Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 19

message: Archived 20:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

message: I can't help but notice that there is no mention of the Scottish and York Rite. If I passed it up, let me know! :) Or if it is being discussed on another page, which one by chance? And shouldn't that be linked from here (or is this not the main page?)?  Zos 02:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Thank you. Zos 05:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rites 

message: Considering that :Image:Jahbulon royalarch.gif seems to only have been/to be used by Lightbringer, do we still need it? 68.39.174.238 03:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, but no articel seems to be using it though, its only on a couple of talk pages... 68.39.174.238 22:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then it's junk, and can probably be deleted. MSJapan 13:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I've archived old comments and finished discussions. If they're not finished, please start a new topic here, not on the archive page. WegianWarrior 05:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: :::::: Collusion is just pejorative term for 'collaboration one doesnt like.' Not really helpful. ALR, you mention a few interesting points about Masonic philosophy, and your familiarity with it in part and in general. What Im suggesting to you all is that the philosophy is far more interesting than any talk of organizational structure. Hence mentioning the organizational structure in the lede is contradictory to making the article interesting. We can start by asking ourselves which basic questions we would have about any organization, such as The Rotary Club, Scientology, etc. What originally brought these people together? 
:::::: What (in a "simplistic" nutshell) are their core values? What keeps the organization going? What has changed for better or worse? Where are the differences? Does the organization try to hide its differences or resolve them? It is far more uninteresting for Masons here to shy from making definitive general statements about their fraternity, instead of coming to some generic formulation with reasonably specific caveats. If there is no such core philosophy, state so. If there once was one and now there is none, due to internal dispute quelling efforts, say so. It seems that there is a comflict of interest in this article between the divided loyalties of Wikipedia and Freemasonry; this organziation has aspects of being a fraternity  as well—we are explainers who dislike obfuscation. -Ste|vertigo 17:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are obviously talented at explaining yourself and rationalizing your edits - including moving this section to the bottom. As the last has long been considered in bad form, I should also consider your edits to be as valuable as your explanation. -Ste|vertigo 21:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization of article 

message: There had been a link to "A Page About Freemasonry", the
world's oldest Masonic website.  When I checked again, it
had been removed.
> Links are generally reserved for sites that have significant
> content beyond the scope of an encyclopedia entry
This certainly describes APAF, a comprehensive site with
a large collection of articles and essays about Masonry,
book reviews, a guestbook, a letters column, and more.
The URL was formerly http://web.mit.edu/dryfoo/Masonry/
(which still comes up #1 on a Google search on "Freemasonry")
and is in the process of changing to http://MasonryPage.org/
24.128.169.142 17:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It will probably get back in there eventually, but in all fairness, we've got other more serious article-related issues to worry about ATM.  However, I will make a note of it for future reference. MSJapan 19:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace Link for A Page About Freemasonry 

message: I have been thinking about adding a "Common misconceptions" section to discuss in one place many of the myths and misunderstandings that we keep having to address peicemeal.  What to the rest of you think?  If such a section is added, what should be discussed and where should we put it? (my thinking is that it might go well either after the "organizational structure" section or before the "common criticisms" section.) Blueboar 12:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I wanted to discuss the idea before adding anything.  If done wrong, it definitely could become a lightning rod for the anti croud. We already do address many of these misconceptions in a piecemeal way (for example... repeatedly stating that "Freemasonry is not a Religion", or that there is no over arching "world grand lodge").  I just wonder if it would make sense to combine them into one unified section. Blueboar 17:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but at the same time, I think we'd have to subcategorize.  Not only that, a good portion of the article would be a chunk of the anti article, and I think we should try to avoid direct copying of material from article to article. MSJapan 17:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True... hmmm... let me think about this further, and if I can come up with something I like I will post it here so everyone else can rip it apart and tell me how silly I am being. :>)  Blueboar 20:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL :>)... I'm done (for now)... my goal is to cut more than I add... but that is not always easy.  Blueboar 22:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. PS to all my readers... For Bear read Beer (Sp). Sorry, and good night. Hic, pardon! :) Imacomp 22:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need a "Common misconceptions" section? 

