --TaylorOliphant (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Pike

I am going to start a new section... just so we don't have to scroll down through an entire discussion. Actually, Pike is not cited in the Freemasonry article... the editor of Morals and Dogma is cited. The citation is from the introduction to M&D, backing the fact that Pike's commentary is purely his own opinion, and has no bearing on what Freemasons believe (please read the quote attached to the citation, as well as the section of the article which the citation is backing). I will take a look at your Golden Builders book... but knowing Freemasonry as I do, I suspect that the author is making some of the same erronious assumptions about the organization that you do. Blueboar (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Knowing freemasonry as you do". POV =) Thanks for the new section btw, way better. I am going to look around a bit more, I'm sure I can find something you might actually like. That is my goal you know. =) --TaylorOliphant (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm just going to post things here as I find them: http://planetquo.net/ISITISC/israeli-freemasonry-2.jpg <- This is in Israel, my friends actually have nice video of it. That at least proves a masonic interest in Israel and Egypt. The same combination that most scholars cite as the source of the kabbalah. I know that reference is dogey though, I'm going to add a good deal more over the next 20 mins. --TaylorOliphant (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, this one is good: http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/kabbalah.html That is the OFFICIAL page of BC Freemasonry and their use of the kabbalah --TaylorOliphant (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Mackey’s Encyclopedia of Freemasonry devotes almost three pages to the Kabbalah, noting "It has sometimes been used in an enlarged sense, as comprehending all the explanations, maxims, and ceremonies which have been traditionally handed down to the Jews; but in that more limited acceptation, in which it is intimately connected with the symbolic science of Freemasonry, the Cabala may be defined to be a system of philosophy which embraces certain mystical interpretations of Scripture, and metaphysical and spiritual beings."

I have to be candidly honest, there is no rebuttle for that as far as I can see. I will find you more refences though, keep watching this page, it's going to fill up quick.

Here is another good one written by one of your masonic brothers: http://www.srmason-sj.org/web/heredom-files/volume7/kabbalah-and-freemasonry.htm --TaylorOliphant (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Um... you obviously did not actually read the BC&Y article did you? It's purpose is actually to de-bunk the claims of a connection between the kabbalah and Freemasonry. Note the last paragraph which reads:

• The second group is composed of freemasons and kabbalists who promote the theory of Freemasonry’s link to the Kabbalah. They are entitled to their opinions, but it must be stressed that they do not speak for Freemasonry. They are only expressing their opinions. They view the study of both as enhancing their relationship with God and have come to some personal conclusions about what they perceive as similarities. Whatever intellectual or spiritual similarities there may be between Freemasonry and the Kabbalah, any historical links are strictly conjectural and unsupported.

So, sorry, try again. Blueboar (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I did read it and I thought it was fair. I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I'm trying to explore the truth.--TaylorOliphant (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(I inserted this after the conversation moved on: "they do not speak for Freemasonry" - who does? I liked the BC article because I thought you were concerned about all the occult bs people try and claim masonry "is", and that article speaks openly that there are masons and kabbalists who have a real interest in doing good with the information. I did not pick this article to be one sided, but I thought you would appreciate how fair the article is. I did skim it though, and you are right, I missed that part you shot back at me and I think you did a great job at finding it. Credit where credit is due. This BC mason is a nice guy, it seems like a fair article, but he is not Mackey or Pike. See below for the direct Mackey quote that I think should end this. -TaylorOliphant (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/mackeys_encyclopedia/c.htm Here is the exact reference from the Encylopedia of Freemasonry that speaks of the kabbalah. I don't see how you could ever consider yourself more credible than the Encyclopedia of Freemasonry. God Bless --TaylorOliphant (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In summary: I have Pike and Mackey on my side. What they wrote stands up for the truth. Who can shoot both of them down together? I am unaware of anyone. --TaylorOliphant (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(((Added Later: I think what I should have been more clear about is that I don't think it's fair to say Masonry is kabbalistic, _but_ I think it's fair to say Masonry is often linked to the kabbalah, that seems to be true to form for how masons like to do this. I'm listing these pages to be fair, not because I'm trying to trample what you believe, plus I was in a hurry and knew I would eventually get you the right quote, it's well documented. The link/quote I pasted after this comment didn't get read all the way through though, your right, once again there is wording on that page which I think confuses the matter, but the general point is still clear as far as I can tell. Much Love. --TaylorOliphant (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC) )))

Also, to counter your quote from earlier, just to make sure there is no room for confusion on the matter, here is a quote from another masonic brother of equal value which nulifies the other quote and suppots Mackey and Pike: In conclusion, this study has contended that there is a relationship between certain themes of the Kabbalah with the lectures and degrees of Freemasonry. This should come as no surprise. Freemasons are taught both the universality of God and of brotherly love. Therefore, any religious belief or practice can be found within the parameters of Freemasonry. The imagination of man allows him to approach the unknowable and create structures and practices that assist him in gaining faith in the Glorious Supreme Architect of the Universe. http://www.2be1ask1.com/library/kabbalah.html --TaylorOliphant (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Again... would you please read the source completely, and put what it says in context. The entry on the Cabala in Mackey's Encylopedia is discussing the Cabala not Freemasonry. Saying that because Mackey talks about the Kabbalah Freemasonry must be have some sort of direct connection to the Kabbalah is like saying that Wikipedia must have a direct connection ... after all, Wikipedia has an article on the Kabbalah too. Now, Mackey does say that the symbolism contained in certain Masonic rites can indeed be seen as having similarities to those in the Kabbalah... this is true, you can draw parallels between these things. Pike's opinion as expressed in Morals and Dogma is a good example of someone doing so. BUT... Mackey does not say that there is any direct connection between Freemasonry and the Kabbalah. Any connections that exist are purely indirect, and are in the mind of the person seeing the connection. In fact, he specifically says that there is NO connection between certain aspects of the Kabbalah and Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So wrong, and to quote Mackey in the Encyclopedia of Freemasonry: "...it is intimately connected with the symbolic science of Freemasonry, the Cabala..." I have to get back to work. I would like to point out before I go there is a huge difference between being right and finding the truth. I am interested in the latter and hope you are as well. --TaylorOliphant (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can't work. This is very important me. I have found the KILL SWITCH and I am now flipping it. As referenced in MACKEY'S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF FREEMASONRY speaking directly on the Cabala: Much use is made of it in the advanced degrees, and entire Rites have been constructed on its principles. Hence it demands a place in any general work on Freemasonry. Do you know much about unix? Kill -9, no more cpu time. God Bless you good sir =) --TaylorOliphant (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I will agree to kill the discussion... but I will end on another quote from the BC&Y website (which you will remember is OFFICIAL)... The Literal Cabala — divided into Gematria, Notaricon, and Temura — was made use of in the writing of what Mackey termed the "Advanced" degrees of Freemasonry. These more properly should be termed the additional degrees of concordant masonic bodies. The Kabbalah plays no role in regular Craft Freemasonry

'Nuff said... Out of cheese error...Reboot Universe from Start.

I like you. =) "The Literal Cabala — divided into Gematria, Notaricon, and Temura — was made use of in the writing of what Mackey termed the "Advanced" degrees of Freemasonry" That's perfect. Let's add something like that OK? You seem to be ok with it, as you just quoted it. I don't want to argue and I think that is good enough. I think it is becoming obvious that we both know what we are talking about but we generally reference the perspective of different jurisdictions. I live in SF, you live in NY. You know the difference as well as I do, and neither one of us should say the other is wrong as such. I will however say for the record though that Mackey's quote overrules everything else here by every standard of masonry I am aware of. Brother so-and-so in BC is a no name, Mackey is the official man. So, just for the record here's the quote from the most official name in the business:

"Much use is made of it in the advanced degrees, and entire Rites have been constructed on its principles. Hence it demands a place in any general work on Freemasonry." Here's the link to the "C" page of the online version of the Encyclopedia of Freemasonry again too: http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/mackeys_encyclopedia/c.htm so everone can have a nice, 100% valid view on the subject.

Btw, I would also like to remind you that at first you said there was no link to the kabbalah and now you are saying it is for the "advanced degrees". The kabbalah is great because it teaches that the absence of ego is the only way to find truth. I highly recommend it. Also, I'm sure I will be wrong about 5,000 things over the course of the day, so don't think I'm considering myself in anyway exalted, just well read. --TaylorOliphant (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The key difference is between regularly Freemasonry and the "advanced degrees", which are related to some Masonic bodies but which are not recognized by what might be called "standard" three-level Freemasonry. In fact, even those groups which offer "advanced degrees" are from what I understand most often not recognized by "standard" Freemasonry as Freemasonry. If that is the case, then statements about what those entities believe would arguably not be particularly relevant to content relating to "broader" Freemasonry, which includes a number of people who do not hold such ideas. I do note that there is one website which states that Mackey's works are "well respected within Masonic circles" here, but I question the credibility of the source, which specifically refers to the "Masonic heresy" on that page. And while Mackey and Pike are both as I remember considered valuable sources, there have been as I remember questions about the accuracy of some of their statements regarding the possible origins of Freemasonry by even modern active masons. Certainly, the Kabbalah was a fair attempt at scientific examination of religious concepts for its time, effectively a Jewish equivalent of Thomas Aquinas, and any number of members of Masonic bodies probably study both. But there is a question regarding whether the actions of Masons possibly as individuals should be mentioned on a page about Freemasonry as an entity. I think. John Carter (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking speficially about the Scottish Rite and the 32 degree in many lodges. I'm getting to a point where this information is officially esoteric, so I will leave it where it is for now. If Scottish Rite Masonry isn't "accepted" as freemasonry, you should really do something about the slogan. =) http://www.scottishrite.org/images/main-title.jpg

Also, as for "mordern" sources, I have 100's. Keep in mind though, the better known someone is, then of course they will have some people saying they are wrong. For a modern reference that I don't personally support but that many view as a good source you can try Manly P Hall. In terms of OFFICIAL sources though, I challange anybody to find me someone more respected than Mackey. He literally wrote the book.

Also, there is no mention that I can find on wikipedia of "Advanced Degrees". Are you guys trying to prevent this information because it is too esoteric, or because you were really unaware? I will stop if it's because you don't want this information getting out to the public, but as of now, Pike/Mackey/Hall all say the kabbalah is very important to masonry.

Hence it demands a place in any general work on Freemasonry - Mackey, the Encyclopedia of Freemasonry

I don't understand how, or more importantly WHY, this specific quote can/should be overturned. Please show me as I will learn something new.

--TaylorOliphant (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the page you're looking for is Masonic bodies, which refers to the bodies that grant "advanced degrees", which is where the Scottish Rite and others are mentioned. I don't think that it's the case that the editors who have been with the project longer than I have were necessarily trying to "suppress" such information, but rather that that probably isn't their specific field of interest or knowledge. For what it's worth, I'm only basically an "auxiliary" member of this project myself. The same can be said for the content regarding the Melkite and Maronite branches of Christianity, which aren't in particularly good shape either. Also, unfortunately, many of the modern sources regarding Freemasonry, which speculate about Ross Chapel and the like, aren't necessarily going to qualify under WP:Reliable Sources. And, while the quote probably could/should be included somewhere, the question becomes where. There are a lot of articles on Freemasonry specifically, over 200 in fact, and while I agree the connection should be placed somewhere in a wikipedia article, the question becomes which one. John Carter (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you sir. That is fine by me as I want to work with people, not work at them. Although, for the record, I'm with Mackey on this quote (once more): Hence it demands a place in any general work on Freemasonry - the Encyclopedia of Freemasonry. I consider that playing it safe. After all, faith is crucial to having a working masonic body, and how can you have faith in something that's roots have been cut off? Things die when their roots are cut. That is my POV, and I will infer that is the POV of Pike/Mackey/Hall/Etc, but I am fine leaving it out if that makes others happy around here. I will seek placement in the "Advanced Degrees" as decided above. Thanks/ God Bless, --TaylorOliphant (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Categorization Template:Freemasonry2

A Discussion on categorizing the "Template:Freemasonry2" has begun on the "Template talk:Freemasonry2|talk" page. Are we able to have some members of the WikiProject Freemasonry take part in this issue please? We do not want to have an argument on "I'm right and your wrong". We would like to see a quick and concise resolution to this subject. Zef (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, there are no categories that fit the template. So why not leave it as "uncategorized" until something more appropriate is created. This seems to be an over enthusiastic push to categorize a topic that is very difficult to categorize. Why the rush? Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ideas needed

I would like to ask anyone greek speaking that have contributed in this WikiProject to read the greek article el:Ελευθεροτεκτονισμός to give ideas and advices.--Iordanis777^listening 10:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt FAR

Theodore Roosevelt has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This aticle is not really within the scope of the Freemasorny Project. This project is primarily for articles that deal with the organization, not for articles about individuals who happen to have been, or currently are Freemasons. The exception to this are articles on individuals who played a major roll in the developement of the organization (which TR did not). I have removed the Project banner from the article. Good luck reaching FA status (it is a great article). Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Individuals

I have slightly amended the scope... to allow for Bio articles on people who played a fundamental roll in the history and development of the fraternity. I agree that most individuals should not be within the scope of this project, but people like James Anderson or Albert Pike surely are.

I have also gone through "what links here" and have removed the project tag from articles on a ton of individuals. I expect that this will need future policing until people get used to the idea that individuals are not within the scope of the project. Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

We need a Grand Lodge template

We should have a GL template so all the GL articles are accessible from the other GL articles. I think all it really needs to be is a bunch of state flags and the name of the GL in an alphabetical list. We can worry about collapsing by country or continent when the sections get big enough. MSJapan (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Grand Lodge has been created. It is only a draft. There is no links for content as of yet. It has been based on the Template:Freemason2 format. We will be adding content shortly. Zef (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see right now there's going to be a spacing problem. Not only that, it would be better to have it as a bottom-of-page template (basically a navbox). The template basis should be from something else besides Freemasonry2. MSJapan (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The side navigation template is a common occurrence for large subject in Wikipedia due to its collapsible categories and sub-categories. A few examples of this are Template:Religion by Country, Template:Discrimination sidebar, Template:Hidden messages, "Template:Freemasonry2", Template:Christianity, Template:Jesus. The subject of Grand Lodges will be a very large list in nature. This can not be avoided.

For ease of navigation the Template can be organized by Continent or Country (Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Europe, and Australia). This would allow the total viewing size to be relatively small.

A typical Wikipedia reader does not read an article in its entirety. They may only read 50-65% in total before they move on to the next link that catches their interest. For Website design and Information architecture, bottom style navigation will either be overlooked or missed entirely. This is an unfortunate fact. Having navigation readily available to the reader will keep their interest for some time allowing them to find the information they are looking for without having to look for the information.

I do realize that navbox style navigation can be collapsible, but it can be overwhelming to the reader. Template:New Testament people and Template:Christianityfooter are basic examples of this. There is a large amount of information in both these Templates. All of which is overwhelming and confusing to the reader. The information is spread over a large area and is unappealing to the mind. Zef (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

Can someone assess Christopher Smart and his A Song to David and Jubilate Agno. Smart wrote a "defense" of freemasonry, was close friends with an influential 18th century London freemasonry group, and relied on freemason images while proclaiming that we was one. He spends a significant portion of his time on David as the designer of the Temple of Solomon, in both Jubilate Agno and A Song to David, while connecting him to the various mason tools. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but that is not within the scope of this Project... "The scope of this project is to handle all things related to the fraternity know as Freemasonry, its Grand Lodges, appendant organizations and related practices. All articles should be written in a neutral, well-documented, manner. All of these articles should be contained in the Category:Freemasonry or one of its subcategories. Biographies of individuals who once were, or currently are Freemasons, however, are not within the scope of this project, unless those individuals played an important roll in the history and development of the fraternity" Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So, the guy who wrote a public and well known and important defense of freemasonry in the 18th century isn't important enough? If thats so, then there needs to be a real freemasonry wikiproject, because this one doesn't deserve the title. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

And Blueboar, the topic clearly allows in all poems that incorporate freemason idea. It only excludes lesser known Freemasons. This is not the case. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

...unless those individuals played an important roll in the history and development of the fraternity. I don't think Smart qualifies. The question is... how "well known and important" was his defense of Freemasonry. If it were "important" it would certainly be mentioned in most histories of the organization... and it isn't. As for the poems... lots of far better known poets have written poems about Freemasonry or that incorporate Masonic themes... Kipling and Burns are probably the most famous... but we do not categorize either the poets or the poems under "Freemasonry". No... the category should be limited to to articles on the organization, and should not be used for individuals who happened to be Freemasons (and on that... are there any sources to back the claim that Smart actually was a Freemason? If so, please add him to List of Freemasons). Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You are speaking from a modern perspective and not an 18th century perspective. It is obvious that someone like Washington would have been influenced by someone like Smart and not Kiplin, as I am sure the impossibility would be obvious. And to say that Kiplin's poetry is far better known than Smart's is absolutely absurd. Browning nor Rosetti claimed that Kiplin was the best poet of his century, yet they said just that about Smart. If your histories lack anything about Christopher Smart, I doubt you have Christopher Smart: Poet and Freemason by Timothy Williams and published by Phoenix Lodge No. 30. By the way, thats just one of many. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the difference here is one of perspective. You are approaching this from the view point of the individual, while I and the other members of this project approach this from the view point of Freemasonry as a whole... Freemasonry may have been important to Smart (in fact, since he felt compelled to write poems about it, I would venture to say that it was important to him)... but Smart was not all that important to Freemasonry. Freemasonry did not change in any way because Smart wrote poems about it. He had no impact on the Fraternity. To categorize him under "Freemasonry" makes it seem as if he did have some sort of impact. It is an overcategorization. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No impact? By saying that, I highly doubt that you really know what you are talking about. Pheonix Lodge 30 wouldn't have drafted a history of his relationship and importance within Masonry unless there was such! Just because you lack the information on the subject does not make it so. You have proven your ignorance on the matter. Real Masons find the man important, and there is a reason behind that. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you don't have a clue about how important A Defense of Freemasonry (as a refutation to Ahiman Rezon, a work that IS part of the project) is to Masonic history, then, well, then you don't really have a right to talk about Christopher Smart not being allowed. If you notice, Laurence Dermott is in the "freemasonry" section. Smart's book was just as important. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This project, as it has the right to, has chosen to not actively involve itself in biographical articles related to members of Freemasonry organizations, unless that individual is basically either known primarily for his ties with Freemasonry and/or has had a very pronounced impact on Freemasonry. While the poet is a subject familiar to Freemasonry, as many other masons are, the subject is not primarily known for his associations with Freemasonry, and, on that basis, this project does not consider the article within its scope. Personally, I do and always have had reservations about this particular matter with the project myself, but that is a side point at best. If you would want to start the discussion over, and invite a wide variety of input, you would be free to do so, but I somehow doubt the results of the discussion would be any different than the results of the previous discussions on the same subject. You could similarly request that, on the basis of your statements above, the subject be included on the basis of importance, but that importance would likely have to be established more or less across the board for all Masonic organizations, which might be difficult. I don't know much if anything about the subject's relations to Masonry, and on that basis recuse myself from expressing any opinion one way or another at this time. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out, Laurence Dermott, whose work Christopher Smart refuted and his refutation is very well known, is included under the topic. Therefore, what Blueboar is saying is completely false. The situation here is blueboar trying to WP:OWN a project based on his lack of knowledge on a subject, and is not seeking the betterment of the encyclopedia as a whole. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Having looked into this, you want to include a guy for writing a book that cannot be attributed to him in any other way other than what is one statement in another book? Poetic attribution is not an effective means of determining authorship, and if the work is his, you would think someone would have reprinted it since with his name on it, and they have not. Furthermore, there's no objective way to gauge the effect of it, and as I've never heard of it before, I'm inclined to think that there wasn't much of an effect at the time, seeing as how the schism wasn't resolved until 1813. Also, if you're basing so much of this on Phoenix No. 30, why do you have no reference to it? I just don't see a preponderance of evidence that would lead me to agree with your claims. MSJapan (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't mean anything with respect to notability, but AQC has a piece on the work (from 1895). I'll look into this next week if need be, though I doubt there will be any change in the net result. MSJapan (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that he, himself, has admitted to writing the work, as with the other people who were attributed directly in the section included with the work, along with the publisher of the work. And there is no objective way to gauge the effect? How about the fact that the break away group was stopped from changing Freemasonry? I think that is a huge effect. Furthermore, I have multiple books, however, Pheonx Lodge No. 30, the British Freemasonry Research Lodge, is a very important source on the matter - Transactions of the Pheonix Lodge No. 30, Volume 7 Christopher Smart: Poet and Freemason by Timothy Williams. That was part of their publishing on the history of Freemasonry in England. It deals primarily with A Defence, its role in history, and also Smart's addition of poetry on Freemason to the end of it. It is known for a fact that Smart edited the volume. It is known for a fact that it is in Smart's style. It is known for a fact that Smart talked about it with others, and others attributed to him. All that is not known comes from the fact that no one (with emphasis on this) was listed as author on the title page. It was pseudo anonymous. That is it. If you want, I can list the non-Freemason books and articles on the work and its impact, but I am sure that the one with the most weight is the internal history. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

All your statements are minimal. There are lots of books and pamphlets with no author on them. you supposedly have all this information, and none of it appears in the relevant article. As a matter of fact, the article claims Smart may not have even been a Freemason. Frankly, it sounds like you are overenthusiastic about your subject without really understanding any of the context.

Most of your statements don't really make a difference to your assessment request, except for "a breakaway group was stopped from changing Freemasonry." This would indeed make him important, but that's an incorrect statement. Defence was written in 1765, and the schism wasn't healed until 1813, and I would bet that some compromise was reached wherein certain things were included and other excluded, on both sides. So explain to me how a book from 1765 can have a major influence on an event 48 years later and yet no one mentions it, though we know all about the split and rejoin. MSJapan (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

MSJapan, you completely misconstrued that page. What it says is that there is no solid proof, i.e. it wasn't an organization that kept members listings. All that was known was through word of mouth and publications. And if you think that a response to a book that was written during the formation of a schism that has been cited by a Masonic Lodge that researches the history of the British Masons as being important somehow didn't influence the eventual resolution, well, there is no real way to help you. It shouldn't surprise you that a book written years before influences and gives grounds for a later movement or a reactionary movement. It is the distinguishing feature of politics. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Grossly incorrect. All Grand Lodges and subordinate lodges have always kept records. You simply don't know what you are talking about, and are unwilling to be shown to be incorrect. Therefore, further conversation on this is pointless. MSJapan (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Not even close. Record keeping in Great Britain was almost nil, especially during the outbreak of the revolutions. No one would risk the potentiality of the books to be taken as evidence against an individual. The absurdity of your statements is absolutely profound, and you really show yourself ignorant of Masonic ways. This group really needs real Masons to join before it is capable of performing its duties to creating effective pages. So far, both you and Blueboar have proven yourselves as not having a grasp of Masonic history. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Um... I am confused by Ottava's statement about "the fact that the break away group was stopped from changing Freemasonry" ... Am I correct that you are referring to the Ancients vs. Moderns split here? if so, both branches of UK Freemasonry survived until the 1813 (as MSJapan points out), when they finally merged... so I don't think you can say that Smart "stopped" anything. In the long run, US Freemasonry was heavily influenced by Ahiman Rezon (which makes that document important in terms of the subsequent developement of the fraternity), while Smart's work seems to have essentially been forgotten. I have a feeling that you are basing a lot of your statements on one source (the "transactions" that you cite above) ... and if so, you really need to read more. Neither Smart, nor his defense, are mentioned in any of the standard histories of the Fraternity. Blueboar (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A Defence of Freemasonry has always been credited in Freemasonry histories as having a large impact on that struggle and the eventual win of the traditionalists. And Smart's work forgotten? Not even close. Just because you lacked understanding of the work does not mean that the people who are actually in the known forgot about it. You have demonstrated quite a lot of ignorance on the matter. I have already proved that your blanket statement about the work not being in histories as wrong. You inability to get over the fact that you are wrong is an impediment to Wikipedia as a whole and is very troublesome. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Incase anyone was wondering if Blueboar was correct about the work not being mentioned, here is just one example here. As you can see, the quotations and references in histories are in existence. There are more, all you have to do is google it. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a footnote in another book, and hardly proof of existence in histories (plural). This is going nowhere. We are not assessing Smart, and we are not adding him to the category. Take it to a third-party if you want another opinion, but this discussion is over. MSJapan (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you have proven absolutely nothing, nor have you any grounds to make such absurd claims. I have provided multiple histories that refer to the book, which proves, beyond all doubt, that the above claim that it isn't mentioned is absurd! Blueboar and you have made false claims. I have provided evidence after evidence showing that each of your statements is founded on ignorance. Instead of apologizing for outright being wrong, you respond with even more ignorance. You are severely violating civility and what Wikipedia is. This is an encyclopedia, and you refuse to acknowledge what even the Mason historians acknowledge. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

And you are at least coming very close to crossing the line of tendentious editing. Two of the most active members of the project have indicated above that they believe that this project is, as it were, not sufficiently interested in the article to place their banner on it. I don't see your name on the list of members at all. On that basis, it rather gives the impression that you are attempting to force the members of this project to take an interest in an article they have indicated they have little, if any, real interest in. That's not good. Even without the tag, it would be possible for interested editors from the project to develop the content. However, the members above have indicated that they as individuals do not see sufficient basis, given the existing evidence, to believe that this article, as it stands, meets the criteria for them to take it on as an "official" project article. On that basis, I would very strongly advise anyone who disagrees with that to either allow other project members to indicate that they should take it on, which they could do, or let the matter rest. However, attempting to impugn the integrity or character of the members of the project above regarding a decision the project is perfectly permitted to make on its own is something that I cannot see will ever be of benefit to anyone. John Carter (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

