Talk:Jack Dempsey/Archive 1

Largest Event
This isn't the largest boxing match as the article implies. Chaves-Haugen had 136,000 at the Azteca stadium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.182.208 (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Willie Meehan
Who is Willie Meehan? According to the record listing he fought Dempsey five times, beating him twice, drawing twice, and losing once. The fights were all four-round decisions though, which is odd. Are these fights of any significance? Meehan is an obscure figure with no article. Should these fights be considered exhibitions, and not part of the official Dempsey record? There is no mention of Meehan in the article body.

Boxrec
Wanted to add a comment on the Jimmy Darcy fight paragraph I added. This was long thought to be an exhibition bout, but recent research has discovered it was an official fight, upping Dempsey's win total to 62 for his career.

From Boxrec.com's log of Dempsey's fights:

"Brock Arend successfully defended his heavy weight championship last night for the first time since he won from Georges Carpentier at Jersey City, more than a year ago. Jimmy Darcy, a 'stable mate' of Dempsey’s was the opponent, and the champion received the decision after four rounds of boxing. Such is the information that reached here today from Buffalo, to find confirmation at the office of the New York Boxing Commission. Dempsey, originally carded to box an exhibition with three opponents at Buffalo last night, was confronted, just before entering the ring, with a telegram from the local office of the New York Boxing Commission, advising that he would be permitted to meet only one opponent, and that the bout must go to a decision. Jimmy Darcy, light heavy weight, who has been on tour with Dempsey for the last several days, was selected as the opponent. The champion took no chances on any adverse decision being given, the advices from Buffalo state, and boxed in a masterly fashion for the four rounds. At the conclusion the decision was his by a wide margin. At the office of the New York commission today, Secretary Harry Burchell said: 'Of course the bout had to be a decision. We had to see that the law was upheld. We make no distinction between exhibitions and regulation contests, according to law.' So Darcy has the distinction of having lasted longer with the champion than Georges Carpentier, Jess Willard, Gunboat Smith or Carl Morris. Had Darcy landed a 'lucky' punch he would be the world’s heavy weight champion today." San Francisco Chronicle John

Size
Someone add info on the size of Dempsey and other fighters.

I met Dempsey once in NYC at a party about 1973 when he was about 78.

I was 6 feet, but he appeared couple inches taller than me and while i was then 215 lbs he also appeared considerably larger like ? 240 etc

He appeared in shape. And had a fist / hand the size of a ham (huge) when I shook his hand.

Dempsey's birth place
Dempsey was not born in Relic, Hawaii, so I changed it back to Manassa, Colorado, where he was born in 1895. -Unknown

Cleanup
The article has an overly chatty tone, especially the opening para. I have no expertise on this subject, can anyone help improve? Hardwick 00:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Jack Dempsey is listed on the page of "notable Jewish sports figures" -- this is news to me. Jack was born in a Mormon village in the San Luis Valley of South Central Colorado: Manassa. I know of no evidence that would suggest that he was Jewish.

In his autobiography, Dempsey states, "I am basically Irish, with Cherokee blood from both parents, plus a Jewish strain from my father's great-grandmother, Rachel Solomon" (11). I assume he's in the "notable Jewish sports figures" category because of Jewish heritage. He was Mormon in religion, not Jewish, but had Jewish blood in him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.139.163 (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The material below is from the Jack Mormon article - pointing out that Dempsey attributed the term to himself in public interviews. WBardwin (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The term was made popular to the public by Heavy Weight Champion William Harrison "Jack" Dempsey (named after the president), was born in Manassa, Colorado, on June 24, 1895. During the 1920s Americans celebrated their material prosperity and made national heroes out of sports figures. The greatest American sports hero was undoubtedly Babe Ruth; his closest rival was Dempsey, a tough heavyweight boxer from the mining West. An LDS missionary converted his parents, Hyrum and Celia Smoot Dempsey, and they moved West, from West Virginia, arriving in the Mormon village of Manassa, Colorado, around 1880. While Hyrum fell away from the church, Celia remained faithful. (Jack would later write, "I'm proud to be a Mormon. And ashamed to be the Jack Mormon that I am.") In 1914 Harry (William Harrison Dempsey) substituted for the ill Bernie Dempsy (Jack's older brother) in a match and for the first time became Jack Dempsey himself, the heavyweight great is known today only as "Jack Dempsey."

