Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry/Archive 2

There's discussion on this subject in 3 different places: Talk:F.&A.M., Talk:A.F.&A.M., & Talk:Freemasonry#F.&A.M. and A.F.&A.M. articles. Isn't one of the points of a project page to have a singular place for discussion spanning multiple articles in the same project? So, can we move this here? Grye 20:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Constitutions of the Free-Masons into Masonic Manuscripts

1. They aren't, & the document isn't titled "...Free-Masons", rather Freemasons. So, it's getting renamed at the least.
2. There by far isn't enough content to make 1/4 of a good article, so there's no harm whatsoever in merging. In fact it'll help both articles.
3. If it really does grow, it can be split off & put under it's properly named article.

Grye 03:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, prodded Constitutions article. Without the actual source text included, the "article" makes a better subsection. MSJapan 03:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Tanx Grye 04:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have removed relevant content of the article during the merge? I object against the merger due to the loss of content and deciding on a merger on an article which is still in full expansion. No one seems to have written an article on the evolution of the constitution before 1813, and this article is deleted within one week of its existence? I am trying to provide information on the period between 1717 and 1813, so give me a break and some time to do the writing Pvosta 13:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Can a few people re-assess some of the articles? We have some things that just aren't right. History of Freemasonry in Manitoba was ranked GA, had no specific cvitations, and was actually copyvio. Goethe was A-class through all its Projects, but his Masonic mebership wasn't even mentioned in the article (not even a member tag), so I removed it from our project for the time being, though I don't recall him being a luminary within Freemasonry, so it's really too tangential for us, I think.

However, there's clearly some cleanign that needs to be done. There are things which shouldn't be in our purview and are, and there are articles that probably need to be re-graded per MOS, CITE, and other things. The assessments section on the main page here will lead you to criteria, but there's a lot of articles to do. I don't see a lot of informational action going on, so maybe we need to refocus for a bit and deal with this as our task for the time being. MSJapan 04:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

coppied from the template talk page:

I have created a new template (Template:Freemasonry2) for navigation within Freemasonry pages. It was based off of the Template:Christianity. I would like to see this new one replace the current Template:Freemasonry if at all possible. The navigation for this one is cleaner and easily accessible.--Zef 00:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I like this a lot ... a few tweeks are needed for what articles should and should not be included, but that is a minor detail. I recommend that we consider using this for all of the Freemasonry pages. Blueboar 14:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have seen these around, I think they are neat and orderly. The [show] listings are useful and I like the way the links go bold when you are at that page. Maybe the necessary tweaks will emerge if it is rolled out. Support. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 16:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to bring it to your attention that the article Freemasonry in Russia is currently nominated at AfD. While I'm sure that the topic is notable, the nom is right in that the article needs referencing and seems clearly too short. Malc82 21:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

We still need more assessments done, and we have a ton of stubs, most of which are papal documents of one type or another. I'm thinking for organizational purposes we might want a "Papal encyclicals related to Freemasonry", but I'm going to ask over at WP:Catholicism and see what they think because they may have a policy already.

Also in stubs are a lot of schismatics, many of which have no sources save their own page. Can somebody go through them and see what's what, and if there's really nothing (which is very possible considering the scope and jurisdiction of some of these groups), blanket AfD them as nn? MSJapan 21:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There has been a question on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion page about whether the members of this project would want to have it included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Religion WikiProjects template or not. Would your membership wish to see the project named in this template or not? John Carter 15:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say no. While there are certain Masonically-related articles that draw on religion (Supreme Being being one of them), Freemasonry itself has no dogma and has no religious qualification. Freemasonry is purely a philosophical platform, so I think the inclusion would be inaccurate. MSJapan 16:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MSJapan. Despite what some notable Masonic authors have said in the past, it is not a religion: you bring your own Faith to Lodge, and you respect that your Brothers do as well.--SarekOfVulcan 13:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

While putting together Rob Morris (Freemason), I came across one article that said that he took his foster parents' name, and that he was actually born in New York, rather than MA. Does anyone have any WP:RS to back this up? I felt it was a notable enough claim to include in the article, but I'd like a bit more to back it up.--SarekOfVulcan 13:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be having a project wide revert war on whether the Ancients/Antients Grand Lodge should be spelled with a "t" or a "c"... we need to hammer this out in one location. since this has project wide implications, let's discuss it here. Blueboar 13:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Antients - that is how I have learned it and everywhere I have officially seen it, that is the proper version. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

When dealing with the GLE issues, and the style of Masonry practiced by them, I'm in favor of Antient. Let's look at what UGLE says in the Constitutions: 9. The Grand Lodge of England is a Sovereign and independent Body practising Freemasonry only within the three Degrees and only within the limits defined in its Constitution as 'pure Antient Masonry'. It does not recognize or admit the existence of any superior Masonic authority however styled. That is from the 2006 edition, and nowhere in that document is the spelling ancient found. While it MAY have been put to bed in 1953, in an AQC, the UGLE has not seen fit to change what is used in their official documents. Additionally, the Preliminary Declaration of the Act of Union of the two Grand Lodges in December 1813, says that it was declared and announced that pure Antient Masonry consists of three degrees and no more', that is to say 'Entered Apprentice, the Fellow Craft and the Master Mason, including the Supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch. The spelling used by UGLE in its formal documents is Antient.--Vidkun 13:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Further from the UGLE webpage: 12. What other Grand Lodge was organized in England in 1751? Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of England, according to the Old Constitutions, also known as the "Antients." http://www.grandlodge.org/programs/masedu/qa/9-23.html --Vidkun 14:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Google, I see that there are 777 hits for "Antient Free and Accepted Masons", and 45,800 hits for "Ancient Free and Accepted Masons". Grand Lodges using Ancient seem to include most (if not all) of the US lodges, Prince Edward Island and other Canadian GLs, Croatia, and probably more. Interestingly, while the GL of Scotland uses "Antient", at least one lodge under it uses "Ancient". I'd say to come down on the majority side.--SarekOfVulcan 14:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

*fumes* ...and this paper, presented to the "Free Ancient and Accepted Masons" of Israel, refers to "Antient" ritual throughout...--SarekOfVulcan 14:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A better search is probably "grand lodge" +antient", which gives 19,200 hits, including the GL of Jamaica, Tasmania, Ireland, Australia. "grand lodge" + "ancient free" still outnumbers it, though, with 35,200 hits.--SarekOfVulcan 14:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The Regular Grand Lodge of Italy, on their English pages, uses "Antient", although the distinction doesn't exist in Italian ("Antichi" is the regular plural of "Antico", which means "ancient" per Babelfish). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) 14:29, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