John, perhaps you should read WP:OWN for a moment, then come back after you realize that two members do not control a Wikiproject, nor do projects operate outside of the encyclopedia. Then, once you establish that, realize that we are talking about a categorization right now. The fact that there are two members, two that if you read above have been proven wrong many times, are trying to stonewall on a matter that is absolutely obvious is ridiculous to say the least. Any individual who is a freemason and writes a book about freemasonry probably should be involved in this project. That is how projects operate. As I have demonstrated countless times, Blueboar's claim that none of the histories refer to Christopher Smart's work is absolutely absurd. That is enough proof to justify that he does not know what he is talking about. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Please indicate to me where you had earlier indicated that what was being discussed was a matter of categorization, as I see no previous statement to that effect. And, yes, believe it or not, WikiProjects are not articles; they are voluntary associations of editors with a common interest. In fact, if you look at WP:OWN, you will see that WikiProjects aren't specifically mentioned on that page at all, so, presumably that rule doesn't apply to projects per se. On that basis, I have to come to the conclusion that it is, in fact, you who are less than well informed as to what you are talking about here. Regarding the Category:Freemasons and similar categories, it has been already discussed that those categories are not necessarily the only way to indicate article relationship, and, in fact, as per previous CfD discussions, it has been indicated that biographies in general should not be placed in such categories. John Carter (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, it was in the spill over talk pages - see Blueboar's user page. There I suggested that Freemasons could exist if it is limited to the century, with the modern one not existing. Perhaps, it could be limited to "freemason poets", as there are at least 5 very famous ones, and over two dozen minor ones. Categories exist so people can find similar people or pages to the ones they are looking at. Knowing that an individual is part of the same brotherhood is an important consideration, especially in the 18th century. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

We have set the criteria of what to include such that the articles in the category are meaningful to the category, meaning that in most cases a substantial amount of space is devoted to the topic categorized. No artist of any type who was a Mason ever exclusively created Masonically-themed items, and they certainly aren't famous for just those items. Therefore, the categorization is excessive and unnecessary. I'm also going to state for the record that this is the extent of my assumption of good faith. MSJapan (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If you were performing good faith, you would have read that there are two poems, one of which, A Song to David is primarily about Masonic practices. It is a very long poem about David and the building of the temple. There is no doubt that the poem is rooted in Masonry, and there are over 15 critics that I can list who have explored the Masonic symbolism that is inherent in the work and inherent in the three other major works of his that deal with the image of David as the designer of the Temple of Solomon. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You keep referring to sources that you can produce... OK... Please do so. Blueboar (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have already provided two within the Masonic community. You said that there were none. For other works, there is a mention of it in reaction to the "Ancients" in Chapter XII of John Yarker's The Arcane Schools. A long chapter dedicated to Smart's role as a Freemason and his impact on Masonry and Masonic poetry in Marie Roberts's British Poets and Secret Societies. There are many works on Smart's involvement with the Vauxhall (and the Prince of Wales, Frederic), and his major biographers pick this up, along with his writing of A Defence. He gave "benefit performances" during his "Old Woman's Oratory" to the "Decay'd and Atient Masons" and to "a Free Mason", and there have been quite a few mentions of his relationship with the Masons and how it comes up in his oratory. It is known that he went to meetings at the Bell Tavern in Westminster, which is mentioned frequently by his biographers and listed in John Lane's Masonic Records, 1717-1886. London, 1886. I can start listing the various academic articles if you want, or the introductions to a few of his collections if you want. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Those would be the sorts of Masonic records you earlier said "did not exist." I don't know why you're pushing this, but you've got an agenda here, and you're tossing around random things trying to make vague connections. If there is no record of Smart being a Mason associated with some Lodge (and there should be if he was a member), then he is not a Mason, and this is all a moot point. Conjecture in books and possible association are not going to cut it. Entries in a visitor's register or secretary's minutes also do not constitute proof of membership. MSJapan (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

MSJapan, before I respond to you, I will ask you to strike your inaccuracies. I made it clear that physical documents did not exist to say "Christopher Smart, ___ level Freemason". I mentioned many times that he and others described his membership, his writing of the Defence, etc. There are records of him attending Masonic meetings at two known meeting areas for Masons, which were not "Lodges" but public houses. If you knew about the Vauxhall group, you would understand. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And MS, if you want to claim that all Masons have records listing their initiation and the such, then you are severely mistaken. Your removal of Smart verifies your disqualification on the matter, as many of those listed do not have any such records to verify as you claim except for attendance, admittance, or the like. Furthermore, WP:V demands that the sources are respected, because every major work on Christopher Smart verifies his Freemasonry. You can revert your removal, or I can take it up at the notice board for you purposely violating WP:V. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, but I've already reported you. MSJapan (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) For what its worth, I would suggest that you strike your own inaccurate statements as well. As you have already been told, WikiProjects are in no way, shape or form an official entity, and thus they are free to tag articles as they see fit. They are in fact under no obligation to ever tag any. I tend to agree with MSJapan that your conduct to date calls into question whether you have some other purpose in mind other than simply improving the encyclopedia. Certainly, the fact that the sole purpose of this discussion, for all its length, is about placing a banner on an article calls into question whether this is an appropriate use of time. Granted, you have later changed that statement to being one indicating that it was about "categorization", but that is a later development. Also, your insistence on what others "must" do is at best dubious. It is hard not to question why this matter is of such great importance to you, and why you are making such an extraordinary effort regarding such a trivial matter. John Carter (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Jumping in here, but I have great difficulty in seeing what real point is being made. Ottava Rima, would you like to email me your standpoint - too much space has been taken up here - and discussing with me what the real issues are? Perhaps an understanding can be reached? docboat (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I am going to slightly disagree with MSJapan here... I don't think it matters whether Smart was a Freemason or not. The issue is whether he should be tagged with the category "Freemasonry" (not the deleted "Freemasons")... if it can be demonstrated that Smart or his writings had an impact on the history and development of the Fraternity, then the categorization is appropriate even if he were not a Mason. Perhaps Ottava could explain in more detail exactly what he thinks that impact was?

(note... I am heading off on vacation today... away for a few weeks, with only occasional access to the internet... I will try to keep tabs on this discusion, but please do not take my silence for approval or disapproval for anything. I will, of course, abide by any consensus that forms). Blueboar (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I am fighting for Smart's inclusion based on Laurence Dermott being included for his work Ahiman Rezon, although the Vauxhall group (formerly led by the Prince of Wales, Frederick, until his death) joined Smart in his response, which is verified by the poetic appendix that was published including many of their members and their poems were edited by Smart before publication. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Policy states that notability is not inherited. There is no historical basis for the inclusion of Smart in the project. It is too much of a stretch to say a book written in 1765 affected events in 1813. The schism itself is a major historical event in Freemasonry - anyone who begins to learn about even the basic history of Freemasonry comes across it in some fashion (which is why we know of Dermott). I did find a reference to the book in question elsewhere. Prestonian Lecturer for 1971 Cyril N. Batham has this to say about it: "A strange outcome of this second edition of Ahiman Rezon was the publication of an anonymous pamphlet bearing the over‑lengthy title of A Defence of FreeMasonry, as practised in the Regular Lodges. Both Foreign and Domestic, Under the Constitution of the English Grand Master. In which is contained, a Refutation of Mr. Dermott's absurd and ridiculous Account of Free‑Masonry, in his book, entitled Ahiman Rezon; and the several Queries therein, reflecting on the Regular Masons, briefly considered and answered. All the vituperation was not on the side of the Antients for this was a most scurrilous pamphlet and certainly reflected no credit on the Moderns. Henry Sadler (Masonic Facts and Fictions) suggests that John Revis, Grand Secretary of the Moderns 1734‑56 and Deputy Grand Master 1757‑63 was the author, or possibly his successor, Samuel Spencer, Grand Secretary 1757‑68." Collected Prestonian Lectures, scanned, around page 140 or so. Setting aside the authorship question, Batham makes no statement regarding any historical importance of the book at all, and "scurrilous" is not a positive term either. I'm inclined to accept the scholarly opinion of a Prestonian Lecturer as accurate. MSJapan (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Dermott's Ahiman Rezon has more than historical relevance... several US Grand Lodges base their constitutions on it. Thus, it is still relevant today. Dermott, as its author. is influencing Freemasonry in the modern era. The same can not be said for anything Smart wrote. Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion

An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - , member of WikiProject Council. 14:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Freemasonry

I went ahead and started Portal:Freemasonry, as I have experience in Portals (three featured). I do fear I will make it US-centric, so any outside-US help would be appreciated for a world-wide view.--Bedford ^Pray 05:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger discussion Haas and GLWV

There's a merger discussion I started here. Please read and add opinions. MSJapan (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's policymaking time....

I think we need a policy dealing with notability of membership in fraternal groups in general, and Masonry in particular. I'd like to say that being the head of a fraternal group does not confer notability, and furthermore, a person not notable for being in the group does not qualify for inclusion in the cat for the group.

The reason I want to widen it out is because I'm sure that Rotary (just as an example) has the same problem we do, in that famous Rotarians go in the cat, but really have nothing to do with Rotary other than being on the membership rolls. MSJapan (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. Being one of millions of members is not notable. The exception I would make are the few people who are notable because they were Freemasons (Rotarians, Elks, etc.)... who are notable because they had an impact on their group. Someone like James Anderson, who is notable because he wrote his Constitutions. I would suggest raising this at WP:NOTE. Blueboar (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. MSJapan (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability and Grand Lodges

It seems that the notability of various Grand Lodges/Grand Orients has become an issue recently... with a number of articles going to AfD. (Note: for the sake of simplicity... I will just use the term "Grand Lodge" from here on out... but I mean both) I think we need to determine a project wide consensus on a few things:

1. What makes an individual Grand Lodge notable enough for us to have an article on it?
2. How should this notability be established in an article?
3. Should we have project specific guidelines as some other projects do, or are the criteria set out at WP:ORG (and specifically at WP:ORG#Non-commercial organizations satisfactory?

My own thoughts on these issues are as follows:

• 1) I don't think the average Grand Lodge is really all that notable. I think there has to be something that makes a particular Grand Lodge stand out above the average for us to call it notable. There are several factors that can be applied in determining notability: The age of the Grand Lodge, the size of the Grand Lodge (as determined by either the number of subordinate lodges or the number of Masons under its jurisdiction), the influence of the Grand Lodge on other Grand Lodges, whether the general public has taken note of the Grand Lodge (significant press coverage, significant mention in academic works, etc.) All of these factors are important, and I am sure I have left some out... and some may be more important than others (my mind is not made up on this aspect). The one thing I definitly don't agree with is the idea that a Grand Lodge is inherantly notable, simply for existing. Anyone can form a Grand Lodge... if it consists of five disgruntled Masons with a website, that is clearly not notable.
• 2) To me, there is only one way to establish notablility: Reliable secondary sources. These can be Masonic or non-Masonic sources, but they have to be independant of the Grand Lodge under discussion. Claims to its own notability that are made by a Grand Lodge are not enough. That means you need to cite more than just the Grand Lodge's webpage to establish notability. I also think the article has to state what makes the particular Grand Lodge different from the average. I do not think that either regularity, or recognition makes a Grand Lodge notable.
• 3) I don't think we need to go beyond what is already stated at WP:ORG... but perhaps we should clarify how WP:ORG relates to Masonry articles in general and articles on Grand Lodges in particular. For example... WP:ORG does indicate that an organization that is national (or international) in scope is probably notable. But what does that mean when we apply it to Freemasonry? I don't think a Grand Lodge with four subordinate lodges and 100 members can be called "national" in scope. WP:ORG also says that local chapters are usually not notable... this obviously applies to individual Lodges, but what about Districts? I would think most of us would agree that they are simply another form of local chapter. And yet, there are some Districts that are significantly larger than entire Grand Lodges. So what makes the Grand Lodge more notable than the District? These are questions that I think we need to clarify. In other words, I don't think we need a project specific set of guidelines, but I do think we need a statement that explains the existing guidelines as they relate to the project.

Please share your thoughts... Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with sources. Size is definitely a factor, but the claim might be that UGLE GLs are larger than GOdF GLS, and it's an unfair advantage. However, I would note that in the process of info gathering for the AfDs, the UGLE GL websites had a lot of information, while the GOdF sites were dead or empty. So while they should both be factors, we should weight sources more heavily than size. ORG is problematic and needs more thought, but again, when any group in any country can petition any GL for a warrant if there's none around (for example, UGLE, GL of Scotland, GLMA, and GL of the Phillippines either are or were active in Japan, which also has its own GL), it makes the internationalization process a little more arbitrary. However, again, where did I get that information but from a secondary source. So again, consider scope of jurisdiction, but in my estimation, nothing's going to prove notability more than a source. MSJapan (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(Note: To avoid retyping "branch lodges" over and over again, "UGLE" and "GOdF" used herein refer to their respective branches, not just the entities themselves.)

The primary criterion of ORG is "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered." With respect to a GL, there is a definite coverage problem - UGLE lodges are well-covered, and GOdF ones are not. As I noted above on sources, the only reference to most GOdF lodges aside from GOdF itself seems to be CLIPSAS, which is an umbrella group created by those lodges, and even then it's only a list (and thus trivial). Fundamentally, all of the above is a WP:V problem, and will also address the local and national chapter items as well. If we can't find verifiable sources, it moots the entire notability issue.

So, after all that rigamarole, I think sources is still the way to go, because the existence of sources establishes notability (unless I'm missing a technicality here?), and that is the underlying principle for every ORG criterion. There's usually some sort of coverage on US mainstream GLs in the news, because they're out and about in the community.

We might as well address local lodges as well, while we're at it. If a local lodge is verifiably "oldest in the state/country" etc., then it establishes notability that way. Otherwise, there's very little to distinguish one local lodge from another - even the Lodges of Research (save QC 2074) aren't notable enough to stand alone, which is why they have a generic article. Every Lodge has something as a claim to fame, but it's not necessarily enough to satisfy WP:N. MSJapan (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Who has access to the Scottish Rite Journal?

I had what I believe to be significant information about Manly P. Hall removed by a project member in this edit. Although I agree that we should make an effort of adhering to WP guidelines, such as verifiability and providing reliable sources, this one should be possible to finish for someone who has access to this publication, the year being 1990. I have made some efforts myself to provide the missing bits, but the Grand Lodge here was quite categorical about not letting a profane person such a myself have access to their library. Also, none of the academic libraries in Norway carry the journal. __meco (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Grand Lodge of Norway, I find that ratehr odd - I know of several causes where 'normal' people has been allowed to do research in the Library. WegianWarrior (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the one. Based on your information I shall not hesitate in making a second attempt to gain access to the library should circumstances necessitate it. __meco (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not out of the question that they don't hold the Scottish Rite Journal, so it very much depends on the question they were asked. Looking at the link it appears to have been the title for an article, rather than a statement from an article. The utility would depend on how it was said, and who said it. As MSJ highlighted in some of the traffic to get to the current version, MPH was never a Craft Mason, he was accorded the honourary recognition by the Scottish Rite in Washington. so if the statement was made by someone from there, then it would carry a different nuance than if it was said by someone from, for example, Quatuor Coronati.

ALR (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure that I can find the needed information, but my concern was that somehow the statement could be shown to be from a particular issue, but yet no article, page, or author could be found. I possibly stand corrected on one thing, though - apparently Hall was a Mason (though 10,000 Famous Freemasons has mistakes, and PRS itself notes his 33rd, but not his initial degrees), but I also find this quote from a book review to be interesting: "To note, Hall was a Freemason, raised November 22, 1954 in Jewel Lodge No. 374, in San Francisco. His written work on Freemasonry predates his having been made a Mason, and stopped following his degrees[1]." So I'm really not at all convinced by "Freemasonry's greatest philosopher" when he never wrote about Masonry after he was in a position to know the actual content! MSJapan (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This will be cleared up when we get to the article in question, surely? And although my inquiry on this page about this matter was not intended to censure you, and I see that you may have perceived it as such, I am bemused that you would think to consider yourself corrected on the issue on whether Hall was a mason or not since this was not asserted by neither myself nor the quote. I should think it more natural that you felt corrected on having shown poor judgment in simply removing my edit instead of chosing some other, more discerning manner of dealing with your qualms. __meco (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My intention in adding the quote, however unattributed, was to show that a highly authoritative source in regular masonry considered him just what the quote stated. I really don't understand any discussion which I assume centers on the applicability and relevance of its inclusion. I'd think that from the however insufficient/scant reference data provided anyone who was somewhat informed would see that here exists a piece of information that is important and surely merits inclusion into the article. Notice the publication date of that issue – four months after Hall's death, which I certainly took as a sign that this was probably a eulogy. __meco (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Bad assumption, which is the underpinning of this whole problem. SRJ is It is neither "highly authoritative", nor has it anything to do with "regular Masonry". It is a member magazine published for the AASR Southern Jurisdiction. It is not a research journal. It means nothing to any other jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite (other than as passing interest), and has nothing to do with any other aspect of Freemasonry in its own jurisdiction besides its own.

To use your own statement, you are the one who is not "somewhat informed". What exactly made you assume the magazine was anything but what it is, especially when you have no basis in the subject? IO assumed you didn't know it was a eulogy - why would you take that as an absolutely true statement of fact? Lastly, your date is wrong - four months after Hall's death would be December of 1990 or January of 1991, not January of 1990. So, regardless of anything else, the source you added simply doesn't have the information you claimed it did, which is grounds enough for removal. MSJapan (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

1. The title of the magazine prompted me to make this assumption, in addition to having seen it referenced previously also. You provide me with new information which proves this to have been a wrong assumption, so I stand corrected. Nevertheless, I don't see that it was a negligent error but rather one that was quite understandable taken my position and status.
2. Why would I take what as an absolutely true statement of fact? I don't understand your question.
3. Hall died in August 1990. The issue of the SRJ was published three (I wrote four, big deal..!?) months later in November 1990. Your last two sentences appear quite non-sequiturial to me. I simply do not understand what you are presenting. __meco (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I find myself harking back to this issue and I also notice my questions for clarification have not been acknowledged. That aside, I have now been able to inquire within the library of the Norwegian Grand Lodge in Oslo, and unfortunaltely they do not have a copy of the issue of SRJ in question (nor were they able to dig up any contact information for the Southern Jurisdiction of the US). I have also been to the website of the journal and they do not seem to have an electronic interface which I might avail myself of in a case such as the present. My inquiry here therefore stands. Can anyone help out with accurate references for the statement about Hall's influence on freemasonry in the November 1990 issue? __meco (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I can, but I'm trying to do it without making a nuisance of myself in the process, which is why it's taking a while. MSJapan (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just gently reminding you (or others) of this request. __meco (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I just want to interject something here. Even if the SRJ says that Hall was some sort of great philosopher, that does not mean everyone agrees with this opinon. To give you another opinion... Christopher Hodapp is very dismissive of Hall. In Freemasons for Dummies (p.61) he states that Hall (along with other noted Masonic scholars such as Pike and Mackey) ... "wrote a lot of crap". I am not saying either opinion is more "correct" than the other... only that Masons have a very wide range of opinions on Hall (and others). If you are going to mention that the SRJ callse Hall "Masonry's greatest philosopher" ... you need to ballance it with Hodapp's significantly more negative view. Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

My stumbling across someone writing a notable opinion on a subject of a Wikipedia article should be quite sufficient for this to be mentioned. If others, such as yourself in this particular case, can contribute with corroborating or differing opinions or facts, they should of course be encouraged to do so. That said, noone has so far volunteered the information that would make my information acceptably referenced for this article (still waiting to see if MSJapan is able to follow up on his statement of September 24). __meco (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Dunfermline Lodge picture

Hi all, just wanted to let you know you can use this http://www.flickr.com/photos/24258698@N04/2451452760/ picture i took in Dunfermline of an abandoned Masonic Lodge, i really like Classical architecture and the symbols and capital letters intrigued me so i snapped it. yours, T. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 19:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Freemasonry-related

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

New entry: Grand Lodge of Virginia

Hello! For my first input in this WikiProject, I created an entry for Grand Lodge of Virginia. It is a bit of a stub at the moment -- can anyone please help grow it into a full-fledged article? Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Good stub. I especially like the fact that you cite more than just the GLV website (an all too common flaw for many articles on Grand Lodges). This is a key step towards establishing that GLV's notability. I am sure that there are people who can help it grow... but don't wait for them. Keep researching, and add to it yourself. And thanks. Blueboar (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I am brand new to the Masonic experience offline and I am eager to help my Brothers online. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

We look forward to your participation. Please note that our project has both Freemasons (from several different traditions) and non-Masons as members. We even have some that could be called Anti-masons. The important thing to remember is that here on Wikipedia we are not Masons... we are Wikipedians. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Schisms

Schisms and the resulting issue of recognition in freemasonry are treated rather substantially in several articles. They are at least three articles (possibly more):

• Regular Masonic jurisdictions deals with the schisms between these Antients and Moderns and the schism between the UGLE and GOdF.
• These same schisms are also dealt with in History of freemasonry
• The schism between the UGLE and GOdF is dealt with in Continental Freemasonry.

The same events are thus treated in three different articles, which is unneccesary repetition.

The treatment of the same events in several places also has the problem with Wikipedia:Content forking. Some articles are written with a POV to the side of regular freemasonry and others to continental freemasonry.

One solution would be to treat the schisms in one article (perhaps called “Schisms in freemasonry”). Maybe the article Regular Masonic jurisdictions can be re-named and expanded? Or a new article is created. Then the majority of the material in the other articles should be moved to that article and the topic can be describes in a neutral way in one article.

This is just an idea I just got. I have identified some positive effects. Of course there could be some arguments why this might not be a good idea. I think that it would be good to have a discussion about this. Ergo-Nord (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Some degree of repetition is needed. My feeling is that History of Freemasonry should be the main article for the details on the various scisms, and other articles should summarize the facts and point to that article.

I do agree that Regular Masonic jurisdictions should be re-worked... I would change it to something like Masonic regularity and recognition which would explain the concpets of regularity and recognition, and how they affect the relationships between any two Grand Lodges. For example, it needs to be made clear that the term "regularlarity" is always self-defined. Every Masonic body considers itself regular. However there are disagreements when that self definition is applied to other Masonic bodies (hence the schisms). Blueboar (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit notice for List of Freemasons

I just found out about the Editnotice functionality, so I added one to List of Freemasons. Anyone editing the article will see an admonition to cite sources, located at the top of the page. I'm not sure if anyone can edit it, or just admins. If you can't and want to change the wording, let me know.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! I doubt it will reduce the IP vandialism that plagues that particular article, but at least it acts as one more warning given before we summarily delete uncited additions. Blueboar (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Related WikiProjects

Could a section be included on the project main page listing related WikiProjects? __meco (talk) 12:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

What projects do you consider related? Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Secret Societies, Spirituality, WPOccult, Religion would be four suggestions. But project members should discuss this. __meco (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

None of those are applicable.

ALR (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

My point was to elicit project members to discuss if there were some other WikiProjects that could be considered related (or ascendant) and for this to be displayed on the project page. Perhaps it would be useful to discuss what the point is of such a listing as you and I at least seem to have very differing concepts of which other WikiProjects could be considered related. __meco (talk) 11:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ALR in feeling that none of the projects Meco mentiones are applicable. Unfortunately, I am not familiar enough with the various projects that are out there, to know if there are other projects that might be applicable. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities?... I know we used to have that as a category on the main Freemasonry Page (it was removed - apparently the scope of that cat is limited collegiate level fraternal societies and not adult level fraternal orders and societies). Blueboar (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's entirely up to individual editors to make suggestions as they see fit, but personally I'd leave it up to individuals to have the discussions on a case by case basis. There need not be any listing of related projects, and equally other projects are at liberty to consider something within the purview of their interest, one need not reciprocate if the informed opinion suggests that it is not relevant.

ALR (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

My reason for bringing this up is that I often do WikiProjects maintenance work and find that the WikiProject I'm looking at isn't the one I want. So that's why the ones I mentioned seems appropriate to me, because people ending up here may in fact rather be looking for one of those. That means that "related" could be interpreted in a much less obliging fashion than otherwise appropriate. __meco (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced. As far as I'm concerned related means that there is a relationship between the topics.

ALR (talk) 11:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If the WikiProject you are looking at isn't the one you want, it means you are looking in the wrong place. You need to search elsewhere. Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Move/rename proposal at Talk:Mother Supreme Council of the World

I have proposed that the article: Mother Supreme Council of the World be renamed to something like: Supreme Council, AASR (Southern Jurisdiction, USA) (I am open to alternative suggestions here). I made this proposal back in June of 08, and it was met by a somewhat confused response from the article creator (who seemed to think that my proposal was some sort of Anti-Masonic attack)... so I let it drop for a while. I think it is time to re-open discussion. Please comment at the article's talk page. Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Given lack of comment or objection, I have moved it to: Supreme Council, Scottish Rite (Southern Jurisdiction, USA). This seems to be the most common and simplest varient. Blueboar (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have this list?

