Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 22

message: Someone added this article to the Cryptohistory category... which as near as I can figure out is either another name for Pseudo-history or another name for revisionist history.  In either case, this article does not belong.  The history section here (especially after we moved the bulk of the section to History of Freemasonry) is all well documented fact and contains nothing that is either psuedo or revisionist.  For the moment, I have left the similar link that was put on the History article, since we do discuss some of the "alternative" theories in that article.  Blueboar 01:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cryptohistory 

message: An AFD has been started at Masonic Landmarks please read the article, review the talk page and give your oppinion at the AFD page. Blueboar 01:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI - The result of the AFD was "No Concensus". Blueboar 17:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD at Masonic Landmarks 

message: Since the talkpage was once again getting unwieldly, I've taken the liberty to archive inactive threads older than two weaks in Archive 21. WegianWarrior 06:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: See: Gold Pen of "Polish Freemason"
:Gave that article a quick polish over (no pun intended) to bring it up to speed.  I can see it eventually being listed for deletion as it lacks context, perhaps someone could rectify this situation with more detail? Jachin 04:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold Pen of "Polish Freemason" 

message: I notice that the interwiki links don't display, which means they don't really work (you can't see them unless you're editing, in which case the links don't work).  Is that supposed to happen, or have we got a problem somewhere? MSJapan 15:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki links don't display - is that supposed to happen? 

message: Can anyone tell me how new user User:Argusol was able to edit after the page was supposedly semi-protected?  Perhaps we need to have an admin check on the semi-lock? Blueboar 14:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A semilock means the article can't be edited from IP-adresses (non logged in editors) or editors who created their account less than 4 days ago. The user Argusol was created on the 4th of August, and is therefore able to edit the article. This is slightly worrysome - our old 'friend' might have gotten a number of 'sleeping socks' to use on sprotected articles. At least it keeps the open proxies out of the way ;) WegianWarrior 20:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi lock? 

message: The article includes in its first section this: "Grand Lodges and Grand Orients are independent and sovereign bodies that rule over the fraternity in a given country, state, or geographical area." What means "sovereign" here? What's the difference between "sovereign" and "independent" in this context? Could the word "sovereign" be removed without lost of meaning? "Sovereing" is linked to "Sovereignity" but that doesn't seem to help much. The entry Sovereignity refers to the sovereignity of countries so, the only deduction that seems logical if you want to extract some meaning is that Lodges try to be State-like, something that looks to me quite nonsensical. MJGR 11:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sovereign and independent are not synonyms. What is meant is that each Grand Lodge and Grand Orient is governed by themself and are not dependant on any other GL or GO. In short, both adjectives are needed to fully explain the state of affairs. WegianWarrior 12:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this context sovereign means that each Grand Lodge or Grand Orient claims the right to make its own rules and govern itself without some other GL or GO telling it what to do.  In Masonic terms, it is JUST like the Sovereignity that countries have.  Each GL or GO is "state-like" in that they have the right to change their rules and regulations, determine what the ritual should be, recognize other masonic bodies, etc without reguard to other GLs or GOs ... The US and the UK are Sovereign in world affairs... The Grand Lodge of New York and the United Grand Lodge of England are Sovereign in Masonic affairs. Blueboar 13:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sovereign 

message: From a book review by Wallace McLeod, published in The Royal Arch Mason Vol 24 no. 2 (Summer 2006) on Haffner, Christopher. Workman Unashamed: The Testimony of a Christian Freemason, Hinckley, Leicester: Lewis Masonic, 2005.  Revised ed.
"In June 1986, the United Grand Lodge of England removed the traditional penalties from the obligations in the Blue Lodges." (p. 52)
If we don't want a third party source, this should be reflected in the UGLE Transactions/Proceedings for the year. MSJapan 16:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what would we be looking to demonstrate from it?  Just the fact then it could be demonstrated from the book and corroborated from the transactions, it would be useful if the book mentioned why they were removed from the obligation.  The penal signs still apply though.  It is potentially of interest, if we can establish the reasoning, I can't remember clearly myself, but that was about the time that several of the church reports were being completed.ALR 17:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what I can tell you is that McLeod says what he says to give the reader some hisorical context; the revised book was due to ritual and other changes in Masonry since the original publication of the book.  As a note McLeod, also says that the Irish Presbyterian and Scottish Baptist reports were somewhat favorable -- that means there's another report we need to find, and that perhaps the Scottish report we have is not accurate, or there was a newer one. MSJapan 19:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating on removal of penalties in England 

message: I reverted here, because of the following items:
*The commentary on the Papal ban, added to the section relating to Freemasonry accepting Roman Catholics, is out of place given the reference.  That reference does not comment on the ban at all.
*In Mexico the 1920s government, mainly formed from those adhering to irregular Freemasonry, outrightly persecuted the Roman Catholic Church and all Catholic faithful openly defending the Church. this section had no citation for any of its claims.
*The section beginning "However these numbers are said to be speculative and irreliable." is redundant, based on the statement "While the number is not accurately known", and come across as protesting too much.
*The Winterhilfswerk commentary is cited in the provided references.
--Vidkun 15:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  my recent reversion 

message: This article was mentioned briefly in the latest issue of Northern Light, the magazine for AASR NMJ. MSJapan 00:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting... 

message: An editor recently added a link to a lodge in Manatoba, Canada, and to the Grand Lodge of Manatoba, these were then removed with the comment that they were link spam... While I don't mind the deletion, I'm not sure the comment is completely accurate. I would agree that we don't want links to local lodges, (I might make an exception for a VERY notable lodge (ie a lodge that played a key role in the grand sweep history of the craft at large... something along the lines of Kilwinning #0 and such) but I would certainly set the bar extremely high for inclusion on that score.  As for Grand Lodges... we already have UGLE, GL Scotland, Ireland and NSW... is Manatoba all that bad?
Blueboar 19:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, where does it stop?  I think we need to decide which ones are key to the article, and which are not, considering we have a GL list elsewhere on WP, and act accordingly. MSJapan 19:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd go for trimming the external links down to things that key as well.  The "Home" Grand Lodges at most, in terms of links to outside orgs, and articles ABOUT freemasonry, not about specific GL's.  But I agree, maybe my tagging it as link SPAM was a little harsher than it needed to be.--Vidkun 19:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah... What got to me was the edit summary calling them "link spam"... it did seem a little harsh.  That said, MSJ makes a good point... Where do we draw the line?  I would agree that UGLE, Scotland and Ireland should be linked (as they are the "founding" GLs)... and I suppose we could add any GL site that had a particularly good format or info (especially if they say something important that is not found on other GL sites)... but beyond that, I agree that we should discourage such links.  With that in mind, is there a reason to keep NSW as an external link? Blueboar 20:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You mean  my Scottish Lodge ;)  It needs a lot of work, I started it and haven't been able to find my copies of Lee Kerr or Ness to do some more work on it, plus the fact both of them leave something to be desired in terms of their reliability.  Ness more with repect to recent history whilst Lee Kerr is typical of the 1890s.  FWIW I'm a joining member there, it's not my mother lodge, but I did make my mark there.ALR 21:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So your the one who put all that graphiti all over the lodge room walls! You should be getting the bill for that little bit of vandalism soon, ALR ;>) Blueboar 21:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links vs. link spam 

message: I removed the following addition to contemporary challenges, as I find it very interesting that all of the internal links in the paragraph point to articles created by the same author, who added this text in the first place:
"Many Grand Lodges in the U.S. have tried a variety of, often-controversial, measures to address declining membership. These have included "one-day ceremonies" of all the three degrees for large groups of candidates, (as opposed to individual degree conferrals taking months or years to complete); advertising on billboards, and even active recruitment of new candidates by members, (as opposed to the tradition of considering only those who actively seek membership for themselves). Some Masons object to the traditions and principles of Freemasonry being diluted by these changes, feeling that the Fraternity has survived centuries of social change without changing itself; others cite a need for Freemasonry to modernize and make itself relevant to new generations. Fairly recently, several organizations such as the Masonic Restoration Foundation and the Knights of the North have advocated Traditional Observance (TO) lodges or European Concept lodges, seeking to strengthen Freemasonry from within by returning to traditional practices."
Do we feel that this text is useful or necessary?  There's a lot of weasel words, no citation, and frankly, I think that the premise that Freemasonry has never changed is fallacious in the extreme.  Therefore, I'm not sure that this paragraph adds any value to the article.  It works like cheap publicity, and will confuse the casual reader with irrelevant Masonic minutiae. MSJapan 03:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there is no need for this.  There have been lots of different ideas presented as to how to address the challenges the Craft faces in the present, and the direction that Freemasonry should go in the future... and there is no concensus on any of them (indeed, there isn't even concensus as to what the challenges are, much less how to fix them).  To get into these issue in a broad focus, "this is Freemasonry" article is a side track that will simply confuse most readers.  Perhaps these issues might make the start of a "Freemasonry in the future" sub-article or something along those lines... but they don't fit into this article. Blueboar 12:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TO/European Concept Lodges 

message: There isn't any information about the books published by the Masons and their strange form of shorthand  Is this in another article?  I couldn't find anything.  I have a copy I could scan to add some pictures to the article--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, you lost me.  What strange form of shorthand?  I assume you mean the cipher used by some US Grand Lodges (Texas and Alabama I think) to challenge the retention skills of the candidate in learning the ritual, but I don't know of anything else which might be described that way.ALR 17:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could the original poster be meaning the Pigpen cipher? I guess that could be seen as a form of shorthand... WegianWarrior 17:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's what I think we would call an "old school" cipher.  I've got one that I believe comes from NY (don't remember offhand), but I know not all the US states used them. Entire words weren't in what we would call shorthand, but rather were illustrated by symbols.  I don't really know what useful info would be gained by analyzing cipher, though, because there's again no standard system.  Frankly, I think we've said all there is to be said, although we could point out that we are not the only group to have ritual books, cipher or otherwise. MSJapan 18:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. You wouldn't happen to know of any online description? Codes and ciphers is another of my interests, in part due to my work. WegianWarrior 05:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well that's an obligation.  Doesn't look like shorthand per se to me, and I'm not convinced that it justifies an entire article.  It's just a method of obfuscating the content, and it makes it tougher to learn it properly.ALR 21:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually on further investigation it's not a Masonic ritual.  It looks like a quasi masonic body, The Essenes.  If you dig through the images there is a title plate.ALR 21:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, it's not a quasi-masonic ritual book... It's legit.  It's what we in NY call a "Masonic Monitor"... Created by the Grand Lodge of New York to aid in memorizing the ritual (Essenes being outdateed code for Masons).  I can not tell from the sample how out of date it is. Various editions were printed from the 1880s up to the 1970s, as GLoNY made changes to the ritual.  They now use a different format.  For the most part the "code" is skipped vowels, with symbols for a few things (a rectangle to represent the word "Lodge" for example.  The truely "secret" stuff (the signs, words, etc.) are either left blank or represented by a bunch of asterisks, while the "Public" stuff (such as the explanations of the working tools) are written out in full english.  The rest (ie the stuff in code) is usually considered as "guarded"... not part of the secrets, but to be discussed with caution. Blueboar 12:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An addendum... Having taken a second look, I have to change my comment to say that it MAY be a legit GLoNY cipher book... there are definitely a few things which are different from modern ritual.  I note that the title page indicates that it dates from the 1870s... the differences could be due to changes in the ritual between then and now, or it could be that this is from an irregular offshoot (ie a pseudo-masonic organization).  In either case, one should not rely on it to understand current practices or rituals. Blueboar 15:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publications 

