Talk:Sons of Haiti

Caution
This group has been dubbed "Bogus Masonry" (here). African-American Freemasonry is very fragmented, with splinter groups and self-created organizations popping up all the time. There are also scam artists using the good name of Freemasonry to rip people off (for more on this, see Fake Masonry). I do not know enough about the Sons of Haiti to know if they are a tiny but legitimate fraternal group using the Masonic model... or a scam... but the bogus charge makes me urge caution. We do not want Wikipedia to grant legitimacy if it is a scam group. Sources are scant... but we need to find out more about this group. Blueboar (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As mentioned, there is nothing on the Phylaxis Society's site to say *why* they're considered bogus... so I'm tagging this article for Freemasonry. Markvs88 (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, actually. http://www.thephylaxis.org/bogus/index.php -- "The Mission of this commission is to expose to the Prince Hall Freemason, Mainstream Freemason and the Public at Large those groups that cannot trace their lineage to African Lodge Number 459 or the United Grand Lodge of England, Ireland, or Scotland." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no proof there, just the point. Where are the pages and pages of proof that they are bogus? I mean, if we can demand it to prove notability, we can also ask for it to prove bogusity (lol!). Which also brings this up: http://www.zoserresearchsociety.com/pdf/DEBATES%20WITH%20PRINCE%20HALL%20PHYLAXIS%20SOCIETY%20MEMBERS.pdf . Is Phylaxis itself bogus? A good question. Markvs88 (talk) 02:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Pennsylvania ?
I have to challenge the statement that the Sons of Haiti have a presence in Pennsylvania ... or at least note that the cited source does not support the statement... While Bessel does say that there is an organization called the "Sons and Daughters of Haiti" in Pennsylvania, he does not give any indication that this Pennsylvania organization has any connection to the Sons of Haiti in Washington. I think someone is assuming that a connection exists based on similar names. Is there any corroboration? Blueboar (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Bessel is regarded as a legitimate source. I restored the Pennsylvania mention which had been deleted and added mention of activities in 3 other states, based on a different source.  This is a multi-state organization. --doncram (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Bessel is a legitimate source... but Bessel does not say that the "Sons and Daughters of Haiti" in Pennsylvania are in any way connected to the "Sons of Haiti" in Washington... you are assuming that they are connected because the names are similar. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you go through a whole bunch of pages on the SoH website, you see that they have Daughters of Haiti chapters apparently based on OES. Still doesn't prove a connection -- that website is as close to unusable as I've found in a while.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * So mentioning Pennsylvania is OR? If so, we should remove it. Blueboar (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This seems secondary to the AFD about this article. If this article is deleted, this discussion here is also deleted.  In general, proponents of deletion in the AFD should be careful about removing material from the subject article, too.  This quibbling seems unnecessary, at least for now, and seems a lot like arguing that NRHP-listed places named Masonic Temple have no Masonic association, elsewhere. --doncram (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is secondary... but it is also OR... and I don't think OR should stay in an article even if it might be deleted anyway. Blueboar (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I indented Blueboar's last comment, so that it reflects actual flow of discussion, while it had been outdented slightly by Blueboar. Blueboar, your common practice of unindenting partially seems unhelpful generally, like you wish to buck the practices other editors expect and follow.  Like driving on the opposite side of the road, it could be a convention to edit that way, but it is not.  Or it comes across as an assertion that your comments are more important than others'.  Usually discussion of this editing practice takes away from a content discussion, but since this is a tangent already.... --doncram (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But... but... My assertions ARE more important than those of others... (aren't they)? :>p Blueboar (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, seriously... I apologize for the indenting error. It's simply that I have never really cared about all of that ... I look at indenting as simply a way to separate one person's comments from another person's comments.  I will try to follow protocol but please forgive me if I forget again. Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh... Doncram, two editors have both told you that Bessel does not support the statement that the Sons of Haiti have a presence in Pennsylvania... and that to say so is Original research. Yet you stubbornly insist on edit warring to keep this bit of OR in the article.  I am not going to revert it again... but I strongly object to your behavior over this. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

New York?
Do we have any firm evidence to show that the Sons of Haiti have a New York chapter... The source that is included does include a thank you to the members of an "Abraham Lodge #1 (New York)" for helping prepare a newsletter.... but there is no indication that this lodge is part of the Sons of Haiti. They could well be brothers of a completely different and unrelated Masonic body, who agreed to help the Sons. I am not going to remove... but I think this is another case of assuming things that are not actually stated in the source. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have tried rewording... Thinking on this more, I would agree that the website implies that Abraham Lodge is part of Sons of Haiti organization. Blueboar (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

references, etc.
In this edit, editor Blueboar erases good expansion of several references to include author names, dates, publisher, etc., and to remove various copyediting improvements to the article. In the copyediting, i responded to above complaints which were generally about characterization of the group's activities in various U.S. states, with wording that avoids exactly characterizing the activities in each state. I believe the wording is entirely factual and is supported by references. Please do continue to discuss here if you must. I don't think it helps to edit war towards removing mention of the states in which this organization operates, in an article that is under AFD, and which you have taken a position already. Blueboar, why don't you please state your objection to the characterization in the AFD, if you do object, and leave it at that. Please. --doncram (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you mixed a few good edits in with bad ones. If you want to go step by step, I will be happy to discuss each one. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "States in which this organization operates"?... please... I have already stated my strong objection to saying they "operate" in Pennsylvania... and my questions about New York. As for Arizona and New Jersey... staying at a hotel and having dinner in a state does not mean the group "operates" in that state.  Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Just how big is this organization...
How big is this organization?... Here is what we know from the sources:
 * Bessel's list of Masonic groups tells us that they exist in Washington and Oregon (the Oregon group going by a different name). Bessel does not tell us how many chapters are in each state or how many brothers are in each chapter.  In fact, We don't even know if there are any chapters.  Bessel also lists a group with a similar name in Pennsylvania, but similar names do not imply a connection.
 * The organization's website thanks brothers of Abraham Lodge in NY for helping with a newsletter... it is certainly a logical deduction that this lodge is part of the Sons... but there is no clear evidence to support the deduction. Masons like to help each other out, and this could just as well be a lodge that belongs to some other Grand Lodge who did the Sons of Haiti a favor.
 * The organization's website contains pictures and video of annual events ... the 2009 and 2010 "events" consist of the same twenty or so brothers gathering at a hotel, having dinner with their wives and then having pictures taken in their regalia. The 2007 event seems to actually be in a lodge room... but there is no indication where that is or what is going on. It is also involved the same twenty men.

That is the total sum of what we know.

For all we know, the organization consists entirely of these twenty or so men. Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Prince Hall - bogus
Um... Prince Hall is recognized by the Grand Lodge of England... or rather some Prince Hall Grand Lodges are recognized and other ones are not. Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that makes things as clear as mud, doesn't it? Feel free to prove that PH's Phylaxis Society was one of the recognised ones when they named Sons of Haiti bogus. As you tell Doncram, please don't *assume*. Markvs88 (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ha! Yes... Masonic recognition is "clear as mud".... But there is no need to assume... there are histories we can rely on.  I suggest that you read Prince Hall and related articles to get some background.  Essentially it comes down to this...  at the time that the referenced commission met, all Prince Hall lodges were unrecognized by mainstream Freemasonry.  Since then, however, this has changed.  Now some PH lodges are recognized and others are not (and which ones are recognized changes from one Mainstream GL to another)  In other words, the criticism that PH is itself "bogus" was potentially correct (or at least an accurate expression of one POV) when it was written... but that criticism is no longer correct.  The commission's report is now used by mainstream Masonry when they need to figure out whether to recognize a particular PH derived group.
 * To try to make this clear... African American Freemasonry has had a long history of schism and re-schism... recognition issues aside, it consists of three broad groups: a) Prince Hall Grand lodges that can show a direct descent from Africa Lodge ... b) Grand Lodges that have splintered off from these "direct descent" Grand Lodges (some use the name Prince Hall... others have dropped the name) ... c) numerous Grand Lodges that have splintered off from these splinters (or are the splinters of splinters, etc), or were self-created out of whole cloth. There is also a fourth group to be aware of... scams artists who use the good name of Freemasonry to rip off the gullible.  The Sons of Haiti seem to fall into the third class.  They are a splinter group created when another Prince Hall splinter group had a legal dispute.  Hope this helps clarify the situation a bit. Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, I have to "prove" that UGLE does in fact recognize several Prince Hall Grand Lodges... please see this list of Grand Lodges that UGLE says they recognize. Blueboar (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you please put in a vote of Keep for the Sons of Haiti article at the ongoing AFD. Otherwise, i really do not understand your edits in the article and educational or other discussion here, which is only consistent with a Keep vote.  IMO it's time you made up your mind about allowing this to be developed, or not, in the AFD. --doncram (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is clear that I don't think this organization is notable... so of course I am not going to change my !vote. However, I am not going to just sit there and let inaccurate or misleading information be added without correcting it... especially with an AfD pending.  We wouldn't want the closing admin to draw any conclusions based on inaccurate or misleading information, after all. Blueboar (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Blueboar- Yes, I agree with most of what you say here. However, you have to prove that UGLE recognized the PH Phylaxis Society when they condemned Sons of Haiti as bogus. Otherwise, we have one (bogus) group condemning another group of being (bogus) and where does that get us? :-) (Well, it gets us having a multiple-POV article... which is of course allowed.) So unless you can do so, the point on the Zoser Research Society remains. Markvs88 (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That isn't how Grand Lodges work. No Grand Lodge recognizes Philaxis, because Philaxix isn't a Grand Lodge... Grand Lodges only recognize ' other Grand Lodges, not research societies. This is true in mainstream Masonry as well... For example, Neither UGLE nor the US Grand lodges recognize the mainstream inspiration for Philaxis, the Philalethes Society ... because it isn't a Grand Lodge''.
 * But this is besides the point... the issue here is that the Zoser Research Society (whoever they are) is incorrect in saying that UGLE does not recognize Prince Hall affiliation Grand Lodges, because UGLE itself says they do. At one time it didn't...  but times change and now they do.  I suppose it is possible that the Zoser statement dates from the previous era and is simply out of date... but in either case, we really shouldn't use it.  It is either unreliable for being demonstratively inaccurate, or unreliable for being out of date. Blueboar (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact... what do we know about the Zoser Research Society? We know they have a web site, but is there any reason why we should consider it a reliable source?   Blueboar (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your point on Zoser and will point out that even if you want to call Zoser a questionable source that "Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves" Verifiability. One cannot ask for sources about an organization and then pick which ones to accept, be they out of date or not. This dovetails with the "multiple points of view" I pointed out earlier. Further, the citations from both Zoser and Phylaxis Society help to prove the notability of this subject. Markvs88 (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * First... note that in this case we are not dealing with an "article about themselves"... since this article is about the Sons of Haiti, and not the Zoser Research Society. Also note that we are not using the source for material on themselves, we are using the source for material on whether Prince Hall is or is not Bogus.
 * Second... please read WP:NPOV carefully and in its entirety... and especially read the section on Undue Weight. We don't actually treat all view points equally. If the Zoser Research Society is nothing but a few guys with an unreliable website (as it appears they are)... then mentioning their opinion can give that opinion undue weight.   Looking at the soruce, they are not just questionable... they seem to be extreme and Fringe. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the best way to resolve this issue is to simply not raise the issue of legitimacy at all. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * To be clear, Blueboar is the editor who raised the issue of legitimacy in this edit October 6, his first entry to this article, in which he disputed the legitimacy of the organization, in mainspace, with reference to Bessel. --doncram (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Which begs the question: are *any* sources "good enough"? Markvs88 (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Donram, I think you may be confusing several different and distinct issues... the first is the issue of whether the Sons of Haiti are a legitimate fraternal organization or a scam. When I first raised this issue, I was unsure of this.  There are a lot of scams out there, and I was concerned.  I no longer am.  I am now convinced that they are not a scam, and that they are a legitimate fraternal organization.
