Talk:Prince Hall Freemasonry

Proposed merge
I don't think I'm convinced yet that this proposed merger would be useful; PH Freemasonry has a long history after the death of Prince Hall himself, and I'm worried that this article will never be expanded to cover that if it's subsumed into Prince Hall. It might make more sense to merge Prince Hall into this article, but Prince Hall seems like a weighty enough figure to sustain an article on his own, too... any thoughts? --Dvyost 15:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I just wandered in, so I have no strong opinion. I think expanding the article as you describe would be fine. If you want to, you could replace the merge suggestion with a 'Please expand' tag. I know nothing about the subject, but both articles are interesting and well-written. Tom Harrison (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

What would the beneifits be to merging Prince Hall Freemasonry with Prince Hall? Grye 05:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Although PH was an original member of the Lodge of which PHF was eventually born, He died in 1807. PHF did not exist until Sometime after 1813. it was African Lodge #1. They seem like fairly distinct subjects these days, & all-days.
 * Prince Hall Vs. Prince Hall Freemasonry: What was begun by any group or person could evolve at any time into something antithetical to the original idea. That product is probably already distinctly different from the person, and at any time it could be more so. Or not. It remains distinctly different.
 * How about we just pop PHF in there with Freemasonry, as there's already a couple paragraphs there already. Why into Prince Hall? Why not into Freemasonry? Why not put Prince Hall in with Freemasonry, for that matter ?-D
 * Should we combine Scottish Rite into Albert Pike, or vice-versa?
 * Why'll we're at it, how about that pesky Symphony No. 5? can we not get that merged into Mozart?!?
 * Ooh! Ooh! Howzabout Alexander Graham Bell & AT&T?!? What's that about? We seriously have two different pages from these two???
 * Are we still discussing??


 * I agree, and have pulled the tag accordingly. I'm holding off on an expand tag for now, because I don't see any reason to mark this article in particular (I generally think of all non-featured wikipedia articles as having an "expand" tag)...  --Dvyost 07:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The issue itself was not mildly irritating, the logic was. & agree on the expand thingie. Exactly. Oh, & I'm not good at saying this, historically, here on Wiki-, but very good points, your first lines there, D. Plus it looks like PHF is going through a lot right now, which perhaps will be reflected here soon.Grye 12:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The article twice says "Africian", when I think it means "African". I didn't change it myself, in case it was deliberate or historical. --NoJoy 15:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The Prince Hall page has a lot more info than this page. Could we just put a main article link under history and have it point to the "A Freemason" section under Prince Hall? -- Anonymous 17:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.42.185.151 (talk)
 * Prince Hall is a BIO article, and this is organizational. It may in fact be more appropriate to move that information here and stick the link there.  The main issue is that we don't have anyone who's really a specialist on PHA who has the materials to expand this article.  I've got a few books by Walkes, but he was by no means the only PHA researcher out there. MSJapan (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Context Tag
It is unclear from the first paragraph whether this is about an institution, a philosophy or an offshoot of free masonary. It simply needs an introductory sentence written in lay terms. Maustrauser 02:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What's unclear about "Prince Hall Freemasonry' derives from historical events which led to a tradition of separate, predominantly African-American, Freemasonic fraternal organization in North America."? MSJapan 22:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Try reading the policies on writing articles - inflammatory unsourced statements are not the way to go about things. You are transposing later history back onto 1775, which is inappropriate.  Leave the article as-is until I can pull some material from Walkes' Black Square and Compass to clear some of this up. MSJapan 02:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, let me rephrase that: your rewrite was inaccurate with respect to the rest of the article. Did you read the article at all before you changed the introductory sentence, or is that what you think happened?  1775 is not the same as 1813, and the split had nothing to do with racism at the time, as you imply.  Source it, and discuss it first, and then maybe it can go in in a less inflammatory form. MSJapan 02:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, haven't you heard of "assume good faith?' I have nothing to do with free masonary.  I know nothing about it.  I cannot understand why you think I am writing inflammatory material?    I am a professional editor by trade and I simply try and improve articles which I come across that I cannot understand.  I read the entire article and it is confusing and difficult to understand.  It assumes large amounts of prior knowledge from a lay person.   In my edit summary I asked if I had got it right - I didn't ask for a punch in the nose.  I am re-instating the context tag, as the article is unclear. Maustrauser 02:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hard to assume good faith when the edit is wholly inaccurate. Being a professional-level editor myself (though not by trade), when I see something I don't think sounds right or is hard to understand, and I don't know anything about it, I don't touch it until I can fact-check with someone who is knowledgeable in the area, or until I find enough research on my own to support a change that I think might be correct.  I therefore find WP:AGF hard to follow when someone who knows nothing about the area and confesses to such, rather than discussing an edit, makes said edit, and it is wrong.  Talk pages exist to prevent the very thing you are doing: if you elucidate exactly what it is that you find unclear, we can discuss how to fix it.


 * For example, you say it requires prior knowledge; I'm sure you know at least that Freemasonry is a group of some sort. If not, there's a Wikilink to the article; that's what Wikilinks are for.  Prince Hall is defined in the article as an African-American version of Freemasonry -  as long as you know that Freemasonry is a group, no knowledge of Masonic content is necessary for the purposes of this article.  The "historical events" that led to the formation of Prince Hall Masonry are laid out in the article.  Therefore, if you want an assumption of AGF, you need to explain exactly and specifically what the issue you have with the introduction is, and why.  For example, let's start with why you think the article assumes foreknowledge. MSJapan 03:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Regularity
Many State Grand Lodges do not consider Prince Hall Freemasonry regular in any way. I have removed this from the opening. I will do some research and post references if they are needed. I'm not an avid wikipedia user, but I am a Freemason, and the Grand Lodge in my State does not recognize Prince Hall Masonry to be regular or legitimate in any way. The State's Grand Lodge has supreme authority over Masonry in that state, in the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.49.141 (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2006


 * I'm flat out disagreeing here with the comment that MANY do not, and citations already exist in the article. 38 out of 51 US Grand Lodges Recognize their PHA counterpart.  Recognition != Regularity, and vice versa.  Grand Lodge of France (GLdF) was Recognized by a number of other GL's, and was deemed by them to be Regular as well, in the 20th Century.  However, some Mason split from that GL, and got sponsorship from the United Grand Lodge of England, and became the French National Grand Lodge (GLNF).  Most GL's in amity with UGLE Recognized this GL, but SOME also Recognized GLdF at the same time.  This shows that Recognition and Regularity are not, and never have been, the same, as does Kent Henderson's book Masonic Guide.  --Vidkun 17:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The United Grand Lodge in England recognizes Prince Hall Freemasons. That is all that matters. I am a Past Worthy Matron and Past Grand officer, PHA. -- Avid reader 06:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, is it that simple of a statement? Has the UGLE recognized every individual US PHA GL?  I looked at the list on the UGLE's webpage, and it looks like the answer may be yes, sort of, based only on those who are recognized by their counterpart GL.  I know my GL has not recognized every US PHA GL, not even all of them in the states where they are already recognized by their own state "mainstream" GL.  It's a sad state of affairs, and one of these years, when I manage to attend a GL session, I will try and introduce legislation stating something similar to what Br Paul Bessel lists on his blanket recognition page.--Vidkun 14:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As of 1994, yeah, UGLE recognizes PH Masonry. But why isn't that particular fact included in the article?  It was only a little over a decade ago that PH Masonry gained recognition from the Grand Lodge in England, so it seems grossly inaccurate (intentionally so) to pretend that this has always been the case.Exxoskeleton (talk) 09:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

---The opening of this article states that Prince Hall Freemasonry has ALWAYS been "regular", and I really doubt that that's true. In fact, it seems out-right fraudulent and apologist. While PH Freemasonry may be fully recognized today, this does not mean that it has "always" been, and no source is provided to add credence to that claim.Exxoskeleton (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Except that regularity is self determined, really. Next question?--Vidkun (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well then you'll need to go and edit the article for "regular", because it states:


 * "Regularity is the process by which individual Grand Lodges recognise one another for the purposes of allowing formal interaction at the Grand Lodge level and visitation by members of other jurisdictions."


 * That doesn't sound "self determined" to me. This is total revisionist nonsense.  It seems that a couple of white Masons are uncomfortable with certain aspects of the organization's history and want to make it seem like Freemasonry has always been "different", despite existing during both American slavery and segragation.  The neutrality of this article should be brought under dispute.Exxoskeleton (talk) 08:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to emphasize my point, the sentence that I mostly have a problem with is:

"Prince Hall Masonry has always been regular in all respects."

That's a very bold statement to make, not to mention way too generalized and simplistic. No source is used to back that statement up, and it also seems to contradict the "history" section of the article...So either add a source to back it up, or delete it. Exxoskeleton (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And here's a source which completely contradicts the above quoted statement in the article,


 * http://www.masonicinfo.com/racism.htm


 * It states that PH Masonry lost its recognition by UGLE in the early 1800's and that this recognition was not restored until 1994! It also states that there was no "recognition" between white lodges and black lodges in America until about the same time.


 * So considering that PH Masonry remained largely unrecognized until the 1990's, then how does the statement that PH Masonry has ALWAYS been "regular" in ALL RESPECTS have any credibility whatsoever? It's not just inaccurate, it's an all-out lie, and a rather offensive one at that.


 * Unless someone can provide a genuine source countering this, I plan on deleting that statement. Exxoskeleton (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Because regularity and recognition are not the same, and never have been, or there would be no examples of UGLE recognizing one GL in a South American Country, while another GL (that is ALSO recognized by UGLE) recognizes a different GL in the same South American Country. Look, for example, to Italy:  my GL recognizes the Grand Orient, UGLE recognizes the "Regular Grand Lodge of Italy".  So, which one is regular? Neither? Both? Either?  Welcome to the recognition != regularity issue.
 * Well then you'll need to go and edit the article for "regular" No, actually, I won't. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, so i don't have to make one article meet the definition used by another.  Not my job.
 * From the Report from the United Grand Lodge of England: "Prince Hall Masonry and the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts" - 3. By the standards of today, the formation of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts was irregular. In the 18th Century, however, three Grand Lodges in North America were formed by not three but two Lodges, and the Grand Lodge of New Jersey was formed simply by a Grand Convention of Masons. By standards then prevailing, the formation of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts could have been seen as merely eccentric, and of acceptable regularity. --Vidkun (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This only further proves my point. Based on the source which you just quoted, it would seem that PH Masonry's regularity is disputed, and that is not what it says at the beginning of the article.  It states that PH Masonry has "always" been regular in "all respects" as if it were FACT, rather than some Masons' opinion/interpretation.  What are you having trouble understanding about this? Exxoskeleton (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If it proves your point, then it could be used to state, for example, that the Grand Lodge of New Jersey wasn't considered regular. Is there more to your point? Did the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts consider itself regular at its founding? Yes, therefore, under the idea espoused by Henderson, cited below, it was regular. Next question?--Vidkun (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That one little sentence that you're so vehemently defending provides no useful or factual information....It's just your opinion. Not only is its accuracy debatable, it's also overly generalized and vague.  If the issue of PH Masonry's is to be included in this article, then the issue should have its own section where the dispute concerning the issue can be elaborated upon accurately.  That little statement also completely whitewashes over the issues of race which have been a major part of Prince Hall Masonry's relations to other lodges.  This sort of historical revisionism has no place in an encyclopedia. I'm deleting that sentence from the introduction as it is disputable, vague, and unsourced, however, if you want to create a section or expand on a pre-existing one to cover the topic of PH's regularity, then go ahead; just be objective and cover all takes on it rather than just your own.  And use verifiable sources. Exxoskeleton (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the deletion, if you feel so strongly about it, however, I highly recommend you take a look at Help:Minor edit, because some would see an outright deletion of information as not minor.  Have a nice day.--Vidkun (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

For a further quote, from a reliable source, regarding self determination of regularity - ''WHAT IS MEANT BY REGULAR? Every Grand Lodge considers itself to be regular. This is a self-justified precondition for existence. However, this belief in itself which every Grand Body possesses does not necessarily extend to others. Each Grand Lodge has a set of written criteria or principles upon which it will entertain recognition. These principles are similar for all regular Grand Lodges. The following are the 'Basic Principles for Grand Lodge Recognition' adopted by the United Grand Lodge of England. Those of the Irish and Scottish Grand Lodges closely resemble those of England. from kent Henderson's Masonic World Guide'', Lewis Press, 1984.--Vidkun (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So Prince Hall Masonry has "always" been regular because they consider themselves regular? That's just stupid.  Exxoskeleton (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you think so, however, it doesn't really matter here, now does it? You're still missing the point, so let me shout it:  RECOGNITION AND REGULARITY ARE NOT, AND NEVER HAVE BEEN, THE SAME THING.--Vidkun (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The source quoted clearly states that they are different items. I've re-added the statement with source. MSJapan (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And what you've added is perfectly accurate. Saying that it IS considered regular by UGLE is far different than saying that it ALWAYS has been. Exxoskeleton (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:PrinceHallMason.jpg
The image Image:PrinceHallMason.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --23:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Racism in Masonry
Editors ought to start writing relevant material about racism in Freemasonry ; there would perhaps be no Prince Hall Lodges if Masons had not been against the admission of blacks. Thomas Jefferson, a noted sympathizer to Masonry, did own slaves, which did not prevent him from proclaiming the rights of man. Apart from this, there are notable allegations about cooperation between Masons and Ku Klux Klan. ADM (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't think it's that notable a topic. What can you say about racism in Freemasonry that you can't say about racism in America at large? And yes, there were certainly Masons who didn't learn the lessons taught in the degrees. :-( But again, why is that notable? Just because our ideal is to take good men and make them better doesn't mean that we're any more likely to succeed at it...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

W.M. (Serjeant) J. Batt
See section: The Grand Lodge of Ireland. Worshipful Master of Lodge No. 441, The Grand Lodge of Ireland, the military traveling lodge which was attached to the 38th Regiment of Foot with the British forces stationed in Boston was Serjeant John Batt. The Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry, Second Edition. Penguin, February 21, 2013. By Worshipful Brother S. Brent Morris, PhD, 33°. Google Books Retrieved: June 19, 2015. References to W.M. Batt are also contained in most Prince Hall literature. Tjlynnjr (talk) 02:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC).

Brady
Ín this edition the officer's name was

brady 174.251.65.82 (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * 174.251.65.82 (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He's been working 174.251.65.82 (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Cumbersome Sentence
The following sentence is cumbersome and could be made more clear and simple:

"Since they were unable to attain integration, the blacks concentrated on recognition from white Masons that, because black Masonry descending from Prince Hall of Massachusetts had received its charter from the English Grand Lodge, it was legitimate and not "clandestine", and was entitled to all Masonic rights, such as intervisitation between black and white lodges, without prejudice."

Its seven clauses, in my humble opinion, ask far too much of this sentence to maintain coherency, especially for average readers. As the topic is not my area of expertise, I didn't want to accidentally change any meaning by attempting to edit it myself. I would suggest breaking the sentence into multiple sentences. Also, the word "it" (in "it was") should perhaps be removed as it does not properly connect back with "white Masons that" two clauses back. In other words, in essence, "the recognition was legitimate," is better than "the recognition it was legitimate." But that's minor in comparison with the general unwieldy clunkiness of this overburdened sentence. Madscribbler (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)