Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 26

message: I have just noteced a bit of confusion in the third paragraph of the openning section ... it reads:
*Freemasons define Freemasonry as "a system of morality," using the metaphors of operative stonemasons' tools and implements, against the allegorical backdrop of the building of King Solomon's Temple, to convey what is most generally defined as "a system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols."
The confusion is that we open the paragraph with the qualifying attribution "Freemasons define..." but then use the Catholic Encyclopedia as a source.  I am fairly sure that this definition was also used in the old Encyclopedia Britanica article on Freemasonry.  This indicates to me that more people than just the Freemasons use this definition.  If so, do we need the qualifing attribution really needed?  Perhaps we can just say "Freemasonry has been defined as..." Blueboar 12:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing attribution - system of morality 

message: One thing that needs to be mentioned before we get into a re-write... this article is already VERY long.  We (those of us who have been working on this for the last few years) have attempted to deal with this by splitting off certain topics into their own articles, and summarizing things here.  I admit that not all of these related articles are as good as they need to be (The Freemasonry Project group has been concentrating on making this article the best it can be first) but they do exist and the intent is to improve them.  My point is that we want to shorten this article (if possible) not lengthen it. If you have interesting material to add, it might be better to add it at the related article instead of here (indeed it may already be mentioned).
For example... PM Anderson makes a very good point about adding Stevensons Book on the Scottish origins...  It is a very interesting book and does deserve to be discussed. But I think the place for that discussion is at History of Freemasonry.  In THIS article we simply want to simply give a broad brush outline of Masonic history so that readers who know nothing about the fraternity can get a handle on the basic structure.
So, before you add something, please check to see if it is not already mentioned in another, more detailed, sub-article... if it is not, please consider adding it to that article instead of this one. And If it has to be mentioned in this one as well, figure out how to summarize it. Blueboar 22:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see that it is mentioned there; I simply recommend a sentence and footnote mentioning 1597-8 and Scotland before the one about England. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good suggestion.  Thanks.  Are their any other areas that you see needing improvement? Blueboar 11:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK... I added a brief sentence or two to cover the existance of Pre 1717 lodges.  (at the moment they have fact tags as place holders for the citations ... I think the Stevenson book is good for Scotland and we can use a book that mentiones Ashmole's diary for England... I'll put the citations in when I get a chance.) Blueboar 11:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A general comment 

message: People, you know, as a medical doctor I am no stranger to the need for rigorous peer-reviewed science in reputable academic publications when it comes to dealing with life and death situations. I have looked through the various points raised by Awadewit, and I am frankly a bit concerned. This is showing an anti-masonic bias in his approach to the topic, and I see his attachment to peer-reviewed references (which are of course quite proper) is being applied in a didactic and at times openly biased manner against web information, established sources of knowledge. Awadewit - by all respect for the sensible changes being recommended - I am calling you on this. Explain please. Is this because you are from a life-science background as a major in English? Any other reason for your, at times irrational, insistence on rejecting perfectly good sources of information? docboat 00:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hesitate to call it an "anti" bias.  I think the problem is one of sourcing.  Generally speaking, any historical topic will be covered in books somehow and somewhere.  This does not, unfortunately, include fraternal organizations (not just Masonry, but IOOF, and so on). Even Scouting went FA on largely Scouting-created material and websites (check the refs), and I'd say we're a lot closer to and a lot more fruitful with that type of organizational sourcing than with third party uni press stuff.  I still maintain we're not going to find the material we have in anything but our own documents (also similar to company articles like Boeing.  So while I don't think this is a severe and purposeful bias, i do think that an over-reliance on paper goes a little against the grain of what WP allows to be done and with what. MSJapan 00:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. My POV about references is based on my daily use of referenced sources. While Awadewit may use such articles in academic papers for a dissertation, I use practical therapies and medications on a daily basis which are based on peer-reviewed and academic papers. In fact, I get BS on a daily basis as these articles are, for the most part, unreliable. Estimates suggest that only 30% of a doctors' activities are evidence-based, and there have been studies to suggest that due to selective publishing, skewed data, biased pre-study assumptions etc etc, that not one single (in this case SSRI for depression) drug could be chosen based on merits alone. And your life depends on these things sometimes. I am getting a strong sense of BS from Awadewit, and I was greatly disturbed by the additions to the correspondence in the last day. So I would still ask him to de-BS his approach and explain himself. He is not talking to amateurs or dillettantes here. docboat 01:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assume Good Faith here folks.  I see Awadewit as playing a useful "devil's advocate" roll here.  We do rely heavily on Masonic websites and, to someone who does not know the topic as well as we do, that can raise questions.  We should check to see if there are hardcopy "accademic" books and papers that we can use as sources.  I doubt that we will be able to substitute all that many... but we should do so where we can.  Let's not dismiss Awadewit's comments out of hand... while he is (in my opinion) overly strict in his definition of a reliable source, his criticism and comments are focused on making the article better. What we really need are a few more non-involved reviewers.  If they make similar comments then we know Awadewit is on the right track... if not, we can take his comments to heart, but with a grain of salt. Blueboar 11:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - consider Good Faith assumed, and searching for more references! docboat 13:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerns

message: I note that the "synopsis" of obligation ties from Obligations in Freemasonry is being added.  That section violates WP:SYNT.  I know, because I was part of the team that wrote it in the first place.  It has problems with WP:V and WP:NOR beyond SYNT as well.  I have suggested that it be cut in that article, and object to it being included in this article. Blueboar 15:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i have taken the parts of it that i feel can be merged and merged them.  The rest I feel are just a list of things that might happen are are not encylopedic. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a list of things that "might happen". It's a list of things that do happen without being specific about which degree they happen in. GlassFET 15:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be much better as a paragraph as opposed to a bullet list. Take a look at my change. MSJapan 16:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MSJ - I am not sure if all of the ties you mention appear in all three cited rituals.  ALR may be able to check this, as I think he has all three (Emulation, Bristol and Craft rituals). They are common to US rituals, but that is OR without verification. Blueboar 17:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression we were dealing with them as a group as opposed to individually.  Well, just tag it for now and ask ALR to look at it. MSJapan 04:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind... I see now that we are no longer trying to state that these are common to all... but instead "may appear" ... which, to me, means that if a tie is in at least one of the cited rituals we can include it if we wish. Blueboar 12:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, n/p. MSJapan 17:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding synopsis of obligation ties