 * The second issue is whether they are a legitimate Masonic organization. Personally, I think they may be.  But my opinion on that is irrelevant.  What is relevant is what reliable sources say... and in this there is a difference of opinion.  Certainly the Sons of Haiti consider themselves to be Masonic... they clearly describe themselves as such.  However, the Phylaxis Society, a well respected Masonic research society, disagrees... calling them "Bogus".  I think it is appropriate to mention both opinions on this issue, per WP:NPOV.
 * However, Markvs88 is interjecting a third issue... whether the Prince Hall Grand Lodges (which are completely separate Masonic organizations, not affiliated with the Sons of Haiti) are legitimate.  This question is actually irrelevant to a discussion of the Sons of Haiti.  It might be relevant in the Prince Hall article, or in a more general article on African-American Freemasonry, but not in this article.  Then toss in the fact that a) what the Zoser Reseach Society says is just plain wrong, and b) the Zoser Research Society seem to be nothing more than an unreliable website (with a distinctly commercial purpose), and I have a lot of problems with Marks addition.
 * He complains that I am removing sources that demonstrate notability... Not so... because neither the Zoser site, nor the UGLE site mention the Sons of Haiti (the topic of this article) at all. Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Except, of course, that the PH site calls SoH bogus, the Zoser site questions PH's bogus masonic website, and the UGLE may well call both bogus -- but then we don't know that since we're discussion Freemasonry and information is at best hard to find if not contradictary. As I keep trying to point out and you've touched on: it's not up to us to determine if SoH are Masonic/bogus or not. The article is absurdly well cited for a stub. My point was to show that if *other* groups are debating SoH that ipso facto they're notable. That's why I added BOTH the PH and the Zoser citations into the article. If you're going to question sources and remove the points raised in Sons of Haiti, I call upon you do delete EVERY Masonic article on Wikipedia because none of it by definition is verifiable to the same metric you seem to want to put on this article. That is, except for perhaps a few newspaper articles about the Shriners riding small cars or motorcycles in a parade. Markvs88 (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, Lets add up the problems with the Zoser website... 1) Fails WP:RS... 2) Fails WP:UNDUE... 3) Contains clearly inaccurate information... 4) Does not mention the SOH and so is irrelevant. Four strikes... it should be out.  And with it gone,  there is no need to mention UGLE.  Blueboar (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with Markvs88, including with the appropriate sarcasm. I did not and do not confuse the 3 issues that Blueboar asks about.  I do believe that disagreement among Masonic groups about their recognizing each other or not does seem to be notably important for mention in this article about Sons of Haiti.  And that removing mention of such disputes seems to be tearing out info that is part of the notability of this article under AFD.  Blueboar should comment in the AFD, perhaps, about his complaints about sources, but he should not edit war in the article to remove material that speaks to the notability of the organization, especially while the AFD is ongoing.  Thanks Markvs88 for your patience in dealing with this editor. --doncram (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, we should not base material on unreliable sources... but, I will not edit war over it. Since I feel that the entire paragraph after the reference to Phylaxis is not relevant to the article... I will tag it accordingly. This will allow those looking at the article from the AfD know that the issue exists. Blueboar (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I expect that I will remove that tag, when it appears, if someone else does not do so first. I probably won't comment again here.  As another editor has pointed out, it is daft to be having discussion at Talk page of an article that is under AFD.  It is, further, IMO, absolutely wrong for an editor (Blueboar) to be tearing down information in an article that is under AFD, where in the AFD he has taken a position for Deletion.  He should make his complaints in the AFD, but not seek to make the article appear worse.  Such edits appear to be a type of conflict of interest, made so that the AFD will more likely succeed in deleting the article. --doncram (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Doncram.
