User talk:Trevor W. McKeown

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Dear : Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:


 * Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Community Portal
 * Frequently Asked Questions
 * How to edit a page
 * How to revert to a previous version of a page
 * Tutorial
 * Copyrights
 * Shortcuts

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes. Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advise, please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~&#126;). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD!

William Guy Carr - copyvio
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as William Guy Carr, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. For more information about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, take a look at our Five Pillars. Happy editing! --Nanouk 23:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Freemasonry and the Spanish section of the 1st International
I read your remark "Although the plumbline, level and circle all have their place in the symbols of Freemasonry, there is no historical reason to associate Freemasonry with this crest or the organization." with dismay. It is very clear that there was substantial involvement of Freemasons in the First International, documented by such people as Boris Nicolaevsky, "Secret Societies and the First International," in The Revolutionary Inernationals, 1864-1943, ed. Milored M. Drachkovitch (Stanford, 1966), 36-56. It is well known that Bakunin was involved with Freemasonry, and that he sent Fanelli to Spain. Perhaps the evidence is inconclusive, but to say there is no reason flies in the face of the evidnce.Harrypotter 13:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Boris Nicolaevsky does not claim that Bakunin was a freemason, only "indicating" that he was "connected with the Philadelphians" -- without providing citation or telling us what he means by "connected". If he knew him to be a member, he should have said so. [p. 56] He makes no claims in the cited text that there was "substantial involvement of Freemasons in the First International". He writes "Official masonry in France was never a factor in the formation and development of the First International" [p. 37]

Nicolaevsky writes "Outwardly, these groups had the form of a masonic organization and bore a masonic name, the Lodge of the Philadelphians (Loge des Philadelphes). Some of the members may in fact have considered themselves masons. But veteran masons, those, who headed the lodges, must have realized that their lodges had little in common with real masonry." [p. 38] He goes on to say "They did not maintain organizational ties with official masonry either in France or in England" [p. 39] and describe it as "one of those secret societies which outwardly imitated the masons but which were essentially conspiratorial political organizations." [p. 40]

In the same book you cite can be found a paper by Jacques Freymond, who writes :

"In a study of the IWA published 16 years ago[8], we said it was impossible to know whether Freemasonry had had a hand in it. Subsequent research has not resolved the question." [p. 7.]

[8.] Jacques Freymond, "Etude sur la formation de la Première Internationale," Revue d'histoire suisse, Vol. XXX (1950), No. 1, pp. 1-45.

The Order of Memphis was an opportunistic and short-lived body. The Loge des Philadelphes was a political club. These groups called themselves masonic and members of these bodies, or other recognized masonic bodies, may have participated in the First International. But to call these men freemasons without defining the term is a willful distortion of the evidence.

You claim that it is "well known that Bakunin was involved with Freemasonry". What kind of Freemasonry? When was he initiated? What lodge was he a member of? What masonic jurisdiction was it warranted by? Personally, I'd be happy to add Bakunin to my list of famous freemasons if those questions were addressed. Trevor W. McKeown 03:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As wikipedia describes Freemasonry as "a fraternal organization whose membership has shared moral and metaphysical ideals and — in most of its branches — requires a constitutional declaration of belief in a Supreme Being. The fraternity uses the metaphor of operative stonemasons' tools and implements . . ." I am not sure of what relevance your discussion of a "willful distortion of the evidence" has. As for the Order of Memphis being short-lived, The Rite of Memphis-Misraïm include it as a stage in their history. Their opportunism is not really a suitable matter for discussion here, outside of concrete issues. As for the Philadelphes they have a distinct wikipedia page - quite rightly to my mind. The questions you ask about Bakunin and very inetersting, and indeed I would also like to hear any knews in this area. If the popular conception that he was a feemason is unfounded, that would be very interesting, however I suspect the truth is that he may never been involved in regular freemasonry, but followed in the wake of Bounarotti and Blanqui in using Masonry as a cloak for their politcal conspiracies. Of course many people may deplore such activities, but this does not mean they do not take place.Harrypotter 17:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

To recap: I claimed that there is "no historical reason to associate Freemasonry" with the IWA. You responded : "there was substantial involvement of Freemasons in the First International," citing Nicolaevsky. I quoted Nicolaevsky demonstrating that he does not support your claim.

The involvement of freemasons does not imply or demonstrate the involvement of Freemasonry. The terms "Freemasonry", "freemasons" and "the freemasons" are often used, interchangeably, for different purposes. A regular freemason will generally use the terms to describe regular recognized Freemasonry and its members. A non-mason or member of an irregular, clandestine or self-styled masonic body will often extend the definition to include any body styling itself masonic. A casual reader may mistake a reference to one of those bodies or its members as a reference applying to regular Freemasonry. An anti-mason will take a such a reference to an irregular, clandestine or self-styled masonic body and apply it to regular Freemasonry. Without, in context, defining the terms, the vagueness of meaning render them irrelevant if not valueless.

The question must be asked, what is the purpose in describing an IWA logo in masonic terms. The symbols--the level, the circle, the plumb--are common to many philosophical, political and religious iconographies and appeared on many non-masonic trade guild crests and arms. Why single out Freemasonry? Was the illustrator a freemason? Was the decision to use the logo made by freemasons? What is the relevance of their masonic membership? Was the group influenced, motivated or controlled by freemasons or Freemasonry? This is certainly the unspoken implication.

I withdraw my labeling of the Loge des Philadelphes as merely a political club, although its political reason d'etre and irregular origins qualifies it, at best, as fringe freemasonry. As an aside, the Wikipedea entry for the Philadelphes--not detailing its French origins, organizational structure or rituals--is very incomplete.

By quoting the Wikipedea entry for Freemasonry: "a fraternal organization whose membership has shared moral and metaphysical ideals" you make my point for me. To identify the Loge des Philadelphes, or the IWA, or Bakunin, with Freemasonry is to imply that their morals and ideals, and organization, are shared by regular Freemasonry. And this is demonstratably not the case.

A distinction must be made between Freemasonry and freemasons. While individual freemasons--in the loosest possible sense of the word--may have been active in the First International, this does not imply or demonstrate any association with the larger body of Freemasonry. I have added the word "regular" to the footnote you originally objected to.

Speaking of which--do you know what happened to the image link? --Trevor W. McKeown 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Concordant vs. appendant
I think we may be dealing with non-standard usage, or you may be in error. At least in my jurisdiction, we call AASR, York Rite, Shrine, and OES appendant, and I don't think we use the term "concordant" at all. The thing is, all of those groups save OES require sponsorship by a member (who is also a Mason) to join, and JDI, DeMolay, and Rainbow (among other "relation"-based groups, or at least how they started) require a Master Mason to be an advisor, and as a matter of fact, those groups are often quite literally sponsored by Lodges. So I fail to see how the terminology draws a distinction. I will look into this, but I'd like to see a source on the difference between appendant and concordant. MSJapan 14:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My use of the term concordant comes from such English masonic scholars as Henry Leonard Stillson, and W.J. Hughan. You're quite right, American usage is to refer to all these bodies as appendant.


 * In the United States the use of the term appendant seems to have first been restricted to those orders conferred as appendages of the Knight Templar degree, but has since expanded to refer to all bodies "in amity".


 * In England the term concordant seems to have first been restricted to the Holy Royal Arch, after the declaration included in the 1813 Articles of Union but has since expanded to refer to all bodies "in amity". In official use it appears that both terms, appendant and concordant, are discouraged. They still style the Order of Eastern Star as adoptive but they also consider it irregular.


 * The use of the term adoptive to refer to those bodies accepting women or youth, once common, also seems to be discouraged perhaps because of its historical use in describing various irregular bodies.


 * In Canada, and specifically British Columbia, a distinction has tried to be made between those bodies conferring degrees and restricting its membership to freemasons--basicly the Scottish and York Rite bodies; bodies restricting their membership to freemasons or relatives, and bodies restricting their membership to freemasons or relatives but more focused on social, educational  or charitable pursuits than on solemn ceremonial. The distinction is unofficial, and debatable. The Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon has adopted a list of bodies with which it is "in amity" but it does not officially use either term, appendant or concordant.


 * "In the United States, various terms have been applied to the high degrees, such as appendant, appurtenant, concordant, supplementary, allied, associated, and finally, one that is descriptive but inconvenient: degrees for which the degree of Master Mason is a prerequisite. Some oppose the term high degrees, because they dislike the implication that the Master's degree is not the highest, but the name is simple and convenient and its long usage would seem to preclude any possibility of avoiding it" Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia, Henry Wilson Coil. Richmond, Virginia : Macoy Publishing, Revised 1995. p. 312


 * Coil terms the Order of Easter Star, Order of Amaranth, Job's Daughters and Rainbow for Girls as adoptive, but doesn't catagorize DeMolay.


 * I concede that appendant is the current accepted term, but I personally believe that it is far too vague. Trevor W. McKeown 20:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox
Hello brother, the sandbox is not the place for the article! You will never win a war with a bot so I reccomend you stop posting it! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance. I thought this was where I could edit a page and see how it looked before I actually created the page.
 * You had the right idea my friend! Here, let me create your own personal sandbox for you where you can edit and do whatever you please! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you already found it! If there is anything I can do to help a fellow brother out on here, please feel free to ask without hesitation at my user talk page. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Carr w.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Carr w.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC at WikiProject Freemasonry
This is going out to all active members of WikiProject:Freemasonry. We are attempting to determine the "consensus of the project" on an issue relating to categorization. Please see: WT:WikiProject Freemasonry and share your opinion. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Mwglbcy seal.gif listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mwglbcy seal.gif, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Mwglbcy seal02.gif


The file File:Mwglbcy seal02.gif has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)