Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 3

message: I'm really going to need to look into this.  Most people I know who are from or live in the UK do not consider themselves European.  Now, England is part of the EU, but they have not elected to adopt the euro as currency.  Given the ambiguity this causes, I would be inclined to leave England as a separate set of links.
Furthermore, as Freemasonry officially started in England (not Europe) I feel that it merits its own section for that reason as well. Thoughts?MSJapan 03:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: England/UK is physically located in Europe. If you're gonna do it by continent, then they're in there. Or each country has to have its own heading, which doesn't really make sense. -- Spinboy 03:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What about doing England/Scotland/Wales and then Europe?  It's not called "the Continent" for nothing.  Seriously though, geography aside, I think that all the UK links really need to be separate.  UGLE is a very important link as far as the article is concerned, and it's one of the few countries outside the US that has a lot of Masonic provinces; Freemasonry did not start in Hungary or Soain, and to put UK links in with the rest of Europe only makes them that much harder to find.MSJapan 16:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You either do it by continent for all, or for none. It's hypocracy to do otherwise. England/Scotland/Wales are all one nation called the United Kingdom, you may have heard of it. They have a common passport and national anthem, God Save the Queen. And the UK is physically part of Europe, thus if you're doing the links by continent, then it should be there. -- Spinboy 20:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree completely with MSJapan's concept.  The United Kingdom features too heavily in regards to Freemasonry to just lump it in with Europe as the continent.  That would be like lumping the Vatican into Italy when dealing with the Roman Catholic articles on here.  I say retain a United Kingdom links section then continental based for the rest. 211.30.72.208 18:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that considering England apart of Europe is a stupid "englinshish". England is politically, historically and geographically part of the Europe continent. —Claunia 02:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough Claunia, but would you say, in relation to Freemasonry, that England isn't of higher import than most of Europe when it comes to the organised fraternal brotherhood of F&AM?  After all, the British Empire, all it's colonies, territories, past colonies and past territories all answer to UGLE for their charters.  Apart from America, Japan and a few other places (a definite minority in the masonic world however) almost every Freemason walking this earth would consider UGLE of much greater import than even their own UGL.  211.30.72.208 21:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a freemason (still) so I have no voice in what you are saying, but, this is an encyclopedia for everybody, not just a freemasonry book, so it should atain to regular people's view, and for regular people, England is part of Europe, and is of no more importance (you know, relatively and fairly) than any other Europe country. —Claunia 04:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: However, I'm sure you would agree that in order to inform the general public about Freemasonry, we need to show what Masonry's history is.  In that context, the most important place in the history of Freemasonry is England.  Without the intellectual efforts that went on there that led to the creation of UGLE, Masonry would simply not exist (as Jachin states slightly differently and correctly below).  To therefore de-emphasize the role of England does a great disservice to those "regular people" who want to learn about Freemasonry, especially given the huge amount of tourism now being generated in Scotland at Rosslyn Chapel due to (disputed) Masonic connections.  If England, Scotland, and Ireland are "just countries", how do you explain that interest?  Short answer: you can't, and you punch a big hole in the facts as a result. MSJapan 22:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed, though we need to strike a balance (a la Spinboy) between useful and useless links.  Have you had a chance to do anything regarding that full-bore structural revision yet? The convo got archived, but it would be great if you could take that on. MSJapan 22:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  England is in Europe 

message: I say this because there are subheadings styles that appear nowhere else in the document, there are far too many dead links, and the first paragraph doesn't make sense at all.  Can someone see if a source exists for this section?  My only other issue is that I think this sort if information is very useful, and it would be a shame if it had to be removed.
Has anyone done anything regarding the new article structure I proposed and which is now archived?MSJapan 16:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  India section looks plagiarized.... 

message: I actually think the lodge links should be removed. Wikipedia isn't a links repository. -- Spinboy 04:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if UGLE is important enough, you can write an article on it, and link to it that way. -- Spinboy 23:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the national Lodges should be linked, as in other articles there are lot of links related to them, not just sources of information. About the regional ones, that should be included in separate articles as "Freemasonry in France" for example. —Claunia 04:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree on that, unless someone wants to write List of Masonic Grand Lodges or something like that. WegianWarrior 06:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the list a lot better, thank you. -- Spinboy 06:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to Lodges