I just came across: Wikipedia:WikiProject Freemasonry/Articles... doesn't this just duplicate what is at Category:Freemasonry. Over organization? Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Robert Burns may be of importance to WP Freemasonry, but he doesn't fall in Category:Freemasonry. Right?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

First, Robert Burns is not listed in either the Freemasonry/Articles or the Cat... and is not listed as being under the Freemasonry Project... which I agree with... Why would the article on Robert Burns fall under the Freemasonry Project? Yes, he was a Mason, and wrote a poem about that ... but that is about the full extent of the connection. We specifically say that the only individuals that fall under our project are those that played a significant roll in the history or development of the craft, people that are known primarily for being Masons. Burns does not fit that criteria. Blueboar (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the role of the category. The Project can cast its net a bit wider; after all, Burns was one of only two (that I know of) Poet Laureates of Freemasonry.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

As you may have noticed, I added the importance parameter to the WP Freemasonry template, created the associated categories, and have been adding assessments to some of the articles. Opinions?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we have a coordinator. Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Stub issues....

We need to look at the stubs and see what's worth keeping. Moreover, I think some folks thought the FM stub template also put the article in the main cat, which it doesn't. We've got articles I didn't know existed. So, can we collectively go through the stub cat, see what can be expanded and what can't, and prod and file stuff appropriately? MSJapan (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

sounds like a plan. Blueboar (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Freemasonry book

I just used the new Books functionality to create a Freemasonry book. Any comments about the selected articles and organization?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

We need to add the Premier and Antient GLs of England for history, and I might organize the sections internally a bit differently, but it's pretty good so far. MSJapan (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

So far so good. I am sure we could all nit-pick the categories and what goes where, but it is a very good beginning. Blueboar (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Far as I know, I don't have sole control over it -- feel free to tweak.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:10, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

The way that message reads, I expected it to add: "But wait... subscribe within the next 5 minutes and we will toss in a set of Ginsu knives, absolutely free!" Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Enoch

I would like to create category called Category:Enoch in order to re-organize the material in the Enoch series. Enoch is a very mysterious character that would still need to be de-mythologized for the sake of ancient and modern studies in religion. Is there anywhere I can propose or discuss the creation of this category ? ADM (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of folks named Enoch; any particular one? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I imagine that you could just start adding the category to relevant articles (WP:BEBOLD maybe?), but of course there is no guarantee that the category would remain if other editors disagreed. Are there other, similar categories already in existence for Biblical figures? I tried looking for some, but my already sparse religious knowledge seems to have deserted me! You could try looking through the sub-categories under Wikipedia:Categorical_index#Religion_and_belief_systems for a precedent.

For discussion, perhaps the best place to begin might be the talk page of Wikiproject Religion, or alternatively the talk page of one of the articles mentioned at Enoch (I wasn't sure which Enoch you meant), although a discussion there may not get as many contributors. --Kateshortforbob 20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The son of Jared is by far the most famous one, known simply as Enoch, there is merely a problem in the disambiguation which I would like to fix. ADM (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And all this relates to the Freemasonry Project... how? Blueboar (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a historic pre-18th century brand of Masonry which is essentially a form of hermetism. Since hermetism is based on the teachings of Hermes Trismegistus, which many people believe to be an incarnation Enoch, some have consequently identified links between Enochian philosophy and Hermetism. ADM (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

In other words... because some people link Enoch to Hermetism, and other people believe Freemasonry is linked to Hermetism... you want to link Enoch to Freemasonry. Sounds like WP:SYNT to me. For one thing, I would debate your premise that there was a "historic pre-18th century brand of Masonry which is essentially a form of hermetism"; as it goes counter to mainstream masonic history. You would need to cite very strong sources that make all these connections. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, Enoch has already been written about by Albert Mackey, an author who was a specialist in Masonic mythology and history. I'll leave the original research to Mackey, who as a writer is recognizable enough. [2] ADM (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as he is the nominal author of several works, including one or two accepted as canonical by one or more groups, I think there is a basis for creation of a category. I myself would question whether there is a separate article on this alleged "Masonic" connection, and whether on that basis there is any good reason to categorize any Masonic articles in that category right now. Are there any particular extant articles relating to Masonry you're planning to include in that category? Otherwise, I'm not particularly sure that this discussion might not be better held at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible. John Carter (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As Christopher Hodapp says in Freemasons for Dummies... Mackey "wrote a lot of crap". While he is respected for writing a very exhaustive Masonic encyclopedia and was considered very learned in his day (almost a hundred years ago), Modern Freemasons consider him quite out-dated. A lot of what he wrote about Freemasonry has been corrected by more subsequent scholarship. I would be very cautious about relying on him. At best, he might be used for an attributed statement as to his opinion on Masonic matters, but not for statements of fact about Masonry.

John, I am not sure which groups you think consider his work "cannonical", but I can not think of one (are you perhaps confusing him with Albert Pike?). He is simply the author of an outdated encyclopedia. Blueboar (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Biblically canonical. 1 Enoch I know is accepted as canonical by the Ehtiopian Orthodox Church, and I think 2 and 3 Enoch did receive some credibility earlier. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah... thank you for the clarification. Well, if there are enough articles between the Bible articles and the Hermetism artices, then I would have no problem with someone creating a cat for it... but I don't think it really relates to this project. Certainly, none of the articles currently under this project would fit in that category. I would suggest a collaboration between to the folks who work on Bible articles and those who work on Hermetism articles. Blueboar (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a valuable link here which tries to refute links between Enochian hermetism and Masonry. [3] It says that references to Enoch are minimal in lodges, much like references to Jesus are also minimal. The link might still be a good source to add in the Enoch article, in order to dispell a certain number of myths. ADM (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, but I question the logic of refuting allegations that haven't been made in any wikipedia articles yet, and I don't see those allegations made anywhere in wikipedia yet. Having said that, using that article as a source in whatever article mentions the possible Enochian link to demonstrate that the idea is not currently well regarded would make some sense. But wouldn't it make more sense to establish the specific notability of the allegations before trying to refute them? There are, after all, any number of what might be called "crackpot" allegations about all groups, like L. Ron Hubbard being the genetic father of Tom Cruise's baby, and we don't include most of those allegations in the main article of any group until their own individual notability has been established, and pretty often don't even include them then. John Carter (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As that link shows... the discussion of Enoch is really misplaced here. I think we can close this with the suggestion that it be raised elsewhere. Blueboar (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Freemasonry Portal and Project Banner

Would the rest of you like to see a link to the portal on the project banner or not? John Carter (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The portal was really more of a one man show ... it didn't really get much support from the rest of the project members, and I am not sure if the editor who started the portal is still active. I would support linking it if that changed, but at the moment, no. Blueboar (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, he had one edit on Wednesday, as per here, but not much else very recently. I did note there didn't seem to be much discussion one way or another about the portal's desirability or not, however. Any other opinions? John Carter (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Boaz and Jachin

Very poor article about the two pillars. Most of the article is based on what is stated in the Bible, but there was a very poorly written section that related to Freemasonry (essentially saying that the pillars were part of the rituals of Freemasonry). The Freemasonry section was so poorly written that (after some thought as to how to fix it) I have ended up simply deleting it. If someone wants to attempt a better paragraph, feel free. If not, perhaps we should remove this article from the Project (and from the Freemasonry cat as well). Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Recognition should not confer notability....

After working on the Freemasonry in Portugal article (which does not seem terribly long for this world given the absolute lack of sources), there seems to be the idea that UGLE or GLoS or one of the older GLs recognizing a body somehow makes that body notable. I didn't check to see who introduced the recognition statememtns, but I think that that is a logical fallacy that we need a consensus on avoiding. Fundamentally speaking, recognition is on a body-by-body basis, and just because UGLE recognizes someone doesn't always mean everyone else does (as is apparent from the List of Lodges book). Therefore, while I think a lack of any recognition is a notability killer, the converse does not apply, because it means there's a value judgment saying that somehow one GL's recognition is "better" than another's, which would violate the sovereignty and recognition rules in the various GL Constitutions. Thoughts? MSJapan (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Recognition by a prominent GL is at best an indication that a body might be notable ... but it does not demonstrate notability itself. Notability is not inherited. What makes a Grand body notable? There are many sub-factors (size, age, influence on the developement of the Craft and influence on Society, just to name a few), but even those sub-factors are not enough ... to be notable, an organization must be discussed in reliable secondary sources that are independant of the subject. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

International Order of the Rainbow for Girls

International Order of the Rainbow for Girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone self-identifying at the IORG website editoras the IORG website copywriter is replacing cited info with ad copy. I just hit my third revert - can someone else help explain to her why this is a bad idea?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering if this has anything to do with these edits. Perhaps the editor has mistaken the two orgs? Blueboar (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that that would account for the "no longer associated with" edit summary, but for the rest of it, it's definitely material from the IORG website. I wonder if it might be beneficial to remove the "edit" link from Freemasonry2 for a while... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

or a semi-protect. It really would be nice if we could get this editor to slow down and talk about his/her edits instead of edit warring. Blueboar (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I just requested it over on WP:RFPP, since I'm involved and it's not clear-cut vandalism.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And it's been indefinitely semi-protected. That should help going forward.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Boaz and Jachin

In this article, i made my contribution with the image about Boaz and Jachin, for the first time ever in Wikipedia... By the way, in my talk page, you will can see many images that many articles about Freemasons, didnt has, but now have... If anyone wants, i can make my contributions about this with images and symbols, and if yes, i will put in my profile, this :

This user is a participant in WikiProject Freemasonry.

Contact me... --Lightwarrior2 (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Your stuff is almost all copyvio, and you have no idea what you're talking about at all. How can you upload an image from an HTML version of a Grand Royal Arch Chapter of California brochure, claim it's PD because the author died 70+ years ago, and then say it's an image pertaining to the Holy Royal Arch degree in England? Never mind you made the same "PD, author deceased" claim with currently used organizational logos for Masonic groups, which are still copyright their respective organizations. MSJapan (talk) 06:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Review?

The article Grand Lodge of Manitoba incorporated text from a number of official sources without sign of permission, though these were all clearly marked as copyrighted. In the philosophy that something is better than nothing, I have attempted to write at least a brief article, but I have no background in the subject at all and do not know if what I've written makes sense. (Ritual? Work? A source seems to use these terms interchangeably, but I don't know if it should, as I don't know what it means.) I'm bringing it up here in the hopes that somebody with familiarity with the subject can correct any glaring errors that I'm not informed enough to recognize. Thanks in advance for any assistance. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Just at a quick glance, it looks reasonable. The "ritual" is the book with our ceremonies in it, often written in code (first two letters of each word, for example). The "work" more properly refers to the actual ceremonies, but is reasonably synonymous. (If you're a programmer, the ritual is the class, and the work is the instantiated object.) The only problem I have is the first sentence, where you state that Masonry came to the area when a settler joined a lodge -- where'd the lodge he joined come from? :-) I'll take a look at the original and figure out the step you missed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops. :) I didn't base it off the original but the sources it cited, and that came from [4]. He was evidently arrested and taken to Montreal for something or the other. Thanks for looking at it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

UGLE Website

UGLE has updated and changed its website... pages have been condensed, re-written and even omitted. We should do a project wide check of all our citations to UGLE... point the links to the appropriate sub-page where we can, and point to the old version via way back if needed. Blueboar (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories

I draw your attention to Category talk:Masonic buildings... this category has grown a lot in recent months. I think it needs some defining... what exactly do we mean by the term "Masonic building". Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine any building used as a Lodge hall, or a Grand Lodge, or anything associated primarily with Freemasonry, like the House of the Temple or the National Heritage Museum. I think the reason the cat got huge is becuae a lot of the Lodge buildings are old enough to go on the National Register of Historic Places, and thereby become notable enough to be on WP. MSJapan (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit more than that... see the section at the Project talk page. Blueboar (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the Project talk page.  :) You mean the cat talk page? MSJapan (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry... Yes... I meant the category talk page that I linked to above. My error. (Projects... categories... portals... too many damn "organizational" pages to watch.) Blueboar (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Logos and insignia on grave markers in the United States

I've started a page on Commons: Commons:Logos and insignia on grave markers in the United States. I suspect that someone connected to this project may have good material to add to that, hence this note. - Jmabel | Talk 08:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

John Yarker

I was bewildered (and still am) at seeing this article being disassociated from this project as most of it deals with Yarker's association and preoccupation with freemasonry. I readily admit that I have been and remain confounded by the consensus on this page about all that this project should not occupy itself with, subjects which in my perception clearly should fall within the sphere of interest and under the auspices of a project on freemasonry. And the case of Yarker's article is a case in point. Please share your opinions supporting or opposing that decision. __meco (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Masonry probably was important to him, but the question is rather if he was important to Masonry... WegianWarrior (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There is only a tenuous connection between Yarker and Freemasonry. Yes, Yarker was inspired by Freemasonry, but he took that inspiration and traveled off into his own occult directions ... to the point where what he practiced and advocated could no longer be considered Freemasonry. The article is better situated under other projects that have a more direct connection. Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note, I believe that Yarker was either wholly irregular, or was expelled for selling degrees (which was a rather big issue in his time). I can't remember what GLBC&Y has to say about him, but he's so tangential that if we were to consider him as part of the project, he'd be so far down the list of priorities that we'd never get to him. MSJapan (talk) 03:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Tubal cain"

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible it has recently been suggested that Tubalcain be removed from the List of minor Biblical figures and expanded as a separate article. I did a Google search of the name and found that there is at least one website which indicates that the name is some sort of password in Freemasonry. I'm not asking per se whether that is true or not, but was wondering whether that allegation is also found in other sources and whether it would be notable or significant enough to include in a separate article on Tubal cain, should one be created. John Carter (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so... As you would expect, reliable Masonic sources do not discuss the passwords. I know of several non-masonic sources (most, but not all, of an Anti-masonic character) that state that this name is used as a password... but that is all they say about it. If we look at the one reliably published Masonic ritual available to us (England's Emulation Ritual), the biblical figure does not play any significant roll in Masonic ritual (unlike, for example, King Solomon or Hiram). Going a step further down in reliability, Duncan's ritual does not include any discussion of him either.

So... even it could be established that Freemasons might use the name as a password, I have to question whether this fact is significant enough to warrent more than a single sentence, passing comment. It certainly isn't enough to warrent a seperate section or build an article upon. Blueboar (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No one was thinking of building an article around it, just maybe adding something regarding it somewhere in the early short article, and that primarily to just add some length and content to the article and make it less likely to be merged back into the List of minor Biblical figures. I've already found that he is allegedly the first metalworker, and added that to the entry in the list. Do you know of any sources published by what are generally considered as producing RS's which have made the allegation? I myself only thought of it because the first entry in the Google search results for the name here discusses it. John Carter (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would definitely NOT use that... Freemasonrywatch is very unreliable (it's an anti-masonic conspiracy rant site that is actually on Wikipeida's black list). I would suggest John Robinson's A Pilgrim's Path (I seem to remember him discussing things like this). It's non-masonic (which means he is not hesitant to discuss topics that Masons consider secret), but the book is definitely reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Otherwise, I think the best you are going to be able to do is include a hedged statement along the lines of: "According to website X, the name Tubal Cain is used by the Masons as a password".... where X is at best marginally reliable. Blueboar (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually happen to have that book here, but unfortunately, there's no index. I thought the "It's A Secret" chapter might be the one, but it isn't. Does anybody know where it might be, just so I don't have to speed-read the whole book? MSJapan (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. To be honest, I don't know if Robinson actually does discuss it. I pointed to Robinson only because he is probably the best non-Masonic source available, and I vaguely remember him discussing things like this... but I don't remember if he actually says what the passwords are. It is possible he didn't. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

We need to get the main Freemasonry article to FA!

I'm sure I've said this a few times, but we really need to have Freemasonry be an FA, which means we need to get it to GA first. Can someone get the process roling to get the peer review done? MSJapan (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well... If we do go for GA (and eventually FA) we can expect to be questioned about our heavy reliance on "Masonic" sources... things like the UGLE and BC&Y websites. Also, our use of Freemasonry for Dummies and the Idiot's guide is also likely to be questioned. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, then I will figure out how to solve those particular items before we nom it. In the meantime, though, let's amke sure the logical progression of the article works, and move sections if necessary. MSJapan (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

David Stevenson - reliability or otherwise?

The article on Rosicrucianism, while it might not usually be in your scope, might benefit from the attention of editors from here - I'm thinking particularly of this edit. It's not my area, so I don't know how David Stevenson's claims are recieved by other historians in the field of Freemasonry in 17th c. Scotland. Thanks, Carminowe of Hendra (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Stevenson has a fairly good reputation as a Masonic historian. He was the first to examine Masonic History based upon a solid examination of documents and not just relying on legend and heresay (although subsequent documentation has come to light since he wrote his book, and so his theories must now be considered out-dated). That said, I think he is probably not the best source when it comes to Rosecrucianism. The book in question is a history of Freemasonry in Scotland, and only deals with Rosecrucianism in passing. I suspect that the material is taken a bit out of context. Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Occult

You all may be interested in keeping an eye on List of the occult secret societies particularly its talk page.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's well in hand. The constant threading out and irrelevant comments don't strengthen the keep argument, nor does the current state of the article. MSJapan (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed... the fact that most of the cited soruces do not even mention the word Occult should help kill it. The good folks at AfD do not take kindly to blatent misuse of sources. Blueboar (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

General list of masonic Grand Lodges - what language?

When it comes to a list of Grand Lodges like this, should we try to translate names into English or leave them in non-English form? We seem to be inconsistent, with some translated and others not. (and not surprisingly... it seems to be the UGLE affiliates that are translated, and the Continental style affiliates and independents that are not.) Or does this not really matter one way or the other? Blueboar (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

More on Categorization

There are quite a few articles on various Papal bulls and other Catholic pronouncements that are currently listed in the Catholicism and Freemasonry cat (many are are stubs). Some of these are definitely appropriate to include, as they deal directly with the Vatican's views on the fraternity and the history of the relationship between the fraternity and the Catholic Church (a prime example is Humanum Genus). Others, however, are more problematic. These are pronouncements about other things that only indirectly are connected to Freemasonry (pronouncements that do not actually mention Freemasonry, but are apparently "seen as being" a condemnation of it by some scholars).

Taking this further, I think we need to take a look at all of our sub-cats, and better define the criteria for inclusion. Blueboar (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Grand Lodge articles

Someone altered the GLWV article to read that it was "the only official body" for Freemasons, and that PH was unrecognized" (paraphrase). In their case, it's actually not quite wrong, nor is it quite right. PH does exist, but GLWV doesn't recognize them, so the IP editor wasn't quite wrong, but the tone he introduced was not right.

What that shows, however, is that we made a mistake - we in the project changed all the GL articles to read "official", and clearly, as it doesn't work in this case, that wording needs to be changed again. Just because GLWV doesn't recognize PH doesn't mean that GLWVPH isn't official for PH. In short, the statement we use is prejudicial in certain contexts.

To rectify this, I think we need to take the position that GL <whatever> is the recognized body for Freemasons in the <X> tradition in <X> (state, place), and leave it at that. That's a statement of fact with no prejudice towards any other body or obedience. Thoughts? MSJapan (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. For US Grand Lodges we should probably use the term "mainstream Masonic tradition" as opposed to the less neutral "Regular", "Official" etc.

BTW... I note that we have removed the section on the Frank Hass lawsuit as being UNDUE. I am not sure this was the correct action... The expulsion of Frank Haas and the subsequent lawsuit made national news (thus establishing notability)... and is currently having serious ramifications within US Masonry as a whole... Haas has now joined a lodge in Ohio (see: this entry from Chris Hodapp's blog) which has led to GLWV to withdraw its recognition of GLOhio (see: this update from Hodapp's blog). This has the potential to blow up into a larger schism if other state GLs start to take sides. Blueboar (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"mainstream" isn't good either. It implies anything else isn't, and as above, PH is mainstream for PH. So I feel that's the wrong sense. i think we need to be very specific in what we are talking about with respect to any GL, and I think my solution on WP:FM is a good way to do it (or I wouldn't have presented it).

Haas was undue because there was nothing else about the lodge at all in the article, and was in fact the sole impetus for the article's creation. To put everything in perspective, the lawsuit made national news for a day, hasn't come to trial yet (2= years), and these ramifications are still highly speculative what-ifs (and frankly, some drama-mongering). To jump into the fray now is to become a news reporting service, and we don't have to be first; we only need to be accurate. Therefore, let's see what happens and go from there. MSJapan (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at GLWV's lead wording as it is now (with changes), I think I see where the crux of the issue is, and how to fix it. There's a qualitative statement made by using "one of two", because it implies that no one else is official. Now, UGLE doesn't recognize GOdF, and a very small number of GLs don't recognize PH, but those other bodies are mainstream for their members. In short, we need to take the recognition issue out of the statement of governance. Giving any sort of number, and making any sort of claim as to what's mainstream or not is us making a value judgment, and in fact, it's not entirely correct within UGLE: if a UGLE-recognized GL is "official" for a jurisidiction, what does that make a UGLE-recognized DGL from another jurisdiction?

So we at least need to remove "official" and any sort of numbers. All we need to say is that they are the governing body for whatever tradition in whatever jurisdiction, and leave it at that. I think going on to enumerate only confuses the reader, because really, what makes PH or UGLE "official" for anyone who's not in that stream? I mean, even in GLs that do recognize PH, what PH does doesn't bind members of the other jurisdiction. So it's not even "official" in that sense. That makes at least two general exceptions, because we are using the wording incorrectly. In fact, I think the wording we are using is very close to a value judgment on our part, and we shouldn't be doing that because it's POV. MSJapan (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as numbers go... are there any other Grand Lodges operating in West Virginia? AFAIK, there are just the two (GLWV and PHGLWV), but if there are others we can change it to "several" and list them.

As far as "official" ... the word is no longer used in the article except to describe the "official website" (which I think is a legit usage). Blueboar (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, since the removal of the Haas stuff, I have to note that the article no longer properly establishes notability. It is entirely referenced to the Grand Lodge's website. That will need to be rectified. Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, i notice this discussion because i visited here regarding list-article issues. I was involved in discussion about coverage of Frank Joseph Haas' case and Grand Lodge of West Virginia two years ago. (Noted at #Merger discussion Haas and GLWV above; discussion was at Talk:Grand Lodge of West Virginia.) One decision railroaded through then was that the Frank Haas article would be merged into a section of the GLWV article. Since then even that section of the GLWV article is gone. I believe that all mention in wikipedia of the Frank Haas case has been removed, despite well-sourced, legitimate coverage. Also, I and others had added some other material about the GLWV in order to reduce the appearance of undue coverage of that event. As others noted, adding additional material about GLWV would improve the situation. What was added has since been edited out. I tend to suspect that was to help ensure that any new addition of Frank Haas case could be argued as being UNDUE. What's gone on looks like POV white-washing. What is WikiProject Freemasonry for, if not to build well-sourced, factual coverage? --doncram (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Grand Lodge of North Carolina

I am currently working on this. I have done a lot of research and spent some time in the archival-books-you-can't-check-out section of the Charlotte, Chapel Hill, and Raleigh libraries. I don't think it will have a hard time passing the notability problem some other grand lodge articles have faced since the GLofNC has done some historicly significant things like found the first public university in the United States (UNC Chapel Hill) and of the first ten Grand Masters of North Carolina the only one that was NOT also Governor of North Carolina was the first Cheif Justice of the State.-- Eric Cable  |  Talk  21:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, during my work I have made some changes to notable North Carolina men in the late 18th and early 19th centuries who served as Grand Master of the State including adding infobox additions as needed. For some of these men, there was no mention whatsoever on their article that they were masons before I corrected those omisions. These article include: Samuel Johnston, Richard Caswell, Richard Caswell, William Polk, John Louis Taylor, Robert Williams, and Calvin Jones. More to tome. -- Eric Cable  |  Talk  21:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance - List of Masonic buildings

This list needs some in-line citations in two areas. 1) the lead paragraph is unsourced. Adding a few references here would significantly improve the article. 2) The unlinked or red-linked entries should be sourced to confirm that they are notable buildings, even though they do not have a WP article as of yet. As I am not an expert on Freemasonry, I thought I'd solict the project's assistance. Thanks.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, most of the buildings in that article are on the National Registry of Historic Places... but then we already have an article for that (several in fact)... see: Masonic Temple, Masonic Lodge (disambiguation), Masonic Building, etc. etc. etc. Then, of course there is the category: Category:Masonic buildings. Personally, I think we have gone overboard on over-organizing a topic that consists primarily of red links (and has been for a while). Blueboar (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

How about creating some of those articles, about the red-linked ones? Short stub articles for the ones listed on the NRHP can all be created quite easily, using a so-called NRHP infobox generator located at http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php, courtesy of User:Elkman. It provides a cut-and-paste ready draft article which includes an infobox filled out with National Register information. For more substantial information, you can easily get a free copy of the NRHP application document, regarded as quite a good, reliable source describing the architecture and history of a building. The NRHP documents are available on-line for some states, including VA, CT, NY, SC, MD; they're available upon request to the National Register to be sent by email or postal mail for all others. If anyone is interested or could use any help, please feel free to drop me a note. --doncram (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect you will get many people from this project to write articles on the red-links. They may be historical (and thus notable by NRHP standards), but from the POV of Freemasonry (the focus of this project) these buildings simply aren't considered that notable. Blueboar (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've actually gone through and generated a lot from this list into my own userspace. If anyone is interested in helping, the list I have compiled is at User:Avicennasis/List of Masonic buildings. I will be expanding these, but anyone can help if they want. :) ^Avicenna_sis @ 21:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Avic, i for one appreciate you started the draft list-article as an alternative in your own Userspace, and called for help developing. I am not clear on how your focus is different than the current List of Masonic buildings article, and vs. the version (somewhere) proposed by Pershgo (which IMO should also be in User space or as a Talk page subpage, like Talk:List of Masonic buildings/Alternative1). Your draft list-article indexes multiple separate draft articles about individual NRHP-listed and perhaps other buildings, too. For at least the NRHP-listed ones, though, I suggest you just develop those in mainspace. You seem to have found your way to the NRHP infobox generator provided by User:Elkman, which is fine. Just go ahead and start those stub articles in mainspace. The fact of NRHP listing is enough to establish Wikipedia-notability (because the NRHP criteria and multiple stages of review processes ensure any NRHP-listed place is notable and has high quality reliable sources available to document it, whether those documents have been obtained already or not). Keep up the good work! --doncram (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Not to detract, but that is a list of only the buildings in the USA. It would probably be better held as a separate page so as not to give undue weight to the rest of the article. Ephebi (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That probably reflects the sourcing, and the concerns that Blueboar has about the list. There is ongoing discussion about what makes a masonic building inherently notable. Personally I don't see anything notable about many of these entries.

