Talk:Co-Freemasonry/Archive 1

message: To many, this page is controversial in & of the subject matter. Of course, addition & expansion is highly encouraged. With that said, may I suggest very carefully considering those additions, especial civility in edits & conflicts, & consideration of the possiblility of validity in other's edits. But hey, that's just a thought... Grye 02:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored an image that was removed without comment, and marked as a minor edit. I can't remember who removed it (was it you?) but I left a note on their discussion page politely requesting that they comment their edits and don't mark major edits as minor. No offence was intended. Fuzzypeg 11:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, I wasn't (didn't mean to be) critical of you, I added that comment for the betterment of the article. It has more history than is obvious. I created this article, actually, to keep the bicker down about women & the Freemasonry articles... But note: Co-Masonry (or Co-Freemasonry, whatever) is a very important distinction, & the use of the S&C here will be controversial. & No, it was removed by User:Bluebot. But like I said, I do agree with the removal, but I think there should be discussion & consensus, fairly weighed by all  ;~D  Grye 11:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: A statement was removed regarding the Lodge Libre Penseurs having closed because of opposition. The comment on the edit (by User:Grye) said that this statement was "Totally unsubstiated statement, & POV (there's a reason)". Perhaps you could tell me the reason? I can put in links to the various web-pages that give the same info; I can also look for the printed historical works that support this statement, but I'd prefer not to spend the time, and I don't really want to weigh the article down with excessive references for easily verifiable information. I'll try to put some time in to look the info up and make sure I'm correct, but if you (or anyone else) could tell me what I've got wrong, it might save me some time and trouble. Thanks, Fuzzypeg 12:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reasoning for that was the statement was POV, w/o any explanation: "but this Lodge had been forced to close because of opposition" - What opposition? It implies that it was because of some Landmark violation, in which case it is not opposition but simply "forced to close", Or else that the opposition was to every iota of the Lodge by pretty much everyone not involved with it, again for a Landmark reason? See, saying "I had my bank acct closed because of opposition" is POV esp if that opposition was the Bank's, for the author not paying their bills... Perhaps a clarity of the reasoning, with a link or so in such section in re it's history? Grye 13:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, the reason for the opposition was that their parent Constitution didn't want to allow them to initiate women. I thought that was clear enough from the article. Your point is that they were legally required to close because they were in breach of the landmarks? Perhaps you could try to word that, rather than just removing the statement. If you don't, I'll try my hand at it. Thanks, Fuzzypeg 13:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your right, I should try harder, esp considering how much time I (we) spend here talking...;~) But I know a lot less about this than you (apparently) do... Yes you are pretty much right, except that "legally required to close" would have to be put into layman's terms, as the legality wasn't in reference to any state (etc) law, but Lodge law. Grye 07:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libre Penseurs closing because of opposition 

message: Le Droit Humain is a cut and paste from this article I believe. I think it should be merged in and set up as re-direct. Ardenn 00:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it's a cut and paste, considering this article was only a few sentences a couple of days ago. :)  But yes, I agree entirely, they should be merged. At the moment I'm involved in intense debate over the subject matter that's already here, and I'd prefer to wait until that's settled a bit before I spend my time on other edits (such as doing a merge). But anyone else feel free. Fuzzypeg 02:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed [[Le Droit Humain]] Merger

message: I added a cleanup tag because it seems like we need an "Early years", a "English creation" , an "American creation, a "Schism"... or something in that order to fix the chronology properly so it flows better.  Thanks Wjhonson 03:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I left a message for the person who submitted the American Co-Masonry material, requesting them to clean it up. That was just after they submitted it; not hearing anything back from them I've just cleaned it up myself. Removing the cleanup tag. Fuzzypeg 00:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup