Talk:Masonic Landmarks

message: If Harrypotter is going where I think he may be going with all of this... he is definitely getting into Original Resarch territory. My thinking on this is based on a few comments that he made above....
*"... And there has yet to be any serious discussion of the role of revolutionary freemasonry in the International Workingmen's Association, which will also of couse link us into the very contraversial figure of Mikhail Bakunin."
*"The information contained on a wikipedia pagelinks other pieces of text, from which people may infer facts or events existing outside language. I would further argue that the distinction between original research are the difference between relying on publisjed sources and unpublished ones, institutional denoted by the separate organisation of archives and libraries."
This leads me to two conclusions... 1) his goal in creating this article is to some how link the IWA to Freemasonry (which would indeed be Original Research).  And two, he is using his own personal interpretation of what constitutes Original Research.  If I am correct, I would advise him to carefully review WP:NOR - especially the section entitled "What is excluded?".  If I am incorrect, then I appologize.  However, I still would have to ask: Where is all this going?  At the moment it is indeed just a list of landmarks... which is not, in itself, notable. Blueboar 17:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no interest in adding to the article, as I feel all of this is more fully dealt with in the other Freemasonry articles.  Adding one or two lines on the Grand Orient split does not make it less of a list... just a list with a few comments thrown in.  Newton and Pound just make the list longer.  I still don't agree that any of it is notable... But I will let you run with it a bit longer to see where you take it. Blueboar 02:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh goody... more listing!  Still not notable. Blueboar 14:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you could reveal what VSL stands for, the it would make the article truly notable!!!Harrypotter 21:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What, you mean: "Volume of Sacred Law"... ie the Bible, Quaran, Torah, Vedas, etc?  How would adding that make the article notable? It is already FULLY discussed in the main Freemasonry Article.  Or do you think it means something else? Blueboar 21:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That would be VSL as discussed in the Freemasonry article already.ALR 10:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research? 

message: Given that (without the list of landmarks, which does not pass muster under WP:NOT) everything in this article is more fully discussed in the other Freemasonry related articles... is it time to post this article to AFD? Blueboar 18:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support that.ALR 18:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can not speak for the other editors who are in favor of deleting this article... but I can tell you why I am not contributing... all of this information is already fully discussed (and better discussed) in other articles such as Freemasonry, History of Freemasonry, Anti-masonry, Catholicism and Freemasonry etc. etc. etc. Blueboar 22:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I can also reveal why I am not editing this article, and will vote for deletion if an AfD is raised: as it stands today it's mostly listcruft, and if the listcruft is removed the subject is well covered in other articles as Blueboar pointed out. In addition, there is no way this article, in the way it's laid out now, can ever be complete. WegianWarrior 22:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That has to be the silliest reason to ask to keep an article I have ever heard... what does the Book of Proverbs have to do with Masonic Landmarks? Blueboar 21:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also... the link to the Proverbs citation bit did not work... per Wiki guidelines I have removed it for now... if you feel it is key to the article, please replace with a working link. Blueboar 21:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for correcting the link.  As for the bit about the word Landmarks being in Proverbs and being something that operative masons referred to... so?  the word is in common english usage for exactly those same reasons... It is a minor point that really tells us nothing about what makes masonic landmarks - MASONIC.  It is hardly a reason to deny an ADF motion. Blueboar 01:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid that it is the other way round, surely. It is claimed that it is the Masonic Landmarks which make masons masonic. I thought Percy made a very interesting remark, linking the quote from Proverbs to the definition of inheritance. Perhaps from your advanced knowledge all this seems trivial, but I am sure a more general querent would find the page of use.Harrypotter 01:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be mildly interesting to know that the word Landmarks is contained in Proverbs etc., but it does not make the article notable, or any less listcruft. Blueboar 04:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move for AFD? 

message: Improvement... the article is much less of a "list of lists".  However, most of the material is still more fully (and better) explained in the other Freemasonry articles.  Blueboar 12:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shorter version 

message: The tie to Proverbs is iffy at best - the reference is by no means well-known, and the statements made are by no means official statements, but rather personal opinion.  Once again we're leaning on Mackey and other individuals whose scholarly ability is questionable. MSJapan 21:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As there is such a broad range of opinion amongst freemasons, it is hard to imagine what value any so-called "official statement" might have. Of course, the whole topic has a speculative nature, in that the landmarks are figurative rather than actual blocks of stone located in a particular place. What makes the article a good start is that it is quite candid about how the topic developed. Of course  if we had a broader range of sources, poor old Mackey would be less strained by the weight of wikipedialeaning on him, but until some other sources come to light, then it is hard to see how this can be avoided -  he did after all do pioneer work as regards the topic.Harrypotter 21:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still needs work.... 

message: Did Mackey say Three or Twenty-Five?  The article is confusing on this. Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mackey 

message: Currently, the article states that 
*Joseph Fort Newton, in The Builders (1914), offers a simple definition of the Landmarks as: "The fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man, the moral law, the Golden Rule, and the hope of life everlasting."
This has been tagged with a "citation needed" tag, so I checked the source in order to formulate a more detailed citation... and while Newton does use the quoted phrase, it is not at all clear that he does so in the context of defining Landmarks.  Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newton's definition 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Masonic Landmarks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020409140135/http://www.srmason-sj.org/web/journal-files/Issues/Feb02/botelho.htm to http://www.srmason-sj.org/web/journal-files/Issues/Feb02/botelho.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The Later Interpretations section ascribes to Roscoe Pound six landmarks in language which differs somewhat from that of the seven quoted in a footnote citing the source. The quotation is accurate as far as I can tell; Google Books doesn't currently display p. 171 in full. Bn (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pound's Seven 

message: Do I have to be married in order to become a grand master 2603:6011:C942:4CE9:B5D3:517:48EB:D6A3 (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That said… since each Grand Lodge has its own rules that govern qualifications for Grand office… and there are hundreds of Grand Lodges around the world (thousands, if you count all the splinter groups, unrecognized pseudo Grand Lodges, and outright scam outfits)… I suppose it might be possible that there are one or two GLs that do require their GM to be married… however I don’t think it is a very common qualification. BUT… I do think that there are many jurisdictions where it is “expected”, even if not required. A long and healthy marriage shows character. Blueboar (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do I have to be married to become a grand master