message: Why does my disambig link to Freemasons (band) keep getting deleted? If I'm looking for that band and I end up here while there is an article about the band I suppose a disambig is more than justified, whether the entry about the band is currently an AfD or not. -mrbartjens 23:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was only deleted once, to my knowledge.  However, as it looks like the band is going to stay, we can put a link in.  The other problem is that this article suffers from unilateral reversion.  As I said to Dryfoos earlier, I'll keep it in mind, and I'll put it back once things stabilize. MSJapan 01:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are good reasons to delete such "disambiguation" links. 1) They arent disambiguation links - nobody is looking for any cheezy band called the "Freemasons," so theres no issue of disambiguation. Its therefore a hatnote, and its presence serves only to advertise something that nobody wants to see - ie. spam. 2) I cant tell you how absolutely annoying it is to look for an article on a serious subject (like God) only to find somebody has stuck some irrelevant or otherwise unjustifiably trivial hatnote on top. 3) If there is an issue of disambiguation, a simple  tag works quite well (though sometimes it needs to be just done by hand), then make a disambiguation page. Regards, happy editing -Ste|vertigo 17:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) Well, I was, and I know at least one person who was looking for it too. Just because you are not interested does not mean everyone else is not. 2) Does it matter how annoying you find it? As long as it is relevant... 3) Fair enough, as long as there is some sort of mention that this is not the only use of the term "Freemasons". -mrbartjens 23:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, thinking about it a little bit, what you need to do is change the "Freemasons" redirect page to a disambig, because the title of this article is "Freemasonry", and therefore it would not  be what somone would type in to find a band named Freemasons.  Basically, no matter what, it doesn't belong on this page - you're "fixing" the wrong thing. MSJapan 00:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha, I completely missed that. You're right. -mrbartjens 15:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: After a unilateral 24hr block (3RR) - I've formatted the links in the Introduction to a consistent format. This has in no way effected the content, or the http address directing any link. The work was done in one step - so revisionist editors may well start a revert war again? This positive work was done in good faith. Imacomp 16:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction Section

message: Do we really need the contmporary challenges section?  I don't think it's particularly useful for an encyclopedia, nor do I think we need to go into details about GOdF. MSJapan 22:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The bit about the abortive GL of the US was added by me... I have, for the moment, cited to Bullock's Revolutionary Brotherhood (which I am fairly sure discusses it, although not in great depth) and will look for an even better citation over the next few weeks. Blueboar 12:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok thanks Blueboar, the subject is out of my area. I have now upset the OTO bunch for changing that article. However FM has no link to that load of OTO/Crowley BS :) Imacomp 17:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I wouldn't say there is NO link... but it is a purely one sided one.  Crowley copied from Freemasonry's rituals and forms, and then added all his mystical BS. But your point is correct. Good luck with the OTO bunch... I may pop over and give you some back up. Blueboar 19:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Having just reviewed the edits in the OTO article I'd tend to agree with the editors over there, OTO ritual demonstrates a clear derivation from FM ritual, and that's all the introductory paragraph suggests.  Crowley was initiated, passed and raised etc, albeit in an iregular lodge, and he certainly used the experience to inform his work on OTO, in the same way that Gardnerian Wicca is clearly FM influenced.  I'm pretty certain that there is a membership crossover in some of the more esoteric orders as well, although it'd be difficult to find documentary evidence of that.  And tbh I don't see much wrong in civilised discussion in the OTO talk page, it might help reach a consensus.ALR 20:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Derivation is one thing... a formal tie is another.  LOTS of orders and fraternities modeled themselves on Freemasonry, but that does not make them Masonic.  It is similar to the complaints the Catholic Church made about the Carbonari in the 1870s... because some of the founders were Freemasons, and because it modeled itself after Freemasonry in its rituals... it must be part of Freemasonry and controled by Freemasons.  In other words, they make a one-sided tie into a two-way tie.  OTO does NOT equal Freemasonry. But this is an argument better made on the OTO page. Blueboar 20:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As an aside... I know I speak for all of the editors on this page (Masons and non-Masons alike) when I say: ALR, Good luck on the new business!  Blueboar 20:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou for the kind thoughts.  It's not much, I'm setting up on my own as an independent consultant.  It's going to be a busy, but challenging, time.ALR 21:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Thoughts 

message: "Most of those who suffered were Jews and Poles".
I'm changing Poles to Slavs as the statement is far too specific.
Crocodilicus 21:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK by me ... although, If someone wants to be specific, we could point out that the majority of Slavs who were persecuted by the Nazis were Poles ... In short, I would have no qualms about someone else reverting it if they feel the need. Blueboar 22:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If the people who died under the holocaust (every single one of them, not just the freemasons) were 'legaly executed' as you claim, why was the leaders of the Third Reich tried, convicted and executed for the Holocaust? The result of the Nuremberg Trials makes it quite clear that there was nothing legal about the killings of millions of people based on race, belief, politcal standpoint and membership in fraternities. Murdered if far more descriptive, and is indeed used in the main article on the Holocaust. WegianWarrior 07:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that the laws under which the genocide occoured were later decided to be illegal laws is not relevant.  The killings were done through a legal process, where the killings were ordered by the standing goverment, and carried out by the goverment's underlings.  It's the same reason why not all people involved in the holocaust were put to death.  If you actually read up on the Nuremberg Trials you will notice that nobody was tried who actually carring out the executions, only the people who were ordering them.  If it was murders, the people who were turning on the gas chambers would have been held accountable, instead since it was executions, the people ordering the executions were held responcible, not the executioner. Seraphim 16:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust