Talk:Independent Order of Oddfellows Manchester Unity/Archive 1

Rewrite

 * Mea Culpa - I should have written this on 2 September 2007.


 * First, let me state up front that I am not now, never have been, and never will be a member of any Lodge, Oddfellows or otherwise. My father, who died 25 years ago, was heavily involved in the Independent Order of Odd Fellows in Australia; I want to be known for my own abilities - I have never wanted to be thought of as "riding on his coat-tails". However, I am proud of my father's achievements, and have (from a distance) an interest in the history of Guilds, Friendly Societies, Lodges and, to a lesser degree, Trades Union.

Are you sitting comfortably? I shall now begin.

Back at the end of last month (i.e. August 2007) I was proof-reading a contribution for a wiki-friend when I came across a link to Odd Fellows, which is a disambiguation page. Not very exciting. It said:
 * Odd Fellows can mean one of the following friendly societies, fraternal and service organizations:
 * Independent Order of Odd Fellows (a.k.a. IOOF)
 * Oddfellows

So I followed both links to pages which were, to me, quite fascinating. (I had always wondered what the IOOF were "independent" of!) However, both pages were, to be frank, "a bit of a mess", and they contained "stuff" I didn't believe. For example, the middle of the Oddfellows page said:
 * According to the official web site of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, the meaning behind their name is a mystery, even to the organization itself:

My reactions to all that were: 1) What a load of rubbish; and 2) Somebody hasn't done their "homework".

So I did some "homework", and without much effort found: http://www.oddfellows.co.uk/uploads/documents/feb_06/odd_1139392353_Oddfellows_History.doc This is a lovely little document - well written, amusing, informative and plausible. Yes, it has its shortcomings (no references, no author, only tells the story from one Point-Of-View), but the value it adds far outweighs these.

I made a start on trying to fix up Oddfellows
 * 10:41, 2 September 2007 Pdfpdf (Correct various errors of fact, spelling and grammar. Add references and cross-references.)

But after I'd finished, I still wasn't happy with the results. I decided it needed a rewrite. So I did.
 * 15:31, 2 September 2007 Pdfpdf (Rewrite)

However, like all "Grand Projects" I ran out of steam and, of course, I ran out of time. So, at the top I put:
 * ''Under Construction - needs a wider range of sources/references
 * 22:41, 2 September 2007 Pdfpdf (Add Under Construction, and minor edits)

Then I went back to proof-reading my wiki-friend's article. Pdfpdf 07:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Odd Fellows
Odd Fellows is a disambiguation page that I have expanded considerably with information I have been able to find.

The page is by no means complete, and I really don't know how accurate my findings are. (For example, from the information on the Manchester Unity site, I had (wrongly) assumed that "The Grand United Order of Oddfellows (1789)" were defunct. I now know differently!!!)

Any help on reviewing that page would be greatly appreciated. Pdfpdf 08:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Bias?
I'm wondering should the neutrality of this article be disputed.. I think there's a bit of bias bleeding through the start of the introduction, but I really know nothing about the organisation, so I don't feel qualified to edit it. -Geno 00:44, 17 July 2007 Geno-Supremo


 * Read on! At least two others agree with you! Pdfpdf 12:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Grand United and Manchester Unity
I am a member of the Grand United Order of Oddfellows. This artical is way biased. We are the origional order that the Manchester Lodge broke away from. This artical makes no mention to the fact that we are still going with very active members all over the world including, Cuba, USA, Ghana, Aust. and more. This artical looks as if it was written by the Manchester Unity Lodge and at first and 2nd reading is very biased. I will be passing this link to the Order board to take responsibility for contacting Wikipeadia and editing this as approperate. In the meantime can someone please put somthing on hear that mentions all of this? our web site is www.guoofs.co.uk 82.27.67.218 13:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)ccasa


 * Well 82.27.67.218, I wouldn't say the article is "way biassed", but it certainly does tell the story from only one Point-Of-View (POV in Wiki-parlance), and (to be generous to MU) certain statements "don't tell the whole story".


 * (However, I must agree with you that With their improved organisation and rules, they encouraged many other lodges across the country to leave the old Grand United Order and join the Independent Order under the 'Manchester Compliance'. It was the Manchester Unity which was to become the the Oddfellows of today. is indeed biassed!)


 * (And yes, the stuff up the top could almost be classified as "propaganda". It's not there now!)


 * I, personally, would greatly appreciate it if others (like you) with some actual knowledge of the subject matter added that knowledge to the article.


 * Yes, the article sort of was written by the Manchester Unity Lodge. There's no secret about that; every paragraph I wrote references a document from their web site, and up the top of the article it says: "Under Construction - needs a wider range of sources/references".


 * I will be passing this link to the Order board to take responsibility for contacting Wikipeadia and editing this as approperate. - Why? Do the editing yourself. And if you don't feel comfortable doing it yourself, ask for help. I'm happy to help.


 * In the meantime can someone please put somthing on hear that mentions all of this? - By placing your message here, you have already done that yourself. (i.e. You don't need anyone else to do anything else - you have already done it yourself.)


 * Over the next few days I will incorporate whatever I can find at www.guoofs.co.uk and www.guoofs.com into the page. I would welcome your help! (My wife would prefer I got a life that didn't involve spending hours on Wikipedia.) Cheers, Pdfpdf 07:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. In the meantime, why don't you create a user name and hence user Talk page so that people can discuss stuff with you, rather than do so here or on an anonymous page? Pdfpdf 07:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi and thank you for the quick reply. In re-reading my earlier comments I may have been well a bit hot headed! Sorry. I assumed that like most articles in the Press the Manchester Unity Lodge did this and they tend to forget that were are still here and disown everything we do. This coupled with the easy ability to site here and fire off quick replies without thinking made me look like a total arse.

I need to go through all the paperwork I know of and speak to different people in the Order. I am kind of new having only joined three years ago. I know the Manchester Unity 'dispute' still causes all kind of interesting comments when mentioned and getting the facts is hard. Just two nights ago it was commented that the Original reason Manchester Unity broke away was that The Grand United Order was allowing blacks and other ethnic minorities to join and they hated that fact. How true this is I do not know. I don’t know much about editing or contribution to Wiki’s but will endeavor to learn. I do know that most of our current activities and agreed upon history are on our (new) website at www.guoofs.com and my knowledge is limited to the UK. We are a small Order with a large (geographical) reach. These days with the welfare state and other organizations the original reason is largely gone but is still part of the Order, mainly for tradition, to appeal to the ‘old timers’ and because we do manage some really good insurance policies for members. All regulated by the FSA. Now days there are loads of registered members but very few active ones. Many pay their small annual subs and collect on the great rate of return at retirement age. Those that are active are in it for the Social side mostly. We get together and raise money for Charity and organize lots of nights out where lots of beer is involved. In so far as members political social and religious beliefs are concerned we are all over the place. We have far left Socialists to far right supports of fringe political parties. Most of use are in the middle and tend not to talk politics with in the Order. Although we are nominally a Christian this is not really strict. Religion very from Ordained C0E Ministers to Atheists. And locally we have Hindoo and Muslim persons whilst not members yet look as if they will join. Backgrounds very wildly with many UK Members (esp. London) from Africa.

There are active Lodges in the US, Cuba, Africa, and Australia (but the Financial side was bought out by a big insurance company so they exist as ‘fraternal’ members only. Most of the Ritual and tradition is gone with only the London Lodge maintaining elements of this.  But many want to bring this back and efforts are being made to do so.   Just how much and what bits are open for discussion.

Any information I can provide I will endeavor to do so and will get an account sorted so you can email me directly. 82.27.67.218 (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again. Your reply made interesting reading. The situation in UK sounds similar to the situation in Aus. (e.g. Although never being a member of the Lodge, I was a member of the "sick & funeral fund" for over 30 years; the Lodge closed down the fund only last year.)


 * Setting up an account is easy - the hard part is thinking of a name you'll be happy with for some time (that no-one else has already chosen.) I regret that I didn't give it much thought. At first I just used my initials, but pdf is already in use, so I just used pdfpdf. I now wish I'd given the choice more thought! Cheers, Pdfpdf 15:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * PS: Regarding MU split from GUOO and the issue of Race, I thought you might find the following interesting: The American IOOF page says:
 * "The (American) Grand United Order of Odd Fellows is a fraternal organization founded in 1843 for black members. Created at a time when the IOOF was primarily a white-only organization the GUOOF obtained its charter directly from the Manchester Unity in Great Britain so the American IOOF organization had no control over it. Although still in existence the membership in the US has declined, due to the mainstream IOOF no longer being segregated and also due to the decline in fraternal membership in general.
 * Pdfpdf 15:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Issues with this article
I earlier highlighted what I consider to be weasel words in this article. It summarises a few things already said by others; namely, that the sources are sparse and one-sided and that the article's tone is somewhat apologetic and/or promotional. I made a few edits to the lead to neutralise it a little, and suggested that consideration be made for the rest of the article. Concerning sources, I imagine that there are very few sources available that are not produced by the societies in question or their members, as there appears little interest in them from outsiders. For the history section, it should be made clear that legend refers to certain 'founding myths' used within certain societies. Also, it is clearly an overstatement that all societies in history are the precursors to Oddfellows; there is a certain watershed between 18th century societies that are the clear the originators of Oddfellows, and earlier groups that are co-opted as precursors, having certain names and features that were later formalised by Oddfellows. The article, in its present state, does not read like an encyclopaedia article; it is far too casual in style and imprecise in detail. It is reasonable to draw notice to this state of affairs, and encourage those with more information on the subject to deliver more focus and encyclopaedic style to the article. Not knowing anything of Oddfellows personally, somewhat limits me, but, reading this article for information, I felt the need to filter the text to get the facts from it. I would appreciate it if editors could help improve this article. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Any external sources?
Nice article... but I am (mildly) concerned about the lack of third party, independant sources. Essentially, everything is cited to "History of the Odd Fellows" (the other notes and references are essentially commentary about that history). Are there no other sources... has no one written about the order (either positively, negatively, or neutrally)? Blueboar 13:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Blueboar. (A bit of appreciation is always nice.) But I can't take much credit for it; the raw material comes from: http://www.oddfellows.co.uk/uploads/documents/feb_06/odd_1139392353_Oddfellows_History.doc


 * I am quite a bit more than (mildly) concerned about the lack of third party, independant sources.
 * You are quite correct - everything is cited to that one source.


 * Now we get to the hard part! Are there no other sources... ?  There must be, mustn't there.
 * Want to help find them? Pdfpdf 07:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There are some esternal sources, very few that i have seen are on line. and very very mention much about the oddfellow just in passing mostly. instead they speak mostly of the 'interesting' Orders like, Druids, Masons and so on. I will see what I can dig out of the GUOOFS records and see if i can find the external material i once looked at. CCasa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.67.218 (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is an artical i found. other then what is here i have no idea what is referancable or verified. I have also found a few articals in books dealing with S. Societies however from the looks of it  they were taken from  the official histoies of GUOOFs and manchester Unity. I do know tere existed the old records and meeting minutes etc but getting ahold of these an then transfering them to digital is, well frankly beyond what i am going to do as it looks a big job. also would it be any help? perhaps not as they are not verified 3rd party impartial referances etc.

Artical is as follows, I hope this helps; Grand United Order of Oddfellows magazine March 1972

BOB LINDOP looks at"THE STORY OF THE GRAND UNITED"

Remember the "Bull and Mouth"? This was what we supposed to be a tavern in Sheffield where the second Grand Lodge of the original Order was founded in 1792. It is significant that the London Grand Lodge, which by all accounts was a most autocratic institution, should have condescended to give Grand Lodge status to those heathen Northerners. The fact is that the Order was seizing the imagination of the Northern counties, particularly Lancashire and Yorkshire, and the London Lodge could no longer resist the claims of their brethren in these parts. Apart from the demands of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Lodges, difficulties of communication in those days made administration of "outposts" a near-impossible task. We must remember too that in a young, yet rapidly growing movement, it could not have been long before the provincial strong points came face to face with the fact that the London Grand Lodge was itself not very soundly constituted. Indeed, the weakness of the London Lodge and its undemocratic ways coupled with the surge of strength in the North, saw the London Lodge wholly eclipsed so that the very name of the Grand Lodge in the South vanished at once from our records!

So Sheffield became the effective centre of Oddfellowship. The Union Order or the Grand United Order as it was variously called, embraced all the Lodges in England and seemed set fair to become a huge, thriving, all-class institution. But soon, within twenty years, in fact. the Grand Lodge. Sheffield, born of dissension in the eighteenth century, in turn became the object of criticism from those Lodges, notably from Lancashire, who felt that the new Grand Lodge was becoming as dictatorial as ever the London Lodge had been! This dissatisfaction came to a head in 1813 when several Lancashire Lodges seceded and formed themselves into a Union which they called "The Independent Order of Oddfellows, Manchester Unity." As we know, this breakaway institution went from strength to strength and today represents the biggest Friendly Society with Lodges in the country. However, the secession regrettable though it was did not prevent further rapid growth of the parent body, and, in the next twenty years bringing us to 1831, more than 200 Dispensations for Lodges had been granted.

But the fortunes of the Grand United had always been erratic and now, in 1831, another blow was to fall! Grand Lodge had not, apparently, learned anything from the breakaway movement of Manchester Unity. It is not now known on what principle the Sheffield Grand Lodge was constituted, but it would appear that once again the growth of the Movement outstripped that governing body's effec­tiveness, and soon the seeds of disaffection grew into a heavy crop of discord and insubordination. The principles of Love, Friendship and Truth, received a further heavy setback when what purported to be "a general delegate meeting of all the Lodges in Lancashire, Cheshire and Yorkshire" was convened at the Bridgeman Arms Inn, Bolton, for the purpose of moving Grand Lodge to Bolton and reconstituting it as a board of twenty (elected?) men who would undertake: ". . to assure the Lodges of their fatherly care and protection so long as the laws, customs, usages and ceremonies of the Order are well observed and truly kept . . ."

From this meeting was formed the Ancient Noble Order (Bolton Unity) and the parent Order licked its wounds again. However, though the Bolton-based union became an established fact, its claims to represent "all the Lodges of Lancashire, Cheshire and Yorkshire" must be a gross overstatement, otherwise these three counties would not have survived at that time and to the present day as the stronghold of Grand United Oddfellowship. By the time, in the plethora of breakaway Orders, for many sub­divisions had taken place, the average Oddfellow must have been confused as to who was his Brother and who was not!' Indeed, there is the case of Washington Union Lodge, No 1, Philadelphia, which was once thought to be the first Grand United Lodge in America. It is pretty clear now that its laws and allegiances were those of an Independent order. Our present American Brethren certainly do not recognise this early Lodge (1819) as ever being a Grand United stronghold.

1832 saw another "revolt" against the "arbitrary" conduct of the Grand Lodge and its officers Little was achieved from this latest upheaval, but the Grand Lodge, now having an unwieldy complement of eighteen members, was slow to read the writing on the wall. "By 1837 the Grand Lodge had succeeded - as all other Grand Lodges had done - in making itself sufficiently obnoxious to cause a great agitation." So wrote P.G.M. Jowett late in the nineteenth century. Certainly agitation there was; agitation for popular representation and an elec­tive system of Order government. This reached its climax when in 1837, the Grand Lodge Meeting was so assailed with demands for democratic rule that it capitulated and the next year the first Annual Meeting of the G.U.O.O.F.S. was held in Leeds. More of this meeting next time, but let us look for a moment at the case the curious case. of Bro. B. Towndrow. who represented the Man­chester District at that meeting.

In the annals of our Order we find no mention of Bro. Towndrow until the meeting at Leeds was convened. He appears with the suddenness of Halley's Comet, a phenomenon still being talked about at that time, and disappears just as suddenly. Yet at that memorable meeting of 1838, this man was Mover of no less than TWENTY-SEVEN rules or motions, received the special thanks of the Conference, made what appears to have been the most impor­tant speech of the Conference, was ~trusted with the registration of Rules, was charged with having the flag altered for the next year's meeting and was appointed to prepare the Report on the Con­ference. Addressing the Chairman (Bro. Walker, of Leeds), Towndrow then made a speech in reply to Conference's Vote of Thanks. Near the end of that speech he said: "You have this day shed a ray of pleasure on me, which can only cease with my life." For all we know his life could have ceased at that moment. Whether he fulfilled his special charges from Conference, whether he kept his promises to that meeting we shall never know. Cer­tainly when the story is resumed, in 1845, Bro. Towndrow's name is conspicuously missing.

All articles © E.W. Lindop 1971-1976. Magazine extracts and logo © The Grand United Order of Oddfellows Friendly Society, reproduced with kind permission of the Board of Directors.

Ccasa (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)ccasa

Additional literature, links and general information
interesting information here on the US Grand United Order of Oddfellows linking the African American lodges with first the Manchester Independant order and then the Grand United Order.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Ku9aOC9OxnMC&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=Grand+United+Order+of+Oddfellows&source=bl&ots=8HCeGBiaj1&sig=abf3fJZhE-3bTF7eEUJ-r7wR540&hl=en&ei=FoI_SpLoOt62jAfj9JkT&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.152.49.186 (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Origin/meaning of Oddfellows?
Should the background for the meaning of ODDFELLOWS be included in the article? 19:14, 1 January 2005 209.179.168.31

I was about to ask the same question. What's the etymology behind the name of Odd Fellows? I'll assume that "odd" isn't meant to refer to "weird" or "strange" in the modern sense. --Brasswatchman 01:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Odd Fellows and Rebekahs" have been in the Pasadena [CA, USA] 'Tournament of Roses Parade' 61 times and won 'best coordination of color' award for the 2012 parade, I'm watching just now. Hope you are too — Happy New Year. The parade announcers read a different reason for the name: "Friendship, Love, and Truth are their watchwords". Further, "Their whole credo is to Visit the sick, relieve the distressed, bury the dead, and educate orphans. It was such an unusual concept in 17th century England, we are told, that they were dubbed, 'Odd Fellows'." ["Wow", says the co-announcer.] "They give more than $700million/yr to causes around the world." The float featured a knight in full armor on his stead with lance-weapon, FYI, in front of a castle.

There are more than 10,000 lodges in 26 countries. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Fob medals
Hi, I have just come across one of your fob medals, it is hall marked and in a box from Spencer & co London. It is Blue and white on the front and has Manchester Unity 100f 1810/1910. I was interested to know if this has any value. 2.219.16.149 (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Manchester Unity in Australia - different wording needed ...
With an edit comment of: Noted that in Australia the Independent Order of Manchester Unity was demutualised and effectively wound up in 2008., User:TheDirtyDigger has posted:
 * The Australian Manchester Unity Order was demutualized in 2008 and its health insurance operations merged with health fund HCF, with the name Manchester Unity retained only as a brand name for aged care services. http://www.manchesterunity.com.au/site/about-us/

This is only part of the story. (More coming - Internet connection is playing up - sorry) Pdfpdf (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * One needs to distinguish between the businesses which were set up by the Orders, and the members and Lodges of the Orders.
 * Yes, the businesses of "The Australian Manchester Unity Order [were] demutualized in 2008 and [the] health insurance operations merged with health fund HCF, with the name Manchester Unity retained only as a brand name for aged care services."
 * However, the Order itself, and the Lodges, still remain.
 * (A similar thing has happened with the various Grand Lodges of the IOOF of the various Australian states. e.g. South Australia: The health insurance went to Mutual Hospital => Mutual Community => HCF/MBF or someone similar; The sick & funeral funds were demutualized and became KeyInvest; etc. But the IOOF Grand Lodge of South Australia still exists, and also, it has "a finger in the pie" of a number of "retirement homes".)
 * I'm not sure how to word this - particularly, how to word it concisely! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Overlinking?
User:Jayaguru-Shishya has removed a large number of links. Some of these removals are justified, but many provided useful links to explanatory information. (e.g.: mutual organization; Southwark, Hatton Garden and Smithfield areas of London; table (information); National Insurance Act; etc.)

Some of the edit summaries are puzzling; e.g. How is "In 1911, when Asquith's Liberal government was setting up the National Insurance Act in Britain" (Out of British context (National Insurance Act))?

However, the one that particularly puzzles me is the removal of the link to the Stuarts, with the edit summary (Linking to "House of Stuart", which is very different from any implied "Stuartism") - a) Why? b) What is "Stuartism"? c) What exactly do you think is implied?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Greetings Pdfpdf! I am sorry if my edit summaries were confusing; I have to admit that I was cutting corners under a heavy workload (not an excuse though!) Anyway, I'll try to explain some of my edits below. Hopefully it will help to clarify my edits.


 *  exile of the Israelites : "Exodus" itself means the "exile of the Israelites", so we should link to the more specific


 *  Jewish : major religions


 *  destruction of the temple at Jerusalem : I changed this one to a more specific link to the exact event


 *  knights : IMHO, this is an everyday word that even kids get familiar with ever since fairytales. Moreover, the whole article does not even mention "Oddfellows", so I think it's very tangentially related to the topic.


 *  inns : an everyday word too? Well, this is debatable though


 *  Southwark, Hatton Garden : my apologies, this was purely my mistake. Instead of merely removing the links, I was meant to fix the linking per WP:LINKSTYLE. I fixed the linking now though.


 *  Smithfield areas of London : the same as above; I fixed the linking now. Thanks for your notice.


 *  tables : maybe I have understood wrongly, but how is this exactly related to the article? =P


 *  Stuarts : oh, indeed... You are right, I am not sure what I was thinking. Apparently I've been considering "Stuarts" as some sort of political movement (?!?)


 *  transportation : this one is an obvious mistake from my behalf too. The link is actually to "penal transportation", not to "transportation" in general.


 *  National Insurance Act : This one too. Sorry for the hasty removal. After all, the linking is quite specific indeed, and stands for its place.


 *  George Harrison; Ringo Starr; The Beatles : this is quite trivial though. The piece of text is about the fathers, so linking to their sons has nothing to do with the article. IMHO, it's the same as we'd make it  The father of James McCartney ; It'd give no information ever so far about  Paul McCartney  himself. Actually, I think the whole passage should be removed. A source about the actual "fathers", who they were, could be reasonable though.


 * Anyway, thanks for your kind notice, Pdfpdf. I hope this helped to clarify you my edits even a bit. Well, as I said above, I know that huge workload isn't an excuse for hasty edits (e.g. when I pertained to "link specificity" in my edit summaries, I used to just plainly remove the links instead of fixing them). Still many of the removals were justified in my opinion, even though might have been poorly communicated. Sorry for that. Cheers and happy beginning of 2015! :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Problems with the lede
Greetings! I think the last paragraph in the lede is quite problematic. We shouldn't include in the lede, and for disambiguation purposes a hatnote on top of the article serves the purpose.

The current hatnote takes the reader to Odd Fellows which is a sia page. However, since we have only two other Odd fellows organizations (Independent Order of Odd Fellows and Independent Order of Odd Fellows) that have articles in Wikipedia, I think a neat and nice hatnote would be much more clear solution. I'l like to suggest the following hatnote for the article:

This is how we could avoid the in the lead, and place the disambiguation where it belongs - into the hatnote. If one still wants to include a piece of text about the diverse usage of the name "Oddfellows", I think this should be done by referring to a source. For example, "According to John Doe, there has been a number of different Orders of Oddfellows in the UK, and those can be easily confused. These orders include..."

Summa summarum, 1) we should not include into the lede, 2) when we say something, there should be a source to back it up, and 3) when we want to make a disambiguation notice, a hatnote is the right way to do it. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The above is this gentleman's opinion. I do not see any facts.
 * I do not wish to be either rude or offensive, so I will simply say that it is only his opinion that the lede is problematic, and/or that the lede contains WP:OR.
 * This gentleman and I have had numerous discussions. He knows I disagree with this aspect of his point-of-view. (There are many other sub-topics upon which we have achieved consensus to the benefit of Wikipedia.)
 * Some of the statements he makes above are, quite simply, inaccurate.
 * I wish neither to offend him, nor discourage him. I simply wish to point out that I see no merit in these proposals. (This proposal?)
 * Should some relevant facts, with supporting references, arise, I will take GREAT pleasure reading them. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * By simply citing a source that would verify the 3rd paragraph of the lede, would solve the problem. So far, it seems like of the editor.
 * I appreciate your expertise on the topic Pdfpdf, and I don't think this is a content dispute at all. Moreover, this is purely a matter of WP:MOS, and therefore I think it might be reasonable to ask for a neutral opinion there. As said above, the 3rd paragraph that has been made for disambiguation purposes is currently  since no sources have been provided, and my only argument is that we should include the disambiguation entries to a hatnote (e.g. one suggested above). Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * By simply citing a source that would verify the 3rd paragraph of the lede, would solve the problem. - Done. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The 3rd paragraph in a whole goes as follows (emphasize added):
 * "Note that there are, and have been, a number of different Orders of Oddfellows in the UK – refer to Societies using the name "Oddfellows" for a list. One of them, The Independent Order of Oddfellows Manchester Unity Friendly Society Limited, uses the trading name "The Oddfellows". Thus, there can be ambiguity when referring to "the Oddfellows"."


 * The reference you added is at the very bottom of the front page of "Oddfellows Manchester Unity Friendly Society". That is hardly a proper source. Moreover, what the front page "verifies", is that "The Oddfellows" indeed is a trading name of "The Independent Order of Oddfellows Manchester Unity Friendly Society Limited". Does it deal with the ambiguity related to the term "Oddfellows"? No, not really.
 * The 3rd paragraph states itself that: "Thus, there can be ambiguity when referring to "the Oddfellows"". For disambiguation purposes, I'd like to suggest a nice and neat hatnote as suggested above:
 * I think that'd be a lot more clear and we don't have to force sources, such as referring to the bottom of one's front page. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that'd be a lot more clear and we don't have to force sources, such as referring to the bottom of one's front page. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I asked an opinion about the WP:MOS issue from a neutral experienced editor, Cullen328, here at his Talk Page: User talk:Cullen328. Here's the reply:
 * "Hello Jayaguru-Shishya. I agree completely regarding the proposed hat note. An independent source for the variety of UK groups with similar names would be best. Lacking that, references to the relevant web pages of several of the groups is preferable than to just the largest of the groups."


 * Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * FFS! Make up your mind please, and be consistent. All you seem to be doing is complaining. I'm yet to see you add any value.
 * You said: By simply citing a source that would verify the 3rd paragraph of the lede, would solve the problem.
 * So I did.
 * And now you're complaining that I did what you asked!
 * There are MANY other articles on WP that I'm making improvements to. I'm MUCH more interested in improving them.
 * This article is, at WORST, "adequate". You just seem to be nit picking.
 * If you have something useful (and accurate) to add, then add it.
 * If someone else has an opinion, then get them to come here and express their opinion. (I'm not interested in your interpretation of their answer to your questions.)
 * As I've already said several times, your proposed changes to the hatnote are inadequate and inaccurate.
 * Quite simply, your grasp of the domain is inadequate, and your proposals are inadequate and inaccurate. (And, to me, annoying and time wasting.)
 * Now, as I've said, I am busily engaged in many other things. If you have nothing better to do, then at a minimum please do your homework on the subject matter, and please cease making inaccurate statements.
 * Yes, my above is harsh, maybe even rude, but I have been VERY patient and VERY polite, and you don't seem to have got the message. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Pdfpdf, if I wasn't clear enough, 1) the very front page of an organization is not a reliable source, 2) the front page does not really verify the 3rd paragraph, 3) a hat note is the proper way to handle disambiguation purposes.
 * This is hardly a content dispute. Moreover, this is a question about WP:MOS.
 * I agree that the article is a mess. That's not a reason to stop from trying to improve it, though. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with that the hat note is a good way to disambiguate. I also agree that citing only the Manchester group's website is not a good solution to the lack of references. I encourage a collaborative approach to find consensus instead of complaining about anyone's good faith efforts. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  22:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation
I cam here via Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. I think that the discussion to date show a misunderstanding of what a disambigation is for. See WP:DAB

My emphasis on "". The page Odd Fellows (disambiguation) is not a dab page it is a redirect to an article page Odd Fellows that page is not a dab page it is a list page that does not have easy navigation to the set of Wikipedia pages.

The history Odd Fellows (disambiguation) has a telling history:
 * 00:54, 13 January 2015‎ Jayaguru-Shishya (Undid revision 642002761 by Pdfpdf (talk) - My mistake: the already exists a, an taking into account the similarity of the articles, no disambiguation page is needed. Cheers!) (rollback: 1 edit | undo | thank)
 * 12:05, 11 January 2015‎ Pdfpdf <-- NB no history comment but this edit created a dab page.
 * 17:54, 29 March 2010‎ RussBot (Bot: adding redirect template)
 * 13:29, 12 March 2010‎ Boleyn3 (per WP:INTDABLINK) (thank)

At the time that Boleyn3 created the dab page as a link to Odd Fellows she also made an edit to that page stating the the dab page needed cleaning up (see Revision as of 13:24, 12 March 2010)

The change was reverted by Pdfpdf (see Revision as of 14:02, 12 March 2010)

The edit to Odd Fellows (disambiguation) by Pdfpdf this year (12:05, 11 January 2015‎) shows that Pdfpdf no longer considers Odd Fellows to be a suitable dab page.

That Jayaguru-Shishya wishes to alter the hatnote not to indirectly link to the article Odd Fellows but to turn hatnote into a disambiguation shows that Jayaguru-Shishya too also does not consider Odd Fellows to be fit for the purpose as a dab page. Given that why did you Jayaguru-Shishya, revert Pdfpdf creation of a new dab page at 12:05, 11 January 2015‎?

The point of a dab page is not to list page on Wikipedia which may contain the word or phrase but to make navigation easy to title that might include it. See for example Waterloo. We only list on that page those articles that exist on subjects covered by Wikipedia. The roads named after the battle and the pubs named after the battle are not in the list unless Wikipeida has an article on it. There are so many train stations named after the battle, that rather than list them all on the main dab page they have their own dab page because most searches will be for "Waterloo station".

I am going to be bold and create a dab page because as far as I can tell all parties to this conversion seem to agree that disambiguation is needed. -- PBS (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your involvement PBS, that's highly appreciated! To answer your question in short, I must admit that I was a little bit baffled in the beginning. I reverted the creation of a new dab page because I realized that there are only two Wikipedia articles related to the article in question (Independent Order of Odd Fellows and Independent Order of Odd Fellows). That's why I considered that a neat hat note would do the trick. It also seemed to be consistent with WP:TWODABS, according to which:
 * "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. (This means that readers looking for the second topic are spared the extra navigational step of going through the disambiguation page.) If there are two or three other topics, it is still possible to use a hatnote which lists the other topics explicitly, but if this would require too much text (roughly, if the hatnote would extend well over one line on a standard page), then it is better to create a disambiguation page and refer only to that."


 * I made a post about it here: . Isi there a primary topic or not? That remains a million dollar question... Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As can be see with my edit to the dab page Odd Fellows (disambiguation) there are more than two other articles that have Odd-fellows in the name (eg Independent Order of Odd Fellows Sweden etc). As to what is the primary meaning that is not directly an issue for the dab page, but comes down to an issue involving the use of the WP:RM process once the name[s] is/are determined then the dab page can be altered if need be to reflect the consensus. -- PBS (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I just noticed and struck my comments some minutes before your post.
 * After the disambiguation issue is solved, what would you say about the discussion concerning the lede, PBS? The third paragraph is currently used for disambiguation purposes, and is not really supported by any sources. IMHO, a hatnote to a disambiguation page would be sufficient, and there wouldn't be need for an extra paragraph. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not think it desirable to have a paragraph on disambiguation in the lead of the article. So I have moved it into the first footnote. I have also moved the note on the sources into a footnote but have also linked in a web address that contains an archived copy of the original source. I have no strong feelings on these placements and will leave it to the regulars who edit this page to decide if my edits are an improvement. -- PBS (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks a lot better now, both for the disambiguation page and for the very Oddfellows itself. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent additions
I removed what looked like promotional material and semi-protected the article. Can I remind people wishing to add stuff that WP:V applies here? --John (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The offending text was properly sourced and consistent with every other credit union article on Wikipedia. Which part looks like promotional material? 2.27.78.13 (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The first thing that comes to mind to me is a question as to WP:WEIGHT. It would be helpful if someone here indicated the specific edit in question, and the specific sourcing for that edit, as well as some indication of similar content based on similar sourcing in similar articles. John Carter (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 2.27.78.13 (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, that's useful. I guess the primary question is what material in this particular article is considered for addition? Particularly considering that this article is about something much older and broader than an individual credit union, the questions of WEIGHT for this particular article and the placement of content, as well as, I suppose, whether the credit union in question is a single monolithic entity serving multiple areas or whether it is a comparatively small, perhaps local one in only a few locations. If it might be possible, indicating which specific prior edit contained the version being considered for restoration would be helpful. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's all in the edit history. It was a level three heading at the bottom of the Welfare State and modern Oddfellows section. The credit union operates throughout the United Kingdom. 2.27.78.13 (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Are there proper third-party sources for this material? Otherwise it looks like promotion to me. --John (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is three lines about a legally incorporated body for goodness' sake. Anyway, here's another source that could be placed immediately after (1):