ALR (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI... I have put the list article up for AfD... please comment. Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This is spiraling out of control... we now have five versions of what is essentially the same damned list:

• List of Masonic buildings (at AfD)
• Category:Masonic buildings
• Masonic Temple
• Masonic Temple (disambiguation)
• List of Masonic Temples

Please, help bring some order to the madness. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I was trying. I made List of Masonic Temples as a replacement of List of Masonic buildings and removed the list from Masonic Temple. The only thing left was for List of Masonic buildings] to be deleted but I guess that didn't work out. PeRshGo (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

What is spiraling out of control is the number of Talk page discussion sections, a large number opened by Blueboar, where the same topics are being discussed duplicatively. I knew nothing of the "Talk:Freemasonry What makes a building..." one; Blueboar has opened the same discussion several times over. Also, it is aggravating that points already well-explained are being re-re-re-re-re-raised. Such as that a Category is quite different than a Disambiguation page than a list-article. Only a list-article can include substantial content explaining the significant Masonic association of a given building, and providing pictures and so on. What kind of a Wikiproject is this, that can't create and hold to a discussion in one place? I believe the central discussion is at Talk:Masonic Temple (disambiguation)#Requested move 2, as i and others have linked several outstanding requested moves and merger proposals to be discussed there. Please consider continuing there. OR, WHERE DO U WANT THERE TO BE ONE DISCUSSION? PLEASE SAY. --doncram (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well the problem is still the title. A list of Masonic buildings will always be inherently flawed as the topic is overly broad. A List of Masonic Temples makes much more sense. They make up the vast majority of Masonic architecture and they're something we can put a finger on and recognize. PeRshGo (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

However, "temple" has fallen out of use, precisely because they're not really "temples". That's something to consider. MSJapan (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it does seem that very few people are building new "Masonic Temples" but the vast majority are still named as such. PeRshGo (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? I've come across the opposite, just as Shrine Centers have changed names, so have Masonic halls, largely for the same reasons of connotation. MSJapan (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The NRHP listings can attest to it. You're right about the Shrine Mosques though. Meeting in a mosque these days isn't too popular. PeRshGo (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The NRHP listing names seem to generally adopt what is most common local usage for a given building at the time of NRHP nomination, from my experience. If the listing is "Masonic Lodge" (technically incorrect according to Masonic rules i now understand), that is what i think the locals most frequently called it, in the year of NRHP nomination. About the title, does "List of Masonic buildings" work if you assume there is an implicit "Notable" inserted in the title, as in "List of notable Masonic buildings". It would be redundant in fact, i think, to insert the "notable" qualifier. But, only the notable ones need be included in such a list. And, the notability should be as being associated with Masons, either as a meetingplace or as some unusual historic site like the DeWint House which is unusual for a Masonic Lodge having adopted/owned/preserved it, or as otherwise being notable for Masonic association. So, the Connecticut one which is notable for being a Jewish synagogue doesn't cut it. --doncram (talk) 05:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well what we're trying to nail down is, should we consider Masonic Temple the default term, and everything else as an alternate name? The majority of the books I own consider Masonic Temple to be the standard term and Masonic Hall, Masonic Building, and Masonic Lodge all as alternate terms. I could spend some time in the Detroit Masonic Temple library for a while but I think I'm going to find the same thing. As for adding notable to the title, I don't think that's going to appease anyone. PeRshGo (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

PeRshGo, I suspect that the books you own are all written by Americans. English sources would not use the term Masonic Temple. This is part of the problem... there is no "official" terminology in Freemasonry. Masons in the US tended to use the term "Temple" (but are beginning to shying away from that)... Masons in England generally do not ... In Canada and Australia they seem to be mixed. The only reason why "Temple" can be considered a more common usage is that the US is so much larger that these other places. I am concerned that we don't assume an American bias.

This is part of the problem I have with all the various lists... "Masonic Temple" is too narrow a term, and shows a US bias... "Masonic building" is too broad a term, and could include just about any building owned by the Masons. What we are looking for, and don't have, is a term that is in the middle.

Doncram - An aside re: the DeWint House. That building is owned and preserved by the Grand Lodge of New York (not a Lodge)... and they preserve it as a historic site (it was Washington's headquarters at the time of the Benedict Arnold affair), not as a "Masonic building". The Grand Lodge purchased it because the building was in poor repair and was threatened with being demolished. The primary motivation was patriotic charity. Yes, there is a Masonic connection to the building... Washington, Arnold and Andre were all Masons... and there is some evidence to suggest that Washington's officers might have held a few Masonic gatherings there... but those connections were not the primary reason the Grand Lodge bought it.

However, because the Grand Lodge does own it, it is a good example of a building that could be on or off the various lists, depending on how we define our terms. It could be considered a "Masonic building" - but it isn't really what people think of as a "Masonic building"... it has been used as a "Masonic Temple" - but only on a few occasions. Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because there are terminology differences doesn't mean we just chose not to pick a term at all. This is obviously not the first time there has been a difference between US and UK terminology on Wikipedia. Look at Hood (vehicle) & Bonnet_(car). They didn’t just decide not to develop the article because there was two different terms for the same thing. And given there are hundreds of Masonic Temples that have been recognized as historically significant I’m certain we’re not going to end up with an article that’s too narrow. PeRshGo (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Roger W. Pageau

Just a note that I have renominated this article for deletion. I closed the first AFD last October as "merge". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Opening Section

Can I put up an opening table of contents like in Wikipedia:Chemistry?

FM:MOS

OK to put up a link to the FM Manual of Style? Also, how about brining it out of userspace and into projectspace?kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 13:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the MOS that MSJapan worked up?... I would certainly be willing to talk about promoting it from userspace into projectspace ... but I would link to it on this page until it is promoted. (and I would check with MSJapan as to why he hesitated to do so himself). Blueboar (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, let's do that. MSJapan, are you here? kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 23:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll get to this tomorrow. I think it didn't go up because I am not entirely sure it's done. MSJapan (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

behavior issues

I am sick and tired of the repetitive disruptions of the List of Masonic buildings, related articles, and endless repetition on its Talk page and elsewhere. There have been many prods and AFDs and wp:RSN reports, all leading to rejection by other editors of the positions pushed by a certain set of Masonic editors. The pattern of editing in mainspace and in Talk pages has already added up to be seriously tendentious. The editing I am referring to is by Freemasonry member editors, mainly Blueboar to be specific. I am not pleased to be the subject of repeated ANI incident reports, either, but I don't really care about that. And I fully expect personal comments directed at me for posting this notice. In a big full trial on this pattern of behavior, I am sure that some would paint me as being in the wrong, but I believe that, with some exasperated punctuations, I have responded patiently and courteously enough over a very long time, in dealing with these editors.

I am thinking this is tending towards needing higher level solution, perhaps a topic ban for one or more editors on Freemasonry associated articles. I expect that such a topic ban would be highly displeasing to those editors, but I believe their editing patterns show reckless disregard for Wikipedia policies and practices. And it is as if they are following a personal agenda, using Wikipedia as a battleground, and violating wp:COI conflict of interest guidelines.

I am posting this as a courtesy notice here at the Freemasonry wikiproject. I expect that editors here are familiar with the general patterns of such behavior, but maybe have not followed the ridiculous behavior at the List of Masonic buildings article, where it has played out the most. There are multiple(!) archives now of the Talk page of this minor article.

Can the editor members of this WikiProject get together in some way and consider giving some feedback to your own members regarding their behavior. Think about it. I will watch here but will probably not reply to glib and/or petty responses. --doncram (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! But... If Doncram wants to move this up in dispute resolution, I am happy to oblige. And I will counter his proposal for a topic ban with one of my own... Doncram should be banned from articles dealing with Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no grounds for such a ban. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It’s the old Wikipedia conflict. The “experts” vs. the “laymen.” The Masonic experts are arguing that a “Masonic building” is a non existent term and as such should not be used. The NRHP experts couldn’t care less about Masonic terminology and simply want a list of all historic buildings that relate to the fraternity. All other complaints and quoting of irrelevant Wikipedia policies are no more than gaming the system. You have to accept that terminology and distinction are important to Masonic experts, and they have to understand that the NRHP listing is enough confer an acceptable level of notability and that buildings built or significantly retrofitted by the Masonic fraternity and appendant bodies are going to be grouped together in some way. If those issues get taken care of I can guarantee this issue will fix its self. PeRshGo (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

PeRshGo, in case you hadn't noticed, this is Wikipedia -- you're not supposed to be making sense here. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry guys... this one pushes all my buttons... we have people assuming things about Freemasonry that are not supported by the facts (and stubbornly reverting those of us who try to correct the situation). And we have multiple policy and guideline issues. Thus it hits both of my main interests in editing Wikipedia. I have tried to compromise, and find consensus, I have tried suggesting a renaming of the article... all all attempts are rejected. Neutral editors have looked at the article and commented on the problems... ignored. There is a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on, and it is frustrating to deal with.

And the "appendant body" issue is just one of several issues... and not the most important for me. Blueboar (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on, and it is frustrating to deal with. Since Blueboar responded here, Blueboar in an edit at the AFD on the Lahore Masonic Temple explained he was going to make a tendentious edit at its article, relating to Rudyard Kipling's association with the Lahore, India lodge and 2 buildings. He did so, i reverted him, he implemented it again. In between, two other editors have explained at the AFD why they disagreed with his intended edits. I don't want to go through, step by step, with documenting this kind of behavior. Blueboar admitted above that he has been a "pain in the ass". Hey, yikes, it's no longer there... he deleted that! I am kind of astounded to see that disappear.

The pain in the ass behavior needs to stop. I don't see WikiProject Freemasonry editors actually wanting to support that kind of behavior. --doncram (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed my comment because upon reflection I realized it was written in anger. One is allowed to self-delete. Returning such a comment was uncalled for, so I have removed it again. Blueboar (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think Blueboar sounded particularly angry. He actually seemed self-aware in a good way. What he wrote that jumped out most for me was his stating: "Now, I have been a pain in the ass at that article. That is because multiple editors (not just Freemasonry Project members) have all pointed out that there are problems with the article with no result. Unfortunately, Doncram has a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (something that other members of the NRHP project noted in the various ANI reports that have been filed on him), and refuses to listen. It has gotten to the point that I can not try to improve the article without being instantly reverted. Blueboar (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Blueboar provides a fair summary of the ANI reports he and MSJapan filed on me, but indeed I think Blueboar is correct in several aspects of that statement. --doncram (talk) 04:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

As a bit of an outsider to this particular discussion, I can see that there is a difference between a historic building which has been used by Masons and one that was erected in accord with Masonic guidelines, whatever they might be. We have much the same problem with defining New religious movements, a term which has no explicitly clear definition. There, we have come to the functional definition: if a reliable source, preferably an encyclopedic one or something else discussing the topic in general, calls it an NRM, we can too. If the building is called "Masonic architecture" or whatever, preferably in a source discussing that topic in general (as opposed to a simple statement in a general source, which may unknowingly use some other or personal definition) then we are justified in calling it that as well. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks John... A source like this is exactly what I have been asking Doncram to provide for over two months now. Blueboar (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

A behavior to discuss is the repeated denial by Blueboar that adequate sources have been provided. To John Carter, other editors have provided more than adequate answers at Talk:List of Masonic buildings, many times over. Most recently explained by User:Orlady at Talk:List of Masonic buildings#WP:NOT#INHERITED as applied to the topic?. One previously uninvolved commentator said to Blueboar there: "If you have concerns over notability of the list in these contexts I recommend an AFD which will sort it out once and for all." There was an AFD already but I think a new one might help.