The google test would not appear to be valid here. Sure, the most common spelling of the word is ancient. Antient is just an older spelling of the word. The question is, which is correct in the context of the article in relation to grand lodges. I think the quotes above shed alot of light on how it is supposed to be used (antient) as opposed to those who spell it ancient either out of lack of knowledge or for ease of understanding. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The real issue is scholarly minutiae vs. common usage. The points in favor of "t" pretty much cover it. PGNormand would have us go against UGLE usage (as well as demote GLMA) because that's what he has found. It's WP:FRINGE. I think, because what folks are generally going to find is what we have found, and that is that the "t" spelling is official as far as most fols are concerned. As I brought up on the other page - if it was sorted in 1953, why is it still in use 54 years later, especially when the material came fron the UGLE GS? I'd think that there was something else going on, as I've never even heard of this "controversy" on any research list I'm on, and A vs M is a big topic for people. So we should use "t". MSJapan 15:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd also note that these "findings" are apparently all of three pages in AQC, according to the reference. MSJapan 15:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I appreciate everyone weighing in here on this discussion. Let me respond to the many points made one at a time: 1) No, we're not having a "revert war." I went through several articles and corrected the spelling of the word "Ancient" wherever I saw it misspelled. I did so without realizing how "invested" everyone was in the misspelled version of the word. I use Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia as a pretty standard research source and it is consistent with the spelling that was actually used by the Ancient Grand Lodge (which is with the "c"). Then, apparently, MSJapan came along about 24 hours behind me and reverted everything back to the incorrect spelling. I have not gone back and "reverted his reverts." So there is no war. 2) But, I was concerned that someone who might innocently type in "Ancient Grand Loge of England" might not immediately find it. Instead, they will be redirected to "Antient Grand Lodge". But, the first question that would come to anyone's mind is, "Why is it misspelled?" So, it becomes necessary to explain how the practice (or "pretension") came about. And that should be done in the article itself. But to do so completely destroys any argument in favor of continuing to use the incorrect spelling. So it is illogical. The average reader will read that explanation and ask, "So if 'Antient' with a 't' is the incorrect spelling, and 'Ancient' with a 'c' is the correct spelling, then why is the title of this article misspelled? At that point, I simply decided to create a new article, leaving the "Antient" article alone. 3) Vidkun quoted from the 2006 edition of the Constitutions of the UGLE in which it refers to "pure Antient Masonry" using the variant spelling. There is no doubt that the UGLE has, in the early 20th century, adopted the variant spelling, almost without exception. However, this is an "affectation", or "pretenstion," as Coil calls it. As far as I can determine, it came into vogue in the 3rd decade of the 20th century, shortly after the UGLE was granted a coat of arms by the English College of Arms, the certificate of which included the misspelled version of the word. Rather than correct the College of Arms, the UGLE wisely "went with it." And I have no problem with that. But in those instances the UGLE is referring either to itself in its own name, OR it is referring to "Antient Craft Masonry" IN ITS OWN publications. (You pay the tab, you spell it how ever you want.) But, when referring to the "Ancient Grand Lodge of England" which was an historic entity that ceased to exist in 1813, we should do that Grand Lodge the courtesy of using the spelling that it preferred. And the Ancient Grand Lodge always, IN ITS OWN publications, referred to itself as the "Most Ancient and Honorable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons, according to the Old Institutions," using the correct spelling with the "c". 4) Chrislk02 stated "The question is, which is correct in the context of the article in relation to (the two) grand lodges." Good point. How did the two grand lodges "Ancient" and "Modern" spell it? As a matter of fact, it was the Moderns Grand Lodge of 1717 that used the variant spelling ("Antient" with a "t"). And they did so with a fair amount of consistency during the latter half of the 18th century. So if anyone wants to use the variant spelling when referring to the Moderns as "The Antient and Honourable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons" I have no problem, because that is how the Moderns' Grand Lodge referred to itself IN ITS OWN publications. And, by extension, if the U.G.L.E. wants to refer to itself that way, it is no one's business but its own. 5) Vidkun stated that "the Preliminary Declaration of the Act of Union of the two Grand Lodges in December 1813, says that it was declared and announced that pure Antient Masonry consists of three degrees and no more. However, in my four volume copy of Gould's History of Freemasonry, in vol. iii, between pages 90 and 91 there is a photographic copy of those Articles of Union. And Article II (which was carefully handwritten, by the way, in the original version, it clearly states: "that pure Ancient Masonry consists of three degrees, and no more...." using the correct spelling of the word "Ancient". 6) MSJapan very kindly grants me points for "scholarly minutiae", something he apparently has no use for. He notes that the report on this subject published in A.Q.C. by the U.G.L.E. Grand Secretary, Ivor Grantham, was "all of three pages," indicating that its brevity brings its veracity into question. What he is unaware of is that it was not a full length research paper, as the subject matter was fairly limited. After all, how much can you say about the official titles of the two 18th-century English Grand Lodges? Nevertheless, he was fairly clear, succinct and to the point in his report. 7) And by the way, I do not argue in favor of disregarding "common usage". To the contrary, I argue "in favor" of looking closely at the common usage of the two parties, the Ancients Grand Lodge and the Moderns Grand Lodge, as they used the terms "Ancient" vs. "Antient" during the period 1751 to 1813. And again, what we find is that the Ancient Grand Lodge consistently used the word "Ancient" spelled with a "c", whereas the Moderns used both terms erratically, especially in reference to themselves rather than in reference to the Ancients Grand Lodge. 8) Lastly, I think what we need to do here is simply decide if we are going to be the ones who either continue to perpetuate an inaccurate myth: that the "Ancient Grand Lodge" called itself the "Antient Grand Lodge," which, of course, it did not -- or if we are going to be the ones who are going to side with the historic record. Are we going to perpetuate other myths about Masonry, that the authentic school of Masonic research has long since discarded? Or, are we going to side with the historic record? I have old brethren at my local lodge that firmly believe that King Solomon founded our fraternity, and that the Knights Templar infused their secrets and ceremonies with ours in the 14th century. I know that it may disappoint some of them to read the historic record, as opposed to their treasured myths, but you have to make a choice.74.192.207.49 17:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I guess I got signed off this morning during a distraction.PGNormand 02:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume the above comes from PGNormand, given the comments. There are actually some very good points raised here... and I think they deserve serious consideration. If the historical Grand Lodge (Ancients) did consistantly use a "c"... then I would agree that we should do so as well. Just the way we should use "Antient" with a "t" in talking about the full official name of the GL of Jamaica (for example). In other words, I think that we should use what any given Grand Lodge itself uses or used.

PG... I don't mean to disparage your expertize here, but I have noticed that, because you are something of an expert, you occationally make statements based on your personal knowledge and research... which Wikipedia frowns on. So... make it obvious for those of us with less personal knowledge... give us a few primary sources (ie documents from the Ancient Grand Lodge) that demonstrate the "Antients" spelling it with a "c"... (on line refs would be best if they exist, since seeing is believing). Thanks. Blueboar 18:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar: I agree with your comments. If the G.L. of Scotland uses "Antient" in its own name, then that is what we should use. Everyone has the right to spell their own name as they choose. As for your second point, it is well taken. I have always tried to be very good about using footnotes. My Masonic library is always within an arms reach. If you will go the article titled "Ancient Grand Lodge of England" you will see some of my sources for the above. If there is anything that I've left out, just let me know, and I'll dig a little deeper. Sorry, I don't often use online references for a couple of reasons: 1) They tend to be unreliable, 2) they tend to change, and 3) I have so many reliable references right within an arms reach of me, which are published sources and available at any good Masonic library. I've spent a lifetime building my Masonic library (over sixty linear feet of bookshelves of Masonic titles alone -- approx. 700 volumes) and it would be foolish to bypass all that in favor of someone's website. Maybe I'm a dinosaur -- a Librasaurus. As for primary sources: If by "primary sources," I hope you don't mean that you won't accept, for instance, a reference out of Knoop & Jones, because I simply cannot get access to the original copies of early Masonic catechisms (for example). I have to accept that K & J are quoting exactly from those documents. I don't have a first edition copy of the Ahiman Rezon, but I do have a facsimile reprint.PGNormand 03:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well taking the lead from both GLs that I belong to, UGLE and Grand Lodge of Scotland, my preference is for Antient. It's littered all over documentation from both GLs, and is used in the common statement of Aims and Relationships published by those two and by Grand Lodge of Ireland. Other than that, I'm pretty ambivalent, it may not be how the Irish described themselves, but London drove development after the union.

I have no big issue with Coil describing it as a pretension, he's only one author amongst several. There is clearly no common agreement in the academic community, with Hamill using the t spelling. I'd need to dig through Stevenson to work out his usage. Similarly I'll have to dog out a copy of the Kilwinning ritual to work out what is used there, although that's a self published source.

With all that in mind it's reasonable to include a brief explanation of the usage, but that could be done in a somewhat less POV manner than has already been suggested.

With reference to the point about searching, that's easily dealt with using redirects, the technology supports that.

ALR 21:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

ALR: I think you missed my point -- not your fault -- its probably because I wasn't clear enough. I have no problem with the G.L. of Scotland calling itself "Antient" if that's what it chooses to do. That is no one's business but the G.L. of Scotland, for which I have nothing but admiration, BTW -- I have gotten to know your curator -- not mentioning names here online -- over the past few years and think he's top notch. What I am referring to is how we reference the "Ancient Grand Lodge of England". What I'm suggesting is that since that G.L. only referred to itself as "Ancient" with a "c" then so should we. I don't think you will find the "Ancient Grand Lodge of England" mentioned in your Kilwinning Ritual. From everything I have read, during the 62-year period from 1751 to 1813, the Ancient Grand Lodge never referred to itself or its members using the variant spelling. I have a facsimile (not re-edited) copy of the first edition of their Constitutions of 1754 (Ahiman Rezon) and this bears that out. The Moderns' Grand Lodge, on the other had, did refer to their own Grand Lodge using the term "The Antient and Honourable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons," and, I stated before, they did so with a fair amount of consistency. I am not saying that the variant term "Antient" does not appear in 18th century Masonic usage, but what I am saying is that it was not the "Ancient Grand Lodge" that did so. Therefore, sticking with my earlier premise, that a Grand Lodge ought to be able to call itself whatever it wishes, then I think that we ought to call the "Ancient Grand Lodge" just exactly that. Whatayouthink? PGNormand 03:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. If we're just talking about how to refer to the Irish then, noting the reference to WP policy by Blueboar, I think the way to address it is use the common spelling, and include a paragraph about the difference in the text. Mind you, I'm pretty sanguine about the article title and an explanatory paragraph would need included either way.

In terms of general usage then it becomes challenging to achieve consistency, my thinking with respect to the Kilwinning ritual was merely to identify the preferred spelling in general use there. Antient/ Ancient is used during the opening, and in the obligation.

ALR 12:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A good question here is, if it was sorted in 1953, why did it never percolate out to webpages and articles and books published after that date? Again, my concern here, as in other places, is relevant hits for information - one will get a lot more with the "t" than without. If the concern was content only, this material could have gone in the old article, but it seems like a POV fork, especially since it's looking like a method being used to circumvent the need for requested discussion of the spelling convention. The consensus has been to use the "t" spelling, and it has to be standardized one way or the other - otherwise, this is editing against consensus. MSJapan 03:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree... I really don't care which spelling is used (from what I gather, there is good reasoning behind both spellings), but to create an "alternate" article is the wrong way to go about it. We should pick ONE talk page, discuss both views and reach a project wide consensus for all of the Freemasonry articles. One thing to note... naming conventions on Wikipedia usually go by the most commonly used name for things... not nescessarily the "correct" name. That does not mean that we can not discuss the "correct" name in the text (in fact, I think we should, no matter which we choose for the title). As for a different I have with this article... In the History secton... we have the following:

• When four lodges of Modern Masons gathered and formed what they called a "grand lodge" it quickly took on an aristocratic nature and its lodges began to exclude members of the other lodges from visitation. About 1738-39, it was alleged that the Grand Lodge of the Moderns reversed the passwords for the first two degrees as a means of excluding visitors from the other lodges. (bolding mine)

To call the London based GLE "Moderns" at this point is placing the cart before the horse... in 1717 (or in 1738-39) the London based GLE was not yet called the Moderns... That term was not used until the 1750s when Ancients/Antients came on the scene and gave them that title. Blueboar 12:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Blueboar: Ah, but that's not true!!! The members of the Grand Lodge of 1717 were called "the Moderns" almost from the get-go. In 1726, a London newspaper ran an advertisement which stated: "There will be several Lectures on Ancient Masonry, particularly on the signification of the letter G, and how and after what Manner the Antediluvian Masons form'd their Lodges, shewing what Innovations have lately been introduced by the Doctor and some of the Moderns ...." The Doctor in this instance is Dr. John Desaguliers who was one of the most prominent participants in the early years of the Moderns' grand lodge, and their third Grand Master. In this advertisement, we see Ancient Masons, "Antediluvian" Masons, who are not members of the new Grand Lodge, posting an advertisement disparaging the innovations made by "the Doctor" and the new Moderns' grand lodge. Again, the four lodges that formed the Grand Lodge of 1717 were not interested in including all the Masons of all the lodges that met in London and Westminster at that time. Many of these other Masons were laborers and of lower social order than the aristocratic members of the new Grand Lodge. And so, it was natural for those other Masons -- those left out of the new Grand Lodge -- to disparage the Grand Lodge Masons as not being "genuine Masons" -- "not like us. We're Ancient Masons." Further, it has even been suggested, although unproven, that one impetus for the formation of the Grand Lodge in 1717 was to separate the staunch, loyalist, supporters of King George and the House of Hanover, who made up these four aristocratic lodges, from these other lower-class lodges which were possibly full of riff-raff Jacobites from the poorer parts of town. This was only two years after the Scottish Jacobite rebellion of 1715, and the Crown was very suspicious of any institution that smacked of a Scottish flavor. And what was more Scottish than Freemasonry? Desaguliers himself visited lodges in Edinburgh in the early 1720's, after things cooled down a bit. Is there any wonder why there are no records or minutebooks from prior to 1717 for the so-called "four old lodges of London"? I suspect that they were full of evidence that Freemasonry had Scottish roots. The smartest thing to do would be to burn them -- or hang, trying to explain to the magistrates why you belonged to a secret organization with Scottish roots. As a result, we have numerous minutebooks and records from 17th-century Scottish lodges, but none -- not one! -- from an English lodge prior to 1717. PGNormand 04:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In answer to MSJapan: And a good question it is! My answer is: "It DID percolate out to other publications after that date!" My first source was Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia published in 1961. And there are any number of others that also call the "Ancients" what the "Ancients" called themselves. I noticed that poor Bernard E. Jones, who published "The Freemasons Guide and Compendium" in 1950, apparently took his book to press just before the release of the A.Q.C. volume LXVI, and so was unable to include the information in his wonderful book. Nevertheless, there are still a lot of old copies of Mackey's Encyclopedia, and others out there that were published back before World War II and are still providing old info to people creating websites today. One of the things that I preach to neophyte Masonic researchers is that you have to be careful about checking multiple sources. Lastly, if relevant hits is our only consideration, and we get more hits with misspelled names, then why not misspell "Moderns" as well! PGNormand 04:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's not hold up Coil's as being the be all end all of Masonic research: Pick up either edition of Coil's and look up Louisiana. Scroll down and you will see that "Albert Pike Lodge of Perfection" was created in June of 1813 in New Orleans. I tell you what, those New Orleans Scottish Rite Masons really knew some stuff. In 1813 Albert Pike was a 4 year old boy in Massachusetts and those guys knew that he would one day play an important role in the SC SJUSA! So, do we really want to claim Coil's as infallible? Additionally, I hope you don't mean that you won't accept, for instance, a reference out of Knoop & Jones, because I simply cannot get access to the original copies of early Masonic catechisms (for example). I have to accept that K & J are quoting exactly from those documents Why? The UGLE Constitutions have been claimed, by you (which, by the way, I am not doubting, mind you), to not have the correct spelling, so why shouldn't other documents get it wrong in transcription? It's a stylistic thing, and shouldn't be our biggest contention. I realise it isn't, not really, that's more of a tempest in a teapot. One of the things I find most interesting, and wish to see more research on, unfortunately derives from stuff brought up by the irregular RGLE - issues as to whether the four London Lodge actually did meet, when there is reasonable doubt as to whether all of them existed in 1717. Before anyone jumps up and down and says it's accepted history, I'll point out that there was a time when there was zero question of the origin of the AASR, and then historians such as Poll and DeHoyos have started looking at Etienne Morin's Rite, and asked the question: when did 25 degrees become 33, and under whose authority? Well, hell, the unfortunate answer is that the authority was self created. That answer doesn't help much when we look at the Cerneau body and the various interpretations of the original language allowing another SC in the US. It just goes to show you that the accepted historical account isn't always factually correct, as it was written by the winners. --Vidkun 12:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Vidkun: Well, of course, you're absolutely right. No one should hold up Coil's, or Mackey's, or Macoy's, or any other source as being "the end all." And I didn't mean to imply that. What I meant was that we cannot wait until we are each able to examine the original Regius MS. in the British Museum (for example), but we must be content (at least for the time being) with the transcripts of the Regius MS. that we find in various Masonic books. Now, if two books disagree as to the exact wording (or spelling) of the Regius MS., and it becomes an important enough issue, then we need to further, and deeper research. As for the question of when 25 degrees became 33 degrees: you wrote that "the unfortunate answer is that the authority was self-created." My question is, "What's wrong with that?" The authority had to be "created" by someone. If it wasn't created by "eleven gentlemen" of Charleston, then it would have been created by some other group of men somewhere else. Would "eleven gentlemen of Paris" or "eleven gentlemen of Berlin" had any more authority? Would the authentic signature of Frederick the Great have lended any more authority? Who gave authority the so-called "four old lodges of London" to form what they called a "grand lodge"? No one. Their authority was "self-created." Anyway, not to disparage the research and work of Art deHoyos, but even Pike had serious doubts about the Constitutions of 1786. -- Good stuff. Really enjoy the conversation. S&F PGNormand 17:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Focus people, we are getting off on tangents ... 'c' or 't'? I will try to summarize: The reliable secondary sources seem fairly evenly split. The most common usage (as demostrated by the "google hits") is with a 't'. And the "official" name as demonstrated by primary sources such as Ahiman Rezon (are there other primary sources?) use 'c'. Wikipedia naming conventions say that, when there is a choice, we are to use the most commonly used name, so I lean towards 't'... but I do have a question: How many of these "hits" are unique? Are we dealing with multiple websites all pointing to the same few sources? Blueboar 13:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Blueboar: Again, I think you miss my point. I am not saying that we should never use the variant spelling of "Antient" with a "t". For example, if today, the G.L. of Scotland wants to be known as "The Grand Lodge of Antient, Free and Accepted Masons..." then that is fine. They get to choose what they call themselves! And I will gladly go along with that. And if the U.G.L.E. chooses to the same in reference to itself, again, that's fine. And by the same token, when referring to "the Grand Lodge of 1751," that is, "the Ancient Grand Lodge of England," we should simply use the spelling that the members and officers of THAT Grand Lodge called themselves. Here's an example of what I mean: My last name is "Normand." It is somewhat unusual in that it has a "d" on the end of it. I would hope that, if I am remembered 200 years from now, that people will spell my name the same way that I spell it, and not simply chop off the "d" at the end simply because people 200 years from now "prefer" to misspell my name, or because "Norman" gets more Google hits than the correct spelling of "Normand". Furthermore, if people DO misspell my name out of ignorance, I would hope, when they are shown the evidence that I spelled my name WITH a "d" at the end, that they will say, "Oh! I did not know that. But now I do. And so, from now on I will spell poor old Normand's name correctly." As for "Google hits," I get 2060 hits for "Ancient Grand Lodge" and only 848 Google hits for "Antient Grand Lodge." In fact, when I search "Antient Grand Lodge" Google asks me if I didn't really mean to search for " Ancient Grand Lodge." But either way, I'd hate to simply go with the majority of "hits on Google". The majority can be, and often are, wrong. One of the things we are doing here on Wikipedia is dispelling myths, especially when it comes to Freemasonry. Remember that there are many people working overtime to spread falsehoods about Freemasonry and its history. Let's not be among them. Lastly, you wrote, that Wikipedia states that "when there is a choice, we are to use the most commonly used name." But, again, it isn't as if the Ancient Grand Lodge used two different names, one with a "c" and one with a "t". The Ancient Grand Lodge only used the word "Ancient" with a "c", so I don't know that there is a choice when referring to that Grand Lodge by the name it chose for itself. Whatdoyouthink? PGNormand 18:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

PG... A few comments: "The majority can be, and often are, wrong." - but, unfortunately perhaps, right and wrong does not matter when it comes to Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. The naming conventions call for using the most common, not the most "correct". Even if the most common is "wrong", we use it. "One of the things we are doing here on Wikipedia is dispelling myths, especially when it comes to Freemasonry." - Not really. We are writing encyclopedia articles about Freemasonry based upon reliable secondary sources. If we happen to dispell a myth or two along the way, great... but our primary goal is to simply inform. When editors start focusing on dispelling myths and "correcting" things, they usually end up drifting into original research. That is something we have to be very careful to avoid. WE may know a lot about Freemasonry... but if what we know isn't discussed in reliable secondary sources we should not include it... even if it is "correct". Blueboar 12:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, there is a good picture of ten different English grand lodge and grand chapter seals from the late 1700's and early 1800's on two plates in "Gould's History of Freemasonry" in vol. ii, between pages 274 and 275. The Seal of the Ancients' Royal Arch Grand Chapter bears the words "Holy Royal Arch Grand Chapter of Ancient Free Masons London", spelled with a "c", which, again, is consistent with how they always spelled it in every other context we've come up with. The center of the seal bears the arms of the Ancient Grand Lodge of England. None of the other seals has either the word "Ancient" or "Antient." Although the original name of the Ancients' grand lodge did not include the word "Ancient" in any form, they did later use the name "The Most Ancient and Honorable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons." Note that "Ancient" is spelled with a "c", that "Honorable" is spelled without a "u" in the second syllable, and that it is "Fraternity" and not a "Society" which was the prefered term of the Moderns' grand lodge.PGNormand 18:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• People, I am confused here. As a UGLE AND GLS mason - ie the Scottish and English forms of freemasonry in Scotland and England, we only ever use "t" as in antient. Is this discussion more to do with US v. European spelling? Masonically speaking, wherever Scottish and English freemasonry is practised (ie over most of the world) the spelling is "antient" - comments? docboat 03:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we are only talking about how to refer to the historical body usually referred to as the "Grand Lodge of England (Antients/Ancients)" or "the Ancients/Antients Grand Lodge". I think we are all agreed that for more a modern body we use what ever spelling that body uses. Blueboar 12:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, as PG is still changing things, and there was no discussion on this after the 23rd of August, I've IARed and redirected "Ancients" based on the concession in the "c" article that "Antients" with a "t" was used and therefore not "wrong", and the unnecessary material in the "c" article rendering merging somewhat useless. If the material is good, it can just as well go in the "t" article independently. MSJapan 23:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we have consensus (or at least a strong super majority) for the following...

1) When referring to the Antient Grand Lodge in particular, and "the Antients" in general, we should follow the spelling used in the majority of sources, and use a "t"... that may or may not be "correct" (PG makes a good argument that it isn't), but it is how the majority of sources spell it and it is not our place to correct them. We can point out the alternative "c" spelling in the body of the text if needed.

2) Where a modern body spells their name with a "t" or with a "c" we will use what ever spelling they use when referring to them.

3) When directly quoting a document we should stay true to the document and use what ever spelling it uses.

Are there any other issues to discuss on this topic, or can we finally close it off? Blueboar 13:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The article has been created today (not by me), and I feel it would benefit from the attention of someone with knowledge of the subject. As it stands today it seems to mostly rehash the allegations from Catholicism_and_Freemasonry - an article with it own set of problems, and one that would likely get pruned severely if the talk page is anything to go by. WegianWarrior 04:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems like a pre-emptive POV fork. Blueboar 14:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This article deals with an extremely contentious subject which directly crosses project lines. I have proposed it as a possible collaboration for Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism, and would be very appreciative if any members of this project would also focus some of their attention on making this article on a significant subject as unbiased and accurate as possible. Thank you. John Carter 22:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that there has been a lot of effort from some members of this project in the past. Regrettably that article is unlikely to reach a satisfactory conclusion. It's already been indicated on that talk page, the RCC has a position on FM, whilst FM doesn't actually have a position on the RCC.

The issue should be dealt with, but I'munconvinced that collaboration is the way ahead.

There are fairly clear ownership issues and an approach to sourcing that is fully compliant with the letter of the policy.

ALR 23:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am more than willing to work with Project Catholicism members... however, I do expect both sides to have opposing positions about the nature of Freemasonry that they will not be willing to bend on. I suspect that such a collaboration could only work if a neutral third party was willing to mediate when things get bogged down into "Yes you are" / "No we're not" debates. Such debates have happened in past attempts to create a neutral article, and the result is the POV mess we now have. Blueboar 00:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is now a nominee for the Article Creation and Improvement Drive. Any individuals who would be willing to work on the article would be welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter 19:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

By it's nature, the article Masonic conspiracy theories is about all the various unsubstatiated claims and theories that involve Freemasonry. In order to maintain a NPOV, the editors of that article have agreed upon certain conventions... we don't discuss the "truth" or "untruth" of the theories, or comment upon them in any way; and we must have verification that the theory actually exists. To substantiate the latter requirement, we cite sources in a particular way... not as support that the individual conspiracy theories listed in the article are factual or "true"... but purely as verification that the theory exists. Recently, however, this has raised an issue (and caused a brief edit war), as many of these theories are only discussed on fringe websites, blogs and POV rant pages. Such sites are not usually considered reliable sources under WP:RS. So... The question is: Can a site that would be normally be considered unreliable be cited purely as verification of existance? Can unreliable sources be used in a limited context such as this? Please respond on the article's talk page. Blueboar 15:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

An emergent issue on Affaire Des Fiches about how to describe GOdF. I've described them as irregular, but there is a suggestion that since they self define as liberal that's how they should be described. I'd consider Liberal to be inherently POV since it implies that others are illiberal because of the belief in a SB thing (trivial I know ;) )

Grateful for any thoughts on that page.