Why is there a Jack Dempsey category? Isn't this what the article itself is for? If there is something covered in the category that isn't covered well enough within the article (with appropriate links) then what is the article for, anyway? Kthejoker 17:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

According to Dempsey his family was "pretty strong Irish, with Cherokee Indian blood on both sides and a Jewish stain from my father's grandmother, Rachel Soloman".Dschwa77 03:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Jewish *strain*, i think. Also, the idea that he would go into bars using that line about being unable to dance etc. is pretty unlikely -- where is this cited? In bio, A Flame of Pure Fire, something like this is mentioned in a different context.Jrm2007 07:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Dempsey vs Firpo
Really funny the partiality of this article when it tooks the Dempsey-Firpo fight. Dempsey stood up at the count of nine, a very special count. Dempsey were out of the ring fourteen seconds for some people, seventeen (17) for others. Dempsey losted that fight but he was the home boxer. Also he was helped by ringside reporters to stood up. Anything else? Easy like that..

on the subject of dempsey firpo..if a fighter is knocked out of the ring..he is given 20 seconds to return to the ring in boxing today, but not sure what the rules where during the fight in question.

Yes, technically speaking, he should have lost that fight. However, the fact remains that you shouldn't hold it up to the same standards. He was knocked outside of the ring, you try getting up in ten seconds like that. 68.35.101.113 (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also - question that this is the second largest sporting crowd ever. 121,696 people attended the 1970 Australian football grand final, over 123,000 have attended the melbourne cup and other racing events in melbourne.

Additional to above - Hampden park in Glasgow has a record attendance of 149,415 for a Scotland v. England game in 1937, and 146,433 for the Cup final between Celtic and Aberdeen the same year.

==Trivia for the fight: Dempsey landed on a Corona typewriter and actually stood on it while climbing back into the ring. The machine still worked and the company proclaimed in advertising "Dempsey knocked out Firpo but couldn't knock out CORONA". Saxophobia (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gallery photo 35.jpg
Image:Gallery photo 35.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Another Jack Dempsey boxer
This web page suggests there was another great boxer named Jack Dempsey, who died before his time of tuberculosis in 1895. Without more sources I can't start an article, but I'll be looking. (Anyone have access to the Ring Sports article cited?) -Pete (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

jack ' Nonpareil' dempsey a very good boxer and a hall of famer. it was common for managers and promoters of the era of the heavyweight dempsey to name thier fighters similarly or exactly like other great fighters to draw bigger crowds. either under the guise that you might see the great figther and during the days where you may see the name of the famous boxer in writing but not facially there was little way to proove if it was him or not. but i think kearns (heavyweight dempsey's manager) decided that he assumed the name, he could possibly give off the assumption that he was the son of 'nonpareil' dempsey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonpareil_Dempsey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.209.54 (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If you look at the top of this article, there is already a link to the other Jack Dempsey. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 18:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Dempsy Roll
Is this the boxer with the move 'Dempsey roll' referenced in the boxing anime Hajime no Ippo? This signature move is not mentioned in the article so I'm wondering if it is the other boxer mentioned above being referenced. Tyciol (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC) yes and no, hajime no ippo get thier facts right to a tee, but they augment the historical ideas and names to fit the scenario.

yes dempsey did do a slip and roll foreward movement, while squaring his feet up, while throwing left and right hooks. but to consider it a 'move' is a sort of antihistoric. he was just slipping and throwing punches due to his fighting temperement to get near and close the gap as soon as possible where a jab would keep him at bay. he is an example of a fighter who didnt do the classical textbook jab, cross with low hands to conserve energey in the days of the bareknuckle and 48 rounds. where conservation of energy and effort was a priority. he just went for them ferociously and just kept going while having enough brains to find the jabbing range then dashat them when they couldnt defend. perfect example against willard. as soon as he is in range he throws as much as possible as hard as possible till either the guy is ont he floor, the guy backs up or clinches or trys to bralw back (which would be a bad move against dempsey but i digress)

an other example would be the 'gazelle punch' another punch ippo does. a leaping or dash left hook (depening on what some trainers like to refer it to). it's credited to floyd patterson in the anime. very true he did throw this. but nobody called it a gazelle punch it's mythicising a well known tactic from a great champion like patterson and claiming it as a gazelle punch as if it was fact.

'the smash', the long left uppercut by ippo and rocky (cant remember his second name). is an example of contempory boxing culture, a very good heavyweight contender in the early 90's (when the manga was being written) was 'razor' Ruddock who was renowned to have a great destructive left uppercut which he nicknamed 'the smash'. so colloquillaly by fans and commentators when he threw his left uppercut it was called a smash even though effectivly and in all technical aspects was just a left uppercut. but naming your punches has been done before. rocky marciano named his right hand 'suzie Q' even though it was a right hand.

so to finish. to call a dempsey roll a move is not really a good choice of word. fighting style is sort of my accurate. and to answer your original question. YES this is the jack dempsey that the show reffers to.

all the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.209.54 (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Dempsey-Willard fight?
A special, huge wooden stadium was built just outside Toledo for the 1919 Dempsey-Willard fight and was dismantled after the fight, apparently. Does anybody know where it stood? I've seen pictures of it. Its octagonal. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 04:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Dempsey, Houdini, Leonard
Does anyone know more about this picture?



I'm guessing early 1920s publicity event, but no further idea as to what, where or why. It's part of a series including pictures of the same men with Commissioner Daly, Jack Kearns, Billy Gibson. Any information more than welcome! -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Verification
This line is under his death: With his wife Manuela at his side, he told her ... "Don't worry honey; I'm too mean to die." The man is listed as having four wives and Manuela is not one of them. So what gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.22.236.230 (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Some genius inserted a bunch of vandalism here and the name change wasn't caught. Fixed. Şłџğģő  18:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Dempsey and race
I don't have enough sources to attempt this right now, but it would be good if this article had more information (and citations to support it) about the possibility of Dempsey avoiding Harry Wills. This article from the New York Times in 1919 suggests that Dempsey never intended to fight black boxers, although of course he might have changed his mind by the 20s. Chick Bowen 03:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Dempsey' didn't decide things like who he fought, a previous manager overmatched him with a good black heavyweight, he got thrashed. So it was not a race thing with him. Why would anyone believe that Dempsey's management and promoters were going to let their golden goose fight any fighter ( black or not) who stood an excellent chance of beating him.  Wills being black was just a handy excuse to give. It would be understandable if Dempsey's managment didn't tell him 'we are scared Wills would beat hell out you'. Just like Floyd Patterson's management claimed they were ducking Liston because he was controlled by gangsters, the real reason was that Sonny Liston was much too good for their man and they knew it.  (Yes, Patterson did fight Liston eventually, but only after a change in Patterson's management).Overagainst (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Allegation of having been a pimp
It is a matter of record that Dempsey married a prostitute. The 12 Greatest Rounds Of Boxing: The Untold Stories.,‎Ferdie Pacheco (2004)says that it was claimed he had been a pimp and ' professional rapist of virgins ( who would then be sent to brothels)'

Traveled Underneath Trains
I'm not sure what this means, and the only reference to traveling underneath trains I could find was in relation to Jack Dempsey biographies. Can someone re-write that so that people know what it means? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickO5 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Boxing record of 1919?
The listing of recorded fights in 1919 in the article doesn't fully match (different names here and there) neither the supposedly authoritative listing at, nor the "official list" at. Is there a definitive listing of his bouts up to the title match in July somewhere? Many TIA.--Paracel63 (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Reach
His reach is listed as 77 inches, or 6'5. I doubt he could only reach 4 inches above his head. This figure is ridiculous and needs to be corrected or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.13.10 (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you have misinterpreted the term "reach." Sounds more like the span of his arms from middle finger to middle finger, or something like that. I'm no boxing scholar, but I suggest you look it up. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 20:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Arm span. Wingspan. Boxer's Reach at You Tube. You can also google "boxer reach" and there are other sources.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 20:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Categorization - Freemason
Earlier, I removed Category:American Freemasons from this page... it has been reverted, so we need to discuss. The Wikipedia guideline that governs this is WP:categorization of people which indicates that we need something more than mere membership to categorize. See: WP:Categorization of people which tells us to: Categorize by those characteristics that make the person notable. The article does not even mention Freemasonry. If Dempsey's membership in the fraternity is a characteristic that makes him notable, I would expect at least a paragraph about his membership (properly sourced of course). We need something in the text to justify the categorization. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * He was a Free Mason, a membership shared with a number of other improbable athletes. Incidentally, I undid your revision (I WP:AGF, and did not "revert". There are lots of other sources, but I did not want to WP:undue. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK... thanks for at least establishing that he was a Freemason. That is the first step.  The next step is to establish that this is a "characteristic that makes the person notable".  How does Dempsey being a Freemason make Dempsey notable? Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. That it was reported in U.S. News and World Report in the context it was, apparently they think membership matters, answers your concern.  Or we can put in ten other citations. Being a member of the Free Masons is consequential, but I don't think this article is the occasion to debate that here.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How is being a Freemason consequential? (FYI, I am one, and I don't find it all that consequential, nor does it make me notable).
 * But for the sake of argument... if being a Freemason is consequential, then the article needs to explain how being a Freemason is consequential (and, more importantly, relate how it was consequential to Dempsey). What do the sources say about Dempsey's involvement in Freemasonry?  Do they talk about how it was particularly meaningful to him... or how joining changed his life in some way?  That's the kind of stuff that would justify the category.  I think that Dempsey being a Freemason makes Freemasonry notable... but it does not necessarily work the other way around... His being a Freemason does not necessarily make Dempsey notable. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Your straw man argument about your notability or Masonic experience and feelings is irrelevant. He fits within the category. Categories are useful to our readers. They are minimally intrusive, and help them pull together information they deem relevant. One could make the same argument about many categories e.g., religion, ethnicity, race, etc. for example. Relevancy is in the eyes of the beholder. One could question why you want to depopulate this category — but I think we should concentrate on the fact that he is unquestionably within the category, and Masons and other reliable sources note that fact. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To give due credit: John Hamill and Robert Gilert (Eds.), Freemasonry, A Celebration Of The Craft p. 230 (J.G. Press, 1998 citation was taken from List of Freemasons. The latter states that it is a "list of notable Freemasons". <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point... you keep giving me sources to "prove" that Dempsey was a Freemason, but I am not questioning the fact that Dempsey was a Freemason... What I am looking for is something to justify adding the category. That requires some explanation of how being a Freemason is a characteristic that makes Dempsey notable?  How does his membership make him notable? Blueboar (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. You have access to sources (probably better than I, as you may even have the books that might relate to it). I defer to your evident interest and expertise about Free Masonry.  However, evidently Dempsey thought Masonry was important enough to join it in 1919.  There are a lot of Dempsey biographies (which may deal with his personal perspective and involvement) but I have other priorities right now.
 * Apparently you don't get that other people think his relationship was noteworthy. You keep glossing over that essential and dispositive fact. I do not know his state of mind, but that might be found in the biographies.  If that is not good enough for you, then we disagree.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure you do understand my point. I completely agree that his membership is worth noting (ie it is noteworthy).  It definitely is something that should be noted in Wikipedia (you were correct to add him to our List of Freemasons).  But there is a difference between mentioning his membership in an article or list, and categorizing the article by that fact.  There are different (higher) standards when it comes to categorization.  According to the WP:Categorization of people guideline, categorization requires more than just membership.  Being a Freemason has to be a characteristic that makes Dempsey notable. This is why I continue to ask: how does his membership make Dempsey notable?  If we can not answer that question, the category is inappropriate. Blueboar (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I know that you are a Free Mason wikipedia expert. I don't read or understand the citation rules in the way you do. And if they are read in the way that you posit, then we are doing our readers a disservice, IMHO.
 * The links, lists, and categories pull all this stuff together. I have had many serendipitous discoveries because of it.  It's like having a giant relational index.  Sort of like having "Watson" the IBM computer working for you. Wikipedia should be a giant encyclopedic version of the old television show, "Connections" which I always really enjoyed.  This stuff is so unobtrusive that it doesn't interfere with the average reader, and it is there for the avuncular erstwhile scholar.  We have deletionists run amok (not to say that you are such).  I recognize the Luddites may have their way, but I disagree.    <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't claim to be an expert... just knowledgeable in the topic area. (And I do tend to lean more towards deletionism than inclusionism... but I fully appreciate that there is a middle ground.)  It looks like neither of us is going to convince the other to change our minds... so I guess it is time to call in some third parties in an attempt to form a broader consensus.  I'll post a note at WikiProject:Freemasonry, and at the WP:COP talk page asking for others to swing by and leave a comment.  Is there anywhere else you think I should post a note? Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You and I will agree to disagree without being unpleasantly disagreeable. Other voices may help. I feel it is better to err on the side of too much of the irrelevant, rather than too little of the relevant. The expectations and needs of readers (who come with their own unique perspectives, background, and specific problems) is so vast as to be almost unforeseeable. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * On that we can agree... there is absolutely no reason to be disagreeable. We may disagree on the categorization, but it's not like the fate of the world rests on whether we include this categorization or not. :>) Blueboar (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also respectfully suggest that your own unique perspective, up close and personal with Masonry, distorts your viewpoint. To outsiders, this categorization and the connections it invokes is useful and seemingly enlightening. That you are looking for evidence of a personal epiphany is something that may be unknowable and lost in the ages.  IF that is true, it does not render Jack Dempsey's membership a lie, and I would submit it is no reason to deny him a place in the category. You may be right that he was inconsequential to Masonry, or vice versa.  But he did belong.  Best regards.   <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, he did belong... again, I am not questioning that. My question is whether he should be categorized as belonging or not.  I suppose what lies at the root of our disagreement is this... what is the purpose of categorization?  Is categorization supposed to be a cross-index every (minor) detail of a person's life, or is categorization more limited in scope... to the things that relate directly to why the person is notable (which in this case would be Dempsey's boxing career).  My reading of the guideline is that categorization is supposed to be somewhat limited. Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I can't see where it hurts to have Dempsey listed in the Category, as long as it is mentioned in the article and referenced properly. I follow his article on my watchlist because Dempsey was a Coast Guardsman serving in World War II and unfortunately this article is frequently vandalized by unthinking individuals. As a retired Coast Guardsman I have an interest that the section of his article that deals with his military service remains well written and referenced. I am also a Freemason, but I had no idea that Dempsey was also one...but it does not surprise me. I learn this fact because of the Category feature, but freely admit that it should be somewhere in the article and referenced. Hope this helps... Cuprum17 (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input... every opinion helps. Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I edit this article because my paternal grandmother died because of the last Dempsey-Tunney fight. She had an appendicitis, and all of the doctor's in the area had gone to Chicago. My father was ten at the time, and was sent on a mission to find a doctor, and his inability left a deep wound.  