Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry/Archive 1

Classification of articles
Some articles have been classified by me according to the scale found on the main page. This is not easy, however, and there are bound to be disagreements from what I've chosen for some articles. Please see the assessment page to discuss article rating. Oz Lawyer  18:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Administrators
If you're an administrator, please list your name as such on the participants page, so we'll know there's someone to check the vandalism section of the main page. If not, then there's not much use for it. Oz Lawyer  18:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm now an admin, so I'll be able to help deal with blocking persistent vandals. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What is in / What is out
Something we need to discuss and reach concesus on before we go too far... What do we include under the Freemasonry umbrella? What constitutes Freemasonry? If we limit it to UGLE recognition, it omits an entire branch of the Craft... and would lead to a lot of controversy about NPOV. On the other hand, do we accept articles about every single self-proclaimed Masonic body? Remember, just about anyone can claim to be Freemasonic... Do we include any group with aprons and an exposé of the ritual to memorize? What about co-masonry?

Here is my suggestion... First, I will remind those of us who are Freemasons that this is wikipedia, NOT a lodge meeting. Recognition and regularity do not apply here. As wikipedia editors, we MAY not take sides on the issue of recognition or regularity. Thus, we will have to apply the term "Freemasonry" to groups that we personally may not agree are legit. GOdF, Co-Freemasonry, Memphis/Mizram, The Ancient Accepted High Supreme Grand Lodge of the Mystic Vale of Masons... all are a form of Freemasonry when looked at from an encyclopedic viewpoint, and thus should be included under our umbrella... What we have to do is make sure that any issues of recognition and regularity are addressed in our articles. If an article relates to "mainstream" Masonry, we say so. If something is based on "Continental" Freemasonry, we say so. And, if an article relates to irregular or self-proclaimed Masonry, we say so as well. As for the real loonies ... such articles probably constitute vanity articles and should be deleted anyway. Comments? Blueboar 21:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am absolutely with you. I would like the scope of this WikiProject to include all masonic bodies and currents, whether UGLE-recognized or not.  As long as the subject is worthy of an article, and is in any real way Masonic, it should be included.  The UGLE Masons on Wikipedia will be editing articles on what they think are irregular Masonic entities anyway, so we might as well have them under the umbrella of the project.  This will allow us to keep tabs on unfounded statements made by both sides. Oz Lawyer  02:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd agree, and think that what your saying is consistent with the approach that most, not all, of the regular editors have taken in related articles.ALR 09:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Blueboar. A bit of help on the masonic Landmarks would be useful as they play such an essential part in the construction of regularity.Harrypotter 21:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't include associated forms of freemasonry, but I think we should make it especially clear exactly what bodies are recognized as "regular freemasonry." So far as I am to understand, Blue Lodge, York and Scottish Rite, and The Shriners are the "main" and "appendent" bodies of masonry. Main being the Blue Lodge, and the appendent being orders that are open only to Masons. The order of Eastern Star, I think, is the only known "ancillary" body that is not specifically youth related. For the youths, there are a bunch of others. I understand we are not in a lodge meeting, and it is important to put for an information rich view of masonry, but I think it is also important to emphasize what "regular" masons consider "masonry." TheGunslinger 04:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi from greece.Firstly i would like you to consider that there is difference being a mason from being a freemason.The masons where actually builders.The freemasons are symbolic builders.This is a detail that is not a secret of freemasonery but apparently nobody mentions it.The only real secret of ours is actually the tiler.The York Rite and the Scottish Rite are not the only rite in the craft.There is also Emulation(which is the combination of York and Scottish).Finally nobody mentions the "Standard Scottish ritual"(which is something like the York rite but slightly different). Iordanis blue 09:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Grand Lodges
I see there's a call for Grand Lodge articles. With that in mind, I created Grand Lodge of Idaho today. --Faustus37 21:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

List of WikiProjects
Guys, I don't see your project listed on the Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects. You might want to change that situation. 207.160.66.129 13:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I took a look at the Projects List page... I can not find a category that this project fits into. Blueboar 14:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was just going to ask where should we put it. It's so difficult to place it anywhere. └  O z L a w y e r  / talk  ┐ 15:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally I'd go for philosophy or culture, it could fit into religion but I'd be cautious of the connotations.ALR 15:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Where now it is: History and society > Social organizations Grye 07:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

AfDs
AfDs on Masonic Restoration Foundation and Traditional Observance Masonry started. I'm also considering an AfD on Dennis V. Chornenky and European Concept lodges and Knights of the North was prodded. All these articles cite very little save each other, and really look like advertising more than anything else in the hopes of gaining notice for the MRF and what it espouses. It would be great if everyone could look in on the AfDs and the other articles. MSJapan 23:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the EC article has the potential, it's something I've seen discussed elsewhere. tbh TO sounds like it tries too hard to not be EC so more likely to be a political issue than a credible alternative.
 * As I understood it EC lodges are regular (from the UGLE school of thought) but have a distincitive culture so probably justify being noted, as long as that can be substantiated. At the moment the article lacks authority though.ALR 07:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried to rewrite the article, but when I looked for reliable sources to back up the claims, there were none. The further fact that there are only about 22 of them in the world (most in Washington, DC) unfortunately makes this nn, and I have therefore submitted the article for AfD.  It's too much like an advertising vehicle for my liking. MSJapan 03:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Apendant bodies and degrees
I would like to draw attention to an issue that is developing at both the York Rite and Scottish Rite pages. The question being are we too US-centric?

As they are now, the articles tend to assume the US view of these bodies (understandable as they were written by US editors.) IE, that after being raised a brother can opt to join the York or Scottish Rites. Although these bodies are actually divided up into various sub-bodies (ie HRA Chapter, Cryptic Council, and KT Commandry for York Rite and Lodge of Perfection, Chapter of Rose Croix, etc. for Scottish Rite), we tend to join thinking of them as all part of one body and intending to take all of the degrees so we can become KTs or 32nd Degree.

Apparently, in other parts of the world (such as England), when a brother desides to take further degrees he does not think of it as joining the York Rite or Scottish Rite, he thinks of it as joining an individual Royal Arch Chapter or Rose Croix Chapter, etc. Often with no intention of taking other degrees.

At the moment, a few of our English editors are trying to re-word the two Rite articles to account for the differences between US and UK... at least structurally... which is a good thing in my opinion. However, it does Highlight the issue of how we deal with appendant bodies ... ie, is it best to explain all the differences and variations in the two Rite Articles, or would it be better to create seperate articles on the various sub-groups (chapters, councils, etc.)? Think about it and join in. Blueboar 23:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest individual articles for the sub-groups, but thinking about it, it seems that a lot of them might not be much more than stubs with an extra sentence or two added from what they currently are as part of the main Rite articles. Then again, if there are people as dedicated to the work as some apparently have been to a single degree, Knight Kadosh, then it might be workable.  It's a tough call.  I think I'd like to see separate articles at least for the different aspects of the York Rite, although articles for each degree in the Scottish?  Might be a little much. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 00:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't call me English! I just have to live here.  :) ALR 06:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

York Right's an excellent example: It has been well addressed, what with the dedication of some to the distinction between Templars & Freemasonic Templars. Those articles have matured reasonably well -I think.

Problem with the SR+ is, beyond "ancient history", it's pretty US-Centric, until later.

Personally, from a PR background, I feel that communication is central, from here, to Lodge, to the home, so I have, & am really really going to, concenrtate on that side of it, what with the wikiproject & Template(S), Vs. editing (& what ends up mostly being reverting ;~(

To address the subject, if there's communication</U>, then I'd say grow the articles, & when the US-UK+ POV becomes a significant issue, with comm, we can divide-&-conquor from there? Grye 08:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Masonic Architects
Having written an AfD on the theme of Freemasonic architects I would like to canvass for support and further information on this theme, notably links to any websites on architects who were Freemasons, information on how architectural movements like the Egyptian revival or neo classicism (mentioned in Anderson's constitutions with specific citation of Burlington as -vieing to be- the country's leading architect) were either influenced by Freemasonry, or were conversly influencing Freemasonry. I feel that connections between Freemasonry and architecture are well worth exploring although MSJapan is right ot say that the existing article is little more than a list of architects. However as the movement is based upon representations of architectural concepts (such as the five orders of architecture) then it seems far more appropriate to have a list of masonic architects than say politicians or jazz musicians and yet on the internet it is very easy to discover information about famous masons in professions which have no obvious bearing upon Freemasonry, but almost nothing about architects and the Craft hence the need for an article or sub-entry on this topic. Although many people have argued that Washington DC was built to masonic street plans the evidence is certainly debatable however according to the website of the Britsh Columbia masons there is a town in Ohio which is designed along masonic lines. My main contention would be that surely Freemasonry and architecture are worth linking and writing about on wikipedia precisely because Freemasonry is that peculiar system of philosophical thought that defines itself utilising architectural precepts, therefore Freemasonry and architecture (as, specifically designed by Freemasons) are innately connected. The article was intended as a stub and as a new user and contributor to wikipedia I understand that articles are deleted if they are not up to the mark but if I can't write the article then I hope somebody else can. bamboodragon 00:38, 30 October 2006


 * I think we need to pay attention to this... Not just because I have a particualar love for architecture, but becaus he's showing interest in an entire potential cat: Grye 08:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Memphis-Misraim/Ancient and Primitive
AFAIK, these were already merged. Someone might want to doublecheck it, though. MSJapan 02:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)