message: I believe that the WP policy regarding British (or Commonwealth, even) vs. American English says the following:  one, that whatever the article is written in, it should be consistent, and two, that unless an article is specifically about a Commonwealth-related topic, Commonwealth English is not to be taken as the only correct form of English used.  Every once in a while we seem to get into these little spelling tiffs.  I personally don't care which we use, as I can  write either way, but can we settle on one style or the other and then leave it alone? MSJapan 03:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On an unrelated note, it looks like we got some new wiki buttons to edit with which might make some tasks easier. MSJapan 03:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In my defence I changed the spelling whilst doing another edit, because I noticed it wasn't right.  Just because you colonials insist on using spelling that's visually jarring.....ALR 07:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problems either way for me either.  I can misspell words in both forms of English. :>)  I guess it comes down to which is more common for this article (ie do we have more American or British editors)? Blueboar 12:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Queen's English here.  Can't do the colonial jibe even if I tried.  :( Jachin 06:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note about spelling.... 

message: User 24.68.248.210 deleted the following citation: 
*</ref> While the number is not accurately known, it is estimated that between 80,000 and 200,000 Freemasons were exterminated under the Nazi regime.Freemasons for Dummies, Christopher Hodapp, ISBN 0-7645-9796-5, Hungry Minds Inc,U.S., 2005. 
This anonimous user states that "Freemasons for Dummies is not an acceptable source for this claim. The claim appears nowhere else, there are no primary sources listed and Freemasons for Dummies contains no notes." in his edit summary.  I disagree.  FM for Dummies is a reliable published source under WP:RS, written by a known masonic scholar. There is no doubt that many Freemasons were killed in the Holocaust... the only question is the numbers.  The statement makes it clear that this is an Hoddapp's estimation and not claimed as an accurate number. Add in the fact that this comment is contained in a foot note and not a statement made in the main body of the text, and I see no reason to delete it. Blueboar 13:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS.... given the nature of the edit (denial of Holocaust claims) and the IP address (see: User:Lightbringer) I do have to question the good faith of the edit.  Note that the page was recently unprotected. Blueboar 13:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Masonic Scholarship is an oxymoron. Masonic Scholars, like Hoddapp, claim Freemason built the pyramids and originate in the Sirius Star system, that Jesus was a Freemason, and the King Tutankamen was Moses, who is actually Hiram Abiff. Hoddapp, as well as other Masonic "scholars" provide no, zero, nadda references or notes for their bizarre claims. Where did these 200,000 Freemasons come from, Mars? The German Grand Lodges only had 60,000 members and not a single one of them was arrested, because they were all good little loyal nazi supporters of Hitler. The section goes.24.68.248.210 12:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes... Lightbringer shows his stripes. Blueboar 13:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just like to point out that if Lightbringer was to have read the book that he claims is unreliable, he would find that not one claim he believes to be so-called "Masonic history" above was in said book, nor was any of it in Morris' book.  Do you see what happens when you believe everything you read, and you don't read the right things?  Heck, I'm surprised Lightbringer's not claiming the world is flat and everything revolves around the Earth; I mean, those things were said before someone else said Earth was round and everything revolved around the Sun, so clearly they must be correct, because they said it first.  By the same token, mercury is the cure for what ails you, and cocaine is good for you. MSJapan 16:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone else think it would be a hoot if one of those NASA space probes that is just moving on past Pluto suddenly bounced off of a crystal sphere (TINK!) and proved that Aristotle was right all along?  Or is it just my own weird sense of humor. :>) Blueboar 18:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Besides, everyone knows King Tut wasn't Moses. Akhenaten, on the other hand... --SarekOfVulcan 18:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, from what you gave as the diff, the current revision seems to have what was taken out in the prior, and I don't see any other edits at all that would pertain to your comment.  Are you sure you tagged the right diffs? MSJapan 16:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's amazing how the post-birthday bash brain mistakes a + for a -.  :(  Thanks brother, I .. am begining to wonder what other comments / edits I've made in the past 24 hours.  Keyboards should have breathalysers attached.  :P  Jachin 06:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust and Freemasonry for Dummies