The reasons why readers and editors come to articles is boundless.   <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe you are being too literal in your interpretation of the General Considerations. First, the specific section talks says "standard biographical details".  While there are a examples, it is in no means comprehensive.  There is no agreed upon "standard biographical details", but it is not limited to demographic data.  The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica defines a biography in part as "as the faithful portrait of a soul in its adventures through life".  The limiting factor guidance in the categorization article you reference talks about occupation being notable, not all things the person did.  Also identified further in the section is that the categories should be about the person.  If there is to be a vote, I would vote to leave the category in the article.  Ahwiv (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. At best, even for most Masons, I would presume that it is a membership, belief system and avocation -- which some might analogize to membership in a religious organization.  Some will reach the highest ranks and hold high office (and how much of that is made public is something only Masons know). In part, their participation is also presumably characterized as a personal journey and experience, set in the context of the relationship.  Whether that is personally transformative or not is again just speculation.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 12:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Re: "At best, even for most Masons, I would presume that it is a membership, belief system and avocation -- which some might analogize to membership in a religious organization." ... and that is part of the problem... you are basing categorization on a presumption, not on fact. Furthermore, your presumption is incorrect.   Freemasonry is most definitely not a "belief system" (it posits no "beliefs" and has no "dogmas".)   It is a fraternal organization - nothing more nothing less... similar to the Elks or the Odd Fellows. When it comes to categorization, we should treat Masonic membership the way we treat membership in similar fraternal organizations... I note that we don't have a category for people who were members of the Elks, and while we do have a Category:Odd fellows, it is applied to people who were influential within that organization... not every famous person who happened to join an Odd fellows lodge. Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Blueboar, I was not being argumentative. I admit ignorance, and was not trying to establish Masonic or Wikipedia policy. As to religion, it was only a metaphor, and it was more in the nature of a question than a statement. I don't know why the Elks are left out. And as to the inclusiveness of fraternal organization — if that is what we are talking about — categories, I know very little. Of course, I don't know that a Masonic affiliation is equivalent to membership in the Elks, the Knights of Columbus, or the Chamber of Commerce, and perhaps you have more information. Although I would note that there is a divide as to whether social fraternity affiliations are notable enough to include. See e.g., Thurgood Marshall. My only point is that the Masons (on many websites) and the media repeatedly talk about Jack Dempsey's membership -- whatever that means and however that is defined. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, many Masonic websites include lists of famous people who were masons. The purpose of such lists is to impress the general public and make people want to join the fraternity(oooh... look how many famous people were Masons.  It must be a good thing... Maybe I should join too).  As far as Wikipedia is concerned, such lists are primary sources that can be used to support a statement that "so and so" was a Freemason...   But as primary sources, they do NOT establish that "so and so" is notable for being a Freemason.  For that we need non-masonic sources that discuss the fact that "so and so" was a Freemason (beyond just a passing reference)... and why that fact is important to know.  Someone like Albert Pike is notable because he was a Freemason... someone like Jack Dempsey isn't.  Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This section is about categorization, not validity of sources, and you are making claims that categorization requires notability on the category as if that was a fact. It isn't, and it is disputed.  Ahwiv (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not quite... what I am saying is that categorization requires that the subject be notable due to the characteristic that defines the category... per WP:COP. Now, notability is based on coverage by independent sources (which the Masonic websites are not).  To say someone is notable due to the fact that they were a Freemason, you need someone outside of Freemasonry to comment on his membership.  This is the case with someone like Albert Pike... but it is not true for someone like Dempsey.  If being a freemason was a characteristic that made Dempsey notable, someone other than the Freemasons would discuss it.  Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is the problem. That's not what WP:COP says in toto.  The bold says something close, but the details behind it says something different.  Ahwiv (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)