ALR 11:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps one opition would be to indicate that this is a self definition.

Really, I see this as another attempt by JASpencer to push linking his POV fork article: Latin Freemasonry (he has indicated that he might change the title to "Liberal Freemasonry"). At the moment, that article is essentially a cut and paste job, that draws heavily from contested material that I cut from Catholicism and Freemasonry for OR and POV reasons. I can see the merits of expanding JASpencer's article so it properly talks about "Continental style" Freemasonry (ie GOdF and those bodies in amity with it), but it is very premature to start adding links to in in other articles ... a lot of work will be needed before the article is in a state where we should link to it. I definitely object to linking to it in its current state. Blueboar 13:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that there'd be any objections to calling them a group which describes themselves as "liberal", but are seen by the majority of freemasonry as "irregular". Regarding adding links, I can't see any objection to that, provided that the links are just to the name of the article itself. The extant content of any article can be changed, or redirected if the page gets renamed, but it would make sense to try to link an article to other related articles as soon as it's known the article exists, particularly as this seems to be a notable entity which merits an article. If it is links to specific sections, or if the link includes additional "commentary", that would be another matter entirely. Also, is there any particular reason why Irregular Freemasonry isn't already at least a redirect to some other page? I would think that such a page, which could describe the differences between regular and irregular Freemasonry, and maybe list those bodies which qualify as irregular but already have pages or specific content, would be quite useful. John Carter 15:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Regular Masonic jurisdictions is the one.ALR 16:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I note that there are certainly any number of articles which relate to Freemasonry, probably enough to create a portal for the subject. We might have to at least keep track of some of the biographical articles of individual Freemasons to do so, and probably actively tag some of them with the banner to keep up with them. Maybe it might be a good idea to create a Category:Freemasons to hold such articles. It is recommended that a portal should have at least 5 or 6 different selection options. Would such activity be acceptable to the rest of you? Also, does anyone have any idea why Category talk:Roman Catholic Church is included in the Category:Catholicism and Freemasonry? John Carter 16:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• ISTR there have been several freemasonry categories that relate to people which have been thrown out at CfD, on the grounds of being some combination of non-defining, unprovable, or hazardous to it subjects or their descendants. Before creating such a category I suggest you go back and have a look through those discussions, in order to come up with a suitable classification and name that will withstand such an onslaught. Ephebi 18:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

My reason for proposing the category was for the purposes of creating a subcat which would be directly related to the project. Also, if it were indicated, perhaps in a CfD, that the category was explicitly created for the purposes of the project as a place to hold biographical articles, and that would be one qualifier for inclusion in a portal, I sincerely doubt anyone would object. It might require that editors go through the List of Freemasons and add the content and sourcing from that list to the existing bio if it isn't already there, but I have trouble seeing that most outsiders would try to revert such sourced material. If the content were to be found in the article, then the category wouldn't be a problem. I've done pretty much the same repeatedly for some of the subjects in the Category:Anglican saints and Category:People celebrated in the Lutheran liturgical calendar, which has a longer name because they don't use the word "saint" as often, and haven't encountered any objection yet. And, again, if it was made clear that there was a potential of appearing in a portal, I think most editors would probably welcome it on that basis alone. John Carter 18:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've recreated the Category:Freemasons, and placed all those individuals who were included in the Category:Freemasonry in it. With any luck, we can see which other extant articles include mention of their subjects as being a Mason, and include them as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warlordjohncarter (talk • contribs) 21:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

John, you wouldn't know this... but that category was deleted for a very good reason and that deletion was approved by our entire project. Please don't recreate it. Blueboar 00:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone has a better suggestion than Liberal Freemasonry (the GOdF's term) then I'm all ears. JASpencer 21:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that it's worth considering the treatment of irregular freemasonry centrally for the moment, potentially on the project talk page, rather than here.

I do think it's worth considering irregular freemasonry, but we should seek to avoid duplication of large chunks of already existing material around principles, organisation, relationships with regular freemasonry etc.

Whilst I realise that GOdF self define as liberal, the implication is that any other form is illiberal, and all over the trivial little question of whether a candidate should be expected to have a belief in a supreme being. Can't see what the issue is myself! Starting with a POV title probably doesn't bode well for a balanced article.

At the moment I think it's more reasonable to continue the consideration of irregular traditions in the main article, and cascade out where there is anything distinctive to discuss.

ALR 21:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

::Irregular is not a NPOV term, and I would not be surprised if the "irregulars" find this pejorative. Regular masonry on your terms may be a POV term.

On self description, the Orthodox Church or the Church of Christ are rather POV terms as well.

I'd also say that the UGLE seems to regard all self described Freemasons who are not "in amity" with the UGLE as "irregular". So women's lodges in the United States who insist on the Supreme Being would be irregular. Correct me if I'm wrong.

JASpencer 21:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is why I prefer the term "Continental Style Freemasonry". For one thing, it the term most often used (well... irregular is more commonly used by "Mainstream" sources... but I would avoid that). Latin is wrong because we are talking about something that is in more that just Latin countries. Liberal is better, but still POV, because it implies that other types of Masonry are illiberal or conservative (and it has non-masonic political connotations). No... I think we should go with what the majority of scholars use and call it "Continental". Blueboar 22:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that irregular is also NPOV, one of my reasons for trying to find an integrated way of considering the situation, rather than adding to the proliferation of short , decontextualised, articles that keep surfacing.

Feminine GLs are also irregular, but based on a different one of the core principles of Freemasonry. Although you'll note that there are two feminine GLs in England, as well as at least one androgynous. Both feminine GLs use exactly the same ritual that I use in one of my Lodges as well, and they use the same regalia suppliers.

In amity with and regular are broadly synonymous in this context. Being in amity allows one to visit lodges in another jurisdiction, so it is a vehicle for propagating recognition, which is based on the aims and relationships statement of the three home GLs.

That recognition is a two way relationship, rather than just a pronouncement. For UGLE, or GLoS, to be in amity with another GL, then that other GL must also be in amity with UGLE or GLoS. Part of the negotiation around that is also related to which other GLs the two parties are in amity with, and the agreement can be ceased unilaterally.

With all this in mind I'm going to copy this to the central project discussion.