Proposal: I wonder if the Freemasonry Wikiproject members would agree to help stop the repeated behavior, by whatever means necessary (e.g. endorsing an edit restriction), upon conclusion of a new AFD to hash it all out once and for all. If Blueboar nominates and "wins" a 2nd AFD to delete the article, I will cease developing the article and participating in Talk there. If he "loses" the AFD that he nominates, he stops participating completely, in the same way. Freemasonry Wikiproject members enforce in either outcome. Can a proposal like this work, for this one article? Or, is there any other way to deal with the behavior. --doncram (talk) 04:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about "winning" or "loosing"... its about conforming a list article to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If that can be done, great... we keep the article. I would actually prefer this result over deleting the list. It all hinges on finding a sourced based definition of what makes a building "Masonic", rather than everyone trying to impose their own individual OR concept of what a "Masonic building" is. From such a source based definition we can devise a sourced based criteria for inclusion. That will allow us to populate the list with buildings that meet the criteria for inclusion. Blueboar (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Take it to AFD, or you should stop complaining about notability. The consensus of many groups of editors now in many AFDs already, and in many other discussions, has been that the individual articles about historic buildings are notable, and that the list-article is notable, and that the associated disambiguation pages are valid. Or, do the research yourself to find for yourself a more satisfying source article or book or two, if you are not happy with what others have already found. It is your problem to deal with, by fixing whatever is the issue you see, or by getting others to agree within some reasonable timeframe, i.e. during the course of an AFD. Otherwise you should drop it, IMHO. You've had your say many times over, and you have not obtained consensus of other editors that all this stuff should be deleted. In my opinion, you have also cried wolf on many minor issues, which does not help your credibility on anything now. Put up or shut up. --doncram (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Another aspect of behavior issues is repeated accusations of bad faith. I just removed such an accusation made by Blueboar from the talk page of the List of Masonic buildings article, which included "I think you are showing unjustified bad faith, because I certainly don't remember deleting any material along those lines. In fact, this is what I have been asking people to provide for the last two months. Perhaps you would be willing to give a diff or two?". My comment about that: That is just a crock. Blueboar, you have made dozens if not hundreds of edits deleting material from that list-article, including many decent sentences and passages in the lede. It is just facetious or ludicrous or disruptive or something like that, to call for a new discussion there of your behavior. Also, you should read up on wp:good faith and see that it is not required by other editors to continue to maintain an initial assumption of good faith when it has been abundantly shown that good faith is not justified. In general, it is not good to comment on newbies' behavior per se, but rather to focus comments on content issues. But after a while, long past in this case, it becomes appropriate to comment directly upon an editor's behavior, and negative comments about another editor is no longer evidence of unjustified bad faith. --doncram (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

First, it is inappropriate to remove other people's comments from a talk page... second I was completely within my rights to state that I think Orlady was demonstrating bad faith and to call him on it. He made following statement (directed at PeRshGo)...

• "You deleted almost all of the material that was provided to explain the scope of the list and document the notability of the topic (that is, what Blueboar had not already deleted)"

To which I replied:I think you are showing unjustified bad faith, because I certainly don't remember deleting any material along those lines. In fact, this is what I have been asking people to provide for the last two months. Perhaps you would be willing to give a diff or two?

This was a polite request for someone to back up a statement they made about me. You had no grounds to remove it. Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not always unjustified to remove a user's comment from a Talk page. It is unusual. This situation is unusual, to have a presumably respected editor engaging so long and dogmatically, generally against consensus of other editors, in repetitive arguments. I did notice another Masonic editor recently removing a different comment by Blueboar at some noticeboard, which was calling for editors to join an AFD discussion in a way that appeared to be a violation of wp:canvassing guideline. Maybe the unusual status now is that the pattern of editing is becoming clearly not related to content improvement of wikipedia.

Here are a few diffs of Blueboar deleting material from the Masonic buildings list-article: [5], [6], [7], [8]. There, your assertion that you haven't removed material from the article is disproved.

Again, I opened this discussion section to call for other editors here to consider the behaviors being shown. I do appreciate that there has been some response here and in edits elsewhere. Thank you for that. --doncram (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No... I am not asserting that I have never removed (or in the case of most of those edits, re-wrote) material... I am asserting that I do not remember deleting material that was "provided to explain the scope of the list and document the notability of the topic"... the edits you link to are revisions to the content which is a different matter. Furthermore, most of those edits you link to were actually reverted a few edits later (often by you) so there is no "what Blueboar had already deleted" to complain about (because the material was in fact, returned). Blueboar (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The 3rd and 4th diffs i gave just above are examples of deletions of that type of material, in the lede. I am not going to look up more or study which ones were immediately reverted or which held. I do believe that your steady, negative pressure on every aspect of that article has reversed and/or prevented decent editing to make the lede sensible and readable. Your claims that your edits are often immediately reverted is true, but that they have no effect is false. They cost time and goodwill and they eventually inhibit good writing.

At this point, I would now again be interested in a higher level intervention, perhaps a topic ban on this editor editing in that article or its Talk page, so that other editors, including editors who are more naturally better writers than me, can do productive work. --doncram (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The behaviors continue, e.g. at Talk:List of Masonic buildings#Sources for connection to Freemasonry. In this edit another editor says simply "Enough", and in subsequent edit Blueboar continues not to get the point, mainly that repetitive assertions, including at a Talk page, put a burden on other editors and are not productive. To respond to Blueboar's comment there, that he is again trying to point out a defect of referencing, let me say: the way forward for Blueboar to contribute productively has been pointed out repeatedly, namely to obtain and use sources in developing the articles. The NRHP documents in all NRHP-listed places are available for free. Get them and use them. I appreciate that, per discussion at my Talk page, Blueboar did attempt to find info in a New York Grand Lodge publication which might have led to productive additions of material. But, the Talk page drivel (indeed that is a deliberately loaded term, I think justified) just hurts. Blueboar, can you comment here, whether you can recognize the burden put upon others? To make a specific proposal, would you agree voluntarily to a narrow and temporary topic ban, namely for you to cease edits at List of Masonic buildings and its Talk page for one month's time? A one month break would be helpful to others. --doncram (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Politely pointing out that we need to do a better job of sourcing an article is NOT a behavior issue. Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

First and most importantly, I would advise Doncram that his repeated requests for a topic ban regarding this matter on this page are, basically, a waste of time, as this is not the appropriate forum for such discussion. Such matters should be taken to either WP:ANI or some other more appropriate forum. If what is being sought is some form of mediation, then certainly contacting the Mediation Committee would be reasonable. However, the repetition of such comments on this page, or really any similar page, is at best nonproductive. John Carter (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar has opened an ANI discussion, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Short term Admin mediation needed at Canton Viaduct. Please consider commenting there. --doncram (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes... I have asked for Admin mediation at that article because I want to avoid having it escalate into another "Blueboar vs Doncram" head butting contest. I welcome additional comments... and suggest that other members of this project review the recent edit history of Canton Viaduct to see what the issue is. Blueboar (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Replying to John Carter: I don't think i have repetitively asked for a topic ban; above I suggested it is one action that could be considered. I agree this page is not appropriate for an actual proposal of that. By my opening discussion on Blueboar's behavior at this page, I was asking for other WikiProject Freemasonry members to consider being involved constructively. And, I believe this discussion has contributed to some Freemasonry members' taking action in some cases. About what mediation or other dispute resolution process should be tried, i am open to suggestion, though I see there to be a general problem with Blueboar's prolific editing, not specifically related to anything personal between Blueboar and myself. --doncram (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Educational institution founded by Freemasons

The article Rhodes College tells of this school's having been founded by Freemasons in the mid-19th century. It long ago lost its association with Freemasonry, AFAICT.

I don't find a relevant category, but it occurs to me that this Wikiproject might be interested in creating some sort of category for institutions such as this one. --Orlady (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

How many schools, colleges or otherwise, were founded by Freemasons? If there were any schools of any kind which were founded by a Masonic organization, or perhaps privately-founded schools which had either a single founder who was a Mason or, if several founders, perhaps more than one Mason, depending on the total number of founders, those would seem to me to be the ones most logically included. John Carter (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The source says that Rhodes College was founded by "the Grand Masonic Lodge of Tennessee" (sic) in 1848 as the "Masonic University of Tennessee" and was operated by the Grand Lodge until 1855. (Note that "colleges" in the United States are tertiary-level insitutions.) --Orlady (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't see much need for a sub-category, there are a number of different models, subject to the GL in question. In England the Masonic Trust for Girls and Boys used to run two schools, one for boys, one for girls. Rickmansworth Girls School is still open but the boys school was closed a while ago. The MTGB disburses most of its money now to boys for funding fees, I think the same applies to a lot of the girls funding as well, but don't know the proportion that goes to funding the school.

Similarly GLs in Scotland and Ireland provide funding grants to pay fees.

The majority of GLs derived from London, Edinburgh or Dublin have a similar model

I have a feeling that the founded by argument would be pretty tenuous, you'd need to demonstrate causality.

ALR (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

YMMV, but after discovering the article Masonic University (operated by the Grand Lodge of Kentucky in the 19th century), I created Category:Masonic educational institutions in the United States. --Orlady (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Strikes me as a bit narrow, if we're going to have to have one shouldn't it account for the rest of the world?

ALR (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a bit narrow, but could be made a subcat of Category:Masonic educational institutions. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it could. However, since all of the institutions that I found to put in the category (four distinct institutions so far, plus two redirects) are in the United States, and since ALR's comment suggested that the situation would vary according to the Grand Lodge (implying geography), I only created the U.S. category. --Orlady (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with ALR and John... Suggest we go with John's broader Category:Masonic educational institutions for now, and then break it up by region later as we get enough articles to warrant sub-cats. Blueboar (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

For international perspective... we could add the Royal Masonic School in the UK. Blueboar (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

What about schools where the primary funding came from a Masonic Lodge, like the University of Michigan? PeRshGo (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The downside is the category should also be included in an education category, which for this might be kind of hard. Category:Educational institutions by religious affiliation is probably the closest of the education categories I can find. Maybe the phrasing could be altered, or a Category:Educational institutions by societal relationship (or something like that) could be created? John Carter (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's not over think it. Not all categories need to nest perfectly in other categories. Blueboar (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

For the purposes of the Education or whatever project, though, it does help to let them know what categories already exist, so that they can structure their own category tree. John Carter (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Masonic educational institutions (which I created) is subcatted only under Category:Freemasonry, but the constituent categories Category:Masonic educational institutions in the United States and Category:Masonic educational institutions in the United Kingdom are subcatted under "by country" education categories such as Category:Education in the United States. --Orlady (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

reply to John... True... so drop the Education project a line and see what they think.

As for funding... Support for public education was a hallmark of US Freemasonry in the early to mid 1800s... It was seen as a good form of charity and community involvement... Today they run elder care facilities and do child saftey programs. You will probably find that most of the Grand Lodges were financial supporters of just about every State University in the mid-west and Mississippi regions of the US. So, I think the category (what ever we name it) should probably focus on those institutions where there was more than just financial support. Blueboar (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Once the category is adequately defined then as a tool it can be a bit less rigorous than other knowledge management tools. The subscription aspect is probably ok, but as I've alluded to upthread association with an individual is more problematic.

ALR (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

deletion discussions

FYI

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sons of Haiti
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Lodge of Kansas
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Lodge of Idaho

--doncram (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Freemasonry-related articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Freemasonry-related articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

InfoBox for Grand Lodges

Hey guys,

This may be a rookie question, but is there some sort of reference for how to use the Info Box for Grand Lodges, such as what possible field types there are, and the proper syntax? For instance, I would like to modify the Grand Lodge of Connecticut page to list the current Grand Master - is there a field to accomplish this? Mockingale (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No, because it is too difficult to maintain that information. Most GLs have progressive lines that change every year. Moreover, being GM does not make one WP-notable, so all we would have is a redlink anyway. MSJapan (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Rite

Hi,

I'm a contributor to the french Wikipedia, and to the Freemasonry project and portal there. We're looking for reliable sources about the Canadian Rite in order to create a valid article about it. All I could find about it was on websites (and I've probably missed quite a few ones), and I would really love to be able to read and cite more verifiable sources. Do you have any reference book or resource on that Rite? Thanks in advance! Regards -- Tiernvael (talk) 10:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't think you will find much beyond the web. First of all, there isn't really a single "Canadian Rite". Each Province in Canada has its own separate and independent Grand Lodge. Each of these Grand Lodges has its own "approved" ritual, and each "approved" ritual is slightly different from the others. In addition, under each Grand Lodge are individual lodges that have dispensation to work using other rituals.

That said, in broad terms, the term "Canadian Rite" refers to what the British call "Emulation" Ritual. It isn't a separate organization or distinct system of degrees the way the American Scottish Rite and York Rite are. The term is used to distinguish what ritual is used when working the basic three degrees of Craft Masonry. The "Canadian Rite" lodges will (more or less) follow British traditions and rituals, as opposed to those lodges that (more or less) follow the rituals and traditions developed in the various US Grand Lodges (most of which are based on the ritual written by Thomas Smith Webb... although again, each has developed its own "approved" ritual that is slightly different from the others). Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Blueboar :) We were quite lost :D

Regards -- Tiernvael (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Shriners RM

I started an WP:RM at Talk:Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine#Requested move that hasn't yet seen much feedback. Anyone else want to chime in? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)