 * Gibbons, Damon Local welfare provision, low-income households, and third sector financial services provision (p. 84) Centre for Responsible Credit, March 2013
 * 163.167.125.215 (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Greetings! It seems that the text on Manchester Unity Credit Union was boldly added by IP 2.27.78.215 on 25th February. As I explained in Edit Summaries concerning the rephrasing of the section, the text was not supported by the source (the 1st paragraph), or it was left totally unsourced (the 2nd parahraph). More explicitly, I added the appropriate tags and once more explained the problem in my Edit Summaries.
 * I agree with John that WP:VERIFY applies here. If one wants to add something to the article, one must provide a source that directly supports the material. I also think that we'd need an independent third-party source. Anyway, during this process the same content has been edited by three different IP editors (2.27.78.251, 2.27.78.13, and 163.167.125.215). Fortunately, IP 2.27.78.13 has openly admitted to be behind those IPs. I hope that after the protection period has ended, there won't pop up a fourth IP editor to make similar edits since there is really no way to tell whether there is the same user in question or not. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The first source is merely to support the date. Not everything needs referencing. For the avoidance of doubt, the addition was made (by me) on 25 February, you boldly edited the text on 8 March and I reverted your edit. You should have then discussed the change you wanted to see here, but instead started an edit war and made a series of personal attacks against me. 163.167.125.215 (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This is Jayaguru-Shishya's edited text, which I reverted:


 * 2.27.78.13 (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've unprotected given that 2.27.78.13 has accepted responsibility for the other IP edits and come here to discuss. Please finish the discussion here before adding the material, and do not edit war. --John (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I restored the text on 25 March with the additional reference, per the edit summary, as there has been no further discussion here. I have now been accused of edit warring by Jayaguru-Shishya. 163.167.125.215 (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed, you restored the same material without fixing the problem that is addressed here at the Talk Page. You added a new source, but it still doesn't help to verify the text. Id est, the material still . This was your 6th time making edits over the same material, material that you first boldly added on 25th February. As you noticed in your last comment, I gave you the appropriate notification on your user Talk Page about this... Besides, weren't you told to "Please finish the discussion here before adding the material, and do not edit war."? Obviously, you did not discuss things but went ahead to restore the contentious material.
 * As the new source you added doesn't even verify the text, the article is still suffering from the lack of independent, third-party sources. How have you responded to this? You just restored the contradictory material by an ES "restore text as discussion has ceased".
 * I do expect you to self-revert yourself. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The MUCU ref. traces it's origins to 1991 (which the FSA mutuals public register confirms), the (new) CfRC ref. states that MUCU "provides services to members of the Oddfellows friendly society" and the ABCUL ref. shows that MUCU is a member of that organisation. The bold edit was the rubbish that you contributed on 8 March, which I reverted. 2.27.78.13 (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The title: "Credit Unions in the Oddfellows", not "Manchester Unity Credit Union" (MUCU). MUCU is just a part of a much larger framework called "Oddfellows".
 * The source says: "They were started in the Midlands in 1991 and grew until membership in 2001 was 180" The Midlands credit union was started in 1991, not the Manchester Unity credit union.
 * Beside Midlands, there was also North London and Yorkshire. The source says (boldings added): "Late in 1999 Government announced that credit unions would come under the Financial Services Authority and with the increase in legislation which followed it became apparent that the three credit unions could not survive individually. Talks took place between the credit unions and the Board of the Oddfellows to seek their sponsorship which resulted in Manchester Unity Credit Union Ltd coming into being on 1st September 2001, with a common bond covering England, Scotland and Wales." Therefore, Manchester Unity Credit Union (MUCU) was not established in 1991, the credit union of Midlands was. MUCU was established in 1st September 2001, as the source clearly states.
 * All this was correctly included in my edit. Indeed, MUCU got born in 2001 when the credit unions of Midlands, North London, and Yorkshire merged as a single body due to the increased legislative demands after the credit unions were set to come under the Financial Services by the British government.
 * You broke against the admin's direct order to discuss the problem first before edit warring. You were the one who first inserted the contentious material, and you have 6 times already edited on the same content. I am assuming good faith with you, however, and therefore I am asking you for the last time to self-revert yourself before I'll ask for administrative actions. I am running out of patience. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Mate, I ran out of patience with you on 8 March, but that's by the bye. I have changed the MUCU ref. to the FSA mutuals public register, which trumps anything else. If you do go running to an admin, please pick one a little more impartial than your usual go-to this time. 2.27.78.13 (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The original source, Credit Unions in the Oddfellows, is no longer included to the section at all. Moreover, the current sources are a mishmash of individual reports, registers and guides. Therefore, we still have significant problems with WP:PRIMARY. I'd expect us to have some coherent and sound secondary sources for the section, otherwise it doesn't really stand for its place in the article. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)