ALR 22:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I created the category with the intention of having some biographies to add to the potential portal. I note that the scope of the project has now been changed by someone to indicate that those articles which deal with biographies of individuals who had been Freemasons are not within the scope of this project. If this unilateral change is to be accepted, I will clearly remove the tags from all Masons, as per the recent change. I would wonder however whether this change, and perhaps undue concentration on only a limited number of articles, is a good thing for the project. I know it is not a good thing for the potential portal. I would think that, if nothing else, the individuals should be added to the scope of the project to ensure that the information which is currently contained in their articles about being Freemasons is not removed. However, I acknowledge that I am a newcomer to the project and will gladly abide by whatever decision the membership agrees to. It gives me the opportunity to return to tagging the Pocket pets articles for the new Mammals work group anyway. John Carter 23:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

John, first I would like to thank you for being so willing and eager about trying to improve the project page. I know all your edits have been made in good faith and with the best interest of the project at heart. The problem was not with you... it lay with our not being clear in our "scope of this project" definition. We discuss what the scope is, but never talk about what it is not. Please realize that we are a very small project, and most of us have worked together for several years on our various articles. As such, we developed some "unwritten guidelines" that we did not bother to put on the project page because we all knew what they were... obviously, as we grow, that needs to change. I thank you for making that need clear.

Anyway... This project was started so that we could coordinate on a growing number of articles about the institution of Freemasonry... ie the rituals, degrees, history, structure, etc of the fraternity itself. We have never been concerned with biographies of people who just happen to have been, or may currently be, Freemasons. For one thing, in most cases the individual's membership in the fraternity is of extremely minor note. In most of these biographies the only nod to the Craft is a brief one liner that says: "He was also a Freemason". (often with no citation). I suppose there are a few individuals that could fit within our scope... people who's notability depends on their Masonic connection (James Anderson comes to mind), but for the most part we have always stayed away from Biographies.

We used to have a sub-category for "Freemasons"... it was deleted. And I agree with that deletion. For one thing there was constant contention over who was and was not a Mason. The project does manage a List of Freemasons article (really a list of famous Freemasons), but that is the closest we come to having our project get involved in individuals. Blueboar 23:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

So - why is someone running around putting "Project Freemasonry" tags on articles like Edward Bellamy merely because there is a mention that one relative was a freemason? (I deleted the tags on the Bellamy page, but it looks like its been added elsewhere). Rabidwolfe 00:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Over eager new project member... we were just discussing it. Blueboar 00:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you, but I can speak for myself. The answer is because by adding such banners the project might have sufficient articles to create a portal to display its work and try to draw new members, as is indicated in the discussion in this section above. Also, I do note that with 53 listed members, this project is actually at least as large as many other projects which seem to do much better in terms of article improvement and development. I myself note that many/most editors get tired of working only on the "weighty" articles, which this project limits itself to, thus both at least potentially indicating that it is as, shall we say, "focused" (or private, furtive, whatever) and almost self-interested as many of Freemasonry's detractors in the larger world say it is. By not giving members a chance to work on such less difficult articles within the project's scope, it probably does a very good job of ensuring that it has few active participants. However, I have no reservations to seeing the project have as little input or activity as it has apparently decided it wants. I seriously wonder whether the limits on the scope of the content are the main reason so many of the more central articles are in the comparatively unimpressive state that many of them are now in. Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting has many of the same concerns, but seems to be doing much better in terms of developing articles and keeping members, and it does do that. However, it seems to me that such may in fact be what the members of this project want. If it is, then I have no objections in joining the possibly large number of members who have seemingly abandoned the project, given the comparatively few edits of late to its articles. John Carter 00:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It might help if people review the reasons why the original Category:Freemasons (and a host of related sub-categories) was deleted in the first place... you can read the CdF discussion here. I think the reasons are still valid. Blueboar 01:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I did read it. I note that the various sub-cats, with the exception of one for Prince Hall Masons, for the purposes of the African-American project, had not even occurred to me. Also, I can't see how having a category saying something which isn't supported in the text would necessarily arise, so calling someone a Mason only in the category would be a situation which probably wouldn't happen. And the blp factor would seem to apply as easily, if not more so, to the text of the article than a separate category, particularly as the category wouldn't be added without supporting text. I would welcome input from anyone else, however. And, for what it's worth, I do think that removing the category makes the chance of ever having a even remotely acceptable portal non-existent. That, however, isn't that big a deal to me, as it means one less that I might be asked to create somewhere down the road. John Carter 01:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually adding people to the category without discussion in the article or citation happened a LOT. This was a VERY contentious category. One serious problem was with editors adding the category to people who were either not Masons, or for whom there was only rumor or anecdotal evidence speculating that they were. We were constantly having to monitor and clean out the category. It was quite a headache.

As for your portal idea... I really am not familiar with portals and what they do, and so I am going to be open minded about it ... but I have to admit to being warry. The main article is enough of a vandal magnet... I am worried that having a portal will end up attracting more more vandals. Call me old fashioned, but I kind of like keeping our profile lower. Please go slow. There are some editors who are long term members of this project that we have not heard from all this. I don't think we should do things without their input. Blueboar 01:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And to show how someone can add the category to an article that does not even mention Freemasonry, much less contain a citation ... see JASpencer's recent addition at Marquis de Condorcet. Do we know if this guy was even a Freemason? Now, knowing JAS, he probably was... but the point is still clear. People do add category tags that are unsubstantiated. That is a real problem. Blueboar 01:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That was part of it - many of the additions had nothing in the articles even indicating their membership. It's one thing to put Harry S Truman or Benjamin Franklin in there, because they were active Masons, but other folks only have the membership and do nothing Masonically other than carry a dues card, if that (Bronson Pinchot). The other part was that the subcats by country got ridiculous. As it stands, we have the List, and I don't see how a cat is going to be of any value grater than that, considering we get all sorts of stuff on the list that doesn't belong there, and have probably purged it twice by now. MSJapan 23:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It is of course possible to define the terms of the category in such a way that any individuals who cannot display what could be called active involvement in the group would not qualify. I was told that Tiger Woods was removed from the Buddhists category because he wasn't actively invovled in Buddhism, and didn't contest that. Also, if the category is truly problematic, then deleting it would probably be the worst way to go, as it would permit recreation later again. One could just as easily keep the category and say explicitly in the content that the category should not have any articles added to it. There are several such categories already extant, with a notice to the effect of what I said at the top, although I confess to not being able to find one right now. In cases like that, any articles placed in that category would clearly not have been placed there by members of this project, and such articles could be ignored. However, even there, I would suggest that maybe an alternative would be to perhaps adjust the existing banner to include importance parameters. This would allow for ranking such people as Bronson low-priority to the project, if someone found that the category or banner was placed correctly in the first place. Also, and you might say this is just a personal opinion, because it is, I think at least becoming a bit more involved in non-Masonry specific articles might help reduce the frequency of such mistakes. If this project did not so effectively isolate itself as it has, and instead tried to actively improve articles regarding notable Masons, like Franklin, Washington, or whomever, and got a few at FA or GA status, the project would lose the appearance of separation, and potentially secrecy, that it currently has. I know that all the religious projects out there face primarily the same problems regarding miscategorization. However, by dealing with those biography articles which are relevant to their project, they also apparently get and retain more editors in their project than this one has. Alternately, one might create banners like Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism has done here to add to talk pages of disputed persons. Raising the group's profile in a neutral, collaborative way however is something I can't see as being detrimental to the project. Anyway, just a noob's thoughts. John Carter 00:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are not really any cases where Freemasonry was essential to any one person; even in the case of the Founding Fathers, to call Freemasonry essential would mean ascertaining whether they were freethinking and democratically-minded before they were Masons, or did their membership influence their way of thinking? In other words, did they become Masons because of the way they thought, or did they think that way because they were Masons? It's not something that's answerable. If we then look at collaborating on articles, there isn't much to be said about members' Masonic activities that hasn't already been said. There's simply not enough to justify more than a sentence or two in any given article; almost none of the Masons listed were of any importance within the organization (with a few notable exceptions). The real question is: does the category do anything that the List doesn't? MSJapan 05:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Categories can work in two directions : e.g. there were people whose lives were influenced by freemasonry, but there was also freemasonry that was influenced by people. So, a suggestion: using a different term along the lines of Category:People who contributed to Freemasonry (any better suggestions?) would avoid some of the arbitrariness and ambiguity that we've seen in the scattergun 'Freemasonry' category in the past. Ephebi 10:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, that title would work. And, in response to MSJapan, I guess the question would be whether s/he, and perhaps this project, have as their sole interest content directly relating to Freemasonry, or improving wikipedia in general? If the former, then there would be no reason to work on those articles on the likes of Washington, Franklin, etc.. If the latter, then there would be reason to improve all the articles that are relevant to the project, whether that would include adding more directly Freemasonry-related content or not. For what it's worth, just about every other project, with now one exception, I know of on wikipedia follows the latter idea. John Carter 14:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