 * Blueboar: If I use your metric on the Prince Hall Freemasonry article, it is reduced from 3 citations to 1 -- Bessel (used twice). And your Wikiproject rates that article as a B. To which I say --- you've gotta be joking. As for your criticism of Zoser, it seems to only fail from your POV as 1) It is as reliable as any other Masonic website (one of the pitfalls of being a "secret society" I guess). 2) How's that again? We need sources to prove notability, but we're not allowed to have sources prove notability? 3) Great! Now we're getting somewhere, please specifically identify each piece you consider inaccurate and post counter points with citations showing them to be false. 4) By that logic, I couldn't call a prior court case to make an arguement either... all historical context ceases to exist (compare the VietNam War to the American Revolution? Sorry, we can't do that!), and Miranda rights don't exist in your world. Currently, I am looking through WikiProject Freemasonry and am dumbfounded how so many pages (like Grand Lodge of Scotland) can stand on 1 citation but a dozen here aren't enough. Markvs88 (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me try to explain again, I see three issues... 1) Relevancy... The Zoser Research Society's accusation that Prince Hall is bogus is only indirectly relevant to the subject of this article, as it does not discuss or mention the SOH... 2) Due Weight... The Zoser Reasearch Society (despite its fancy name) is nothing more than a website... and I would argue that it is one that pushes a Fringe viewpoint.  3) Accuracy:  The Zoser Society's statement about Prince Hall not being recognized by UGLE is clearly inaccurate, as we know that UGLE does recognize many Prince Hall bodies.
 * Any one of these three reasons is enough to challenge mentioning the Zoser opinion of Prince Hall in this article. All three together are reason enough to remove the statement. The statement is a) not directly relevant, b) giving undue weight to a Fringe viewpoint, and c) inaccurate.  Blueboar (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It's not indirectly relevant as it speaks to the legitimacy of source. You know, which is what you're doing in your second point. You don't get to play both sides of the coin: as I've already asked, you need to prove the Phylaxis Society document was written *after* the UGLE accepted their Prince Hall as legit. 2) Feel free to explain how/why it fails? Because so far it's "because Blueboar says so", which doesn't work. 3) It clearly cannot be considered inaccurate as the UGLE list you cite does not include dates of inclusion.
 * Except that I keep refuting them and you have been ignoring my requests for clarification. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * M objection isn't to what the Zoser document says about Phylaxis ... it's to what it says about UGLE... The Zoser page explicitly states:
 * "...yet UGLE considers Prince Hall Bogus, since 2002 their website shows that they do not recognize PHA."
 * Lets examine the facts... First... I can find no trace of a UGLE website in 2002... However, the earliest version found when we use the Internet Archive Wayback machine (here) is dated only one year later. And we discover that UGLE already lists multiple (17) Prince Hall Grand Lodges as being recognized. The fact is... UGLE had recognized the PH Grand Lodge of Massachusetts in 1996... and soon after determined that they would recognize any Prince Hall jurisdiction that was recognized by its "Mainstream" Grand Lodge counterpart.  While I do not know how many specific PH Grand Lodges it recognized in 2002, it clearly recognized several, and had a mechanism in place for further recognitions. In other words... at the time that the Zoser webpage was written... it was inaccurate.


 * You say I need to prove the Phylaxis Society document was written *after* the UGLE accepted Prince Hall as legit.... It took a bit of searching, but I think I can... this page (part of their "bogus masonry" project documentation) includes the information that in November 2004 the The Grand Lodge of Oklahoma recognized the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Oklahoma ... this means that the the Phylaxis document had to have been created some time after November of 2004... ie after UGLE had started to recognize Prince Hall... I hope this settles it. Blueboar (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with this point, also the first time the Phylaxis Society show up on the Internet Wayback machine [] is in 2007. Therefore I agree to your removal of Zoser as correct and thank you for proving your point. Markvs88 (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem... I hold others to high standards, and I don't mind when they do the same to me. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this article truly relevant?
It seems that this article is on a small and relatively unknown fraternity and does not seem to meet the definition of notible in my opinion. The information on the topic seems to be scare, which points makes me think the topic isn't important enough to warrant its own article. Pepe Oats (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that it is questionable as to whether this fraternity passes WP:ORG. Note, however that there was an AfD held back in 2010 that resulted in a Keep.  You can certainly start a new AfD (more than enough time has passed), but make sure that you read that earlier one before you do so.  Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to get on that. It'll require some writing but it'll probably be done in a day or two. This wouldn't be a concern of mine if there were actually progress in finding information in this article. Pepe Oats (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)