John... I don't follow your logic here. How does the existance of a category help improve Wikipedia in general? Blueboar 14:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly because you're trying to fuse two unrelated concepts. The existence of the category, with indications that it isn't to be used, as per some others, helps prevent people from mistakenly recreating it. The latter point referred to deciding whether this project would continue to deal exclusively with material directly related to Freemasonry, or at least be open to improving all articles which relate to Freemasonry, as most of the other projects have chosen to do regarding articles which relate to their content. Those two points are however, not necessarily related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warlordjohncarter (talk • contribs) 14:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

But how does the existance of the category improve Wikipedia? Blueboar 15:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

By perhaps, if deprecated, as indicated above, to ensure that it isn't recreated later, only to have to be undone again later. Or alternately, to provide a way in which new articles which might be of interest to the project, and thus wikipedia, to be called to the attention of the project short of a direct note to the project? I guess I'm not sure exactly which category "proposal" above you're questioning here, and it's hard to tell how to respond to a question you don't completely understand. John Carter 15:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL... It seems that it is just as hard to frame a question when you don't understand the comment you are trying to ask the question about... my question comes from your comment above, where you say: "I guess the question would be whether s/he, and perhaps this project, have as their sole interest content directly relating to Freemasonry, or improving wikipedia in general?"... What do you mean by "improving wikipedia in general"? How does the existance of Category:Freemasons improve wikipedia in general?

I am also confused with your logic on why the category should be recreated ... It is a bit circular... we should recreate a deleted category so that it won't be redeleted and then recreated at some future time? Huh? Blueboar 15:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's called "deprecation" or something similar. Like I said, I have seen numerous such categories which indicate they are not to be used already, in the process of assessing for any number of projects. Maybe if you were a bit more familiar with wikipedia beyond the limited range of Freemasonry you might know that yourself. And I also notice that the central point, that this project does a better job than any I have yet seen, of playing into its popular stereotype, still hasn't been addressed. I wonder why? John Carter 22:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please expand on that last comment. How is this project "playing into popular stereotype"? Blueboar 15:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Dave

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

I'm not really sure how any kind of decent article can be written about Emulation without, perhaps giving too much information away. An article, in general, about the different types of ritual out there would be great - perhaps with a little history on each of them, if this exists, please someone post it on my talk page on my profile and I'll get right on it, with updating, etc. An article on ELoI seems superfuous, to me.Peckhamben 16:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought we had an article on this already that someone started a while ago. MSJapan 18:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If we do, then my apologies - I just haven't been able to find it. Peckhamben 22:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As no one's been able to point this out to me, I'm going to create it tomorrow afternoon at some point (24 hours-ish from the time of this post). If someone does want to chat about this, or thinks this is a bad idea, please do let me know. Middlesex Fire (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Emulation Lodge of Improvement should do it. MSJapan (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not actually about a certain ritual though (although it does mention Emulation) more the ELoI that works Emulation. I won't make the page yet, but I do think this warrants more discussion - perhaps amalgamating the ELoI page into another page about ritual (in a section about Emulation?). Middlesex Fire (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This was moved from the project's participant list:

Carlos Botelho (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Glad to be invited to help concerning portuguese masonic issues. I need also some help with Msjapan that is deleting all my contributions. Please watch this. Thanks

07:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC) cygnis insignis

He wrote an article on the GLRP magazine. It was all of three lines, and did nothing to establish notability (and hadn't been edited since October). I prodded the article, and Carlos responded with a threat. I wonder if he isn't Carlos Penalves, the director of the magazine, which would cause a COI issue. MSJapan (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Carlos Botelho is Carlos' bio article, and he happens to be the PR guy for GLRP. I think that explains quite a bit. MSJapan (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been going back and forth with the author of a new edition of Morals and Dogma over whether it's appropriate to add what I characterize as an ad for his edition to the Morals and Dogma article. Would anyone else like to chime in on this? Thanks.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 20:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as not every website that discusses a topic is worthy of inclusion in an article, not every print book is worthy of inclusion ... if (with the passage of time) the book gets good reviews by reliable sources, and especially if it gets the endorsement of the Southern Jurisdiction, then it might be worthy of mention... but at the moment, no. Blueboar (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Back on November 1st, I expressed some concern at Talk:Masonic Lodge Officers over a series of pictures that had been added to the article. The pictures show the WM and Wardens chairs in some lodge somewhere. They are unfortunately not the best quality (especially the shot of the WM's chair... you can barely make the chair itself out, much less any details). I also don't think they really add anything to the article.

With no reply to my concerns after a month had passed, I opted to delete these pictures... the deletion has upset the person who added them (who reverted me). Rather than engage in a revert war, I will raise the issue here and try to obtain the consensus of the project. Please pop over to the article, and let us know your opinion on these pictures. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)