Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 11

message: I am not sure about the accuracy of the following line (added in one of the more recent revisions): Originally Lodges were local, consisting of Masons regularly meeting at a fixed place, and so living within the town or area. 
From what I understand, many of the very early Lodges were somewhat ad-hoc affairs, with no fixed meeting place or regular schedule of meetings (except, perhaps an annual meeting on one of the two St. John's days).  Fixed meeting places (ie always meeting at a particular tavern, or in a particular member's private home) developed a bit later (say around 1700).
Certainly, in conjunction with the rest of the paragraph the statement seems misleading.  It seems to say that "location based" lodges (ie lodges that pull members based on their residence in a given location) pre-date "situational based" lodges (lodges that pull membership based on a common connection of some sort, one not based on location).  I would disagree with this.  While some early Lodges pulled membership from a given local area, others were formed by men who knew each other from a particular social or business circle.  These men often traveled great distance to attend meetings.
Perhaps I am being confused by the verb tense... the first sentence is in the past tense, while the rest of the paragraph is in the present tense.  Perhaps a better way to say this is to drop the word "Originally" and instead say: "Many Lodges are local...."  Thoughts?
Blueboar 15:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the context I would agree that 'Originally' is inappropriate, since the preceding paragraph implies 'Original Speculative' Lodges.  If we mean Original, and support the argument of Operative origins for the craft, itself open to debate, then yes the Original Lodges were local, developed around a particular location of work.  On balance I would say that the word is misleading.ALR 15:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have changed the language to present tense.  This seems to flow well, and makes it an accurate statement. Blueboar 16:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to rv some nonsense, and your edit may have been lost (I saw this after the rv).  Please re-edit if it is indeed missing. MSJapan 07:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem MSJ.  My edits were not lost ... but, as long as I was checking, I took the oportunity to work on the section a bit more. Thanks for the heads-up.  Blueboar 13:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lodges 

message: Please take a look at the article on Comacine masters and my comments in the related talk page.  I am thinking that it should be deleted as unverifiable, but I thought I should ask here before starting the process. Further comments can be made there. Blueboar 15:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comacine Masters? 

message: I have amended detail with respect to Mother Kilwinning in the History section.  Note that the situation with Kilwinning at the formation of GLoS led to a schism where Kilwinning continued Warranting Lodges in competition with GLoS.  I will detail the schism in more depth in due course.  Note that I am a member of MK0 so once drafted will request a confirmation with resepct to POV.ALR 15:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mother Kilwinning No0 GLoS 

message: The page will be gone due to copyvio, as all it is is a c/p of the second paragraph of history from the official Sciots website.  Furthermore, I still think the Masonic affiliation is questionable, as it is a social club that only exists in a few states.  I really think we're going to need to break out a few new categories and remake the list somewhere else other than in this article.  I think we need a new List of, with Masonry, Appendant Bodies, Youth Groups, Masonic Research, Social Clubs, and Other, and maybe the list won't be so contestable. Questions, comments, and flames welcome to varying degrees (was that a pun?)  MSJapan 11:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sciots 

message: Just as a quick note, if someone vandalizes or spuriously edits the page, whoever does the rv needs to post the qappropriate warning to the user's talk page.  Otherwise, they get a freebie.  There is a list of warning templates on WP:Vandalism, IIRC. MSJapan 19:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This probably relates to me... since I just edited out someone's single line vandalism.  Please be patient... I am trying to learn as I go, and have not yet figured out the templates thing (nor a host of other wiki protocals).  Feel free to cover for me until I am up to speed. :>)  Blueboar 19:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When dealing with vandals and experimenters 

message: The present revision says that "In Italy, the illicit and irregular P2 lodge has been investigated." This is at least imprecise or vague, at worst wrong. The P2 lodge was simply a covered lodge (not 'illicit') of GOI (Grande Oriente d'Italia), probably the greatest regular masonic organisation in Italy. This is what can be read in an historical page of the GOI site. The GOI itself expelled Licio Gelli ("Grand Master" of P2 lodge) only at the end 1981, after some months from the discovering of the famous '1000 members list' in his villa. The P2 lodge is considered 'illicit' only by the subsequent italian law made by governament. --Marcok 09:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For a short period of time, Grand Orient of Italy was considered the regular GL by UGLE, but that changed 17 April 1993, I believe.  I will check Henderson, because I believe he lists it as recognised by UGLE, and I also believe there is some historical info on the de-recognition online, as I have seen it. Ed King's webpage:  http://www.masonicinfo.com/p2_lodge.htm refers to GOI as recognised by UGLE, however, I believe Ed should reword that to say at the time recognised by UGLE.  I will email him and say so.  I will continue to research this.--Vidkun 18:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  P2 and critics 

message: Prince Hall Masonry moved sections. However it is a Grand Lodge group, not another degree. Hence put back in the Grand Lodge section. Skull 'n' Femurs 17:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prince Hall moved (and back)

message: is this bad? can we do this on the main article when there's another "main article", i.e. Main articles: Prince Hall Freemasonry? Even leaving in the wikilink & text for Main articles: Prince Hall Freemasonry right underneath, for clarity? It think it might  really  help with the diligant attention spent on those other articles. Grye 02:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Prince Hall Freemasonry]] 

message: Fixed order and Links codes in the Notes section. Skull 'n' Femurs 20:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes Section on Main Page

message: I've just removed an external link going to the above mentioned place, because I think that a website that describe itself as a conspiracy discussion board, with the stated goal to engage in collaborative discussion and debate on a broad range of conspiracy, extraterrestrial, secret project, government agency, and other alternative topics, can hardly be considered a verifiable source for an encyclopedia. WegianWarrior 04:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WegianWarrior, I'll second that Skull 'n' Femurs 08:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The discussion on HY has attributable references.  One may not think much of a number of the references, but they are there and recognised.  The thread in ATS was conjecture and opinion with no attribution and nothing to indicate verifiability, it also lacked any appreciation of the complexity of the international situation.  A fragment of alleged ritual and ill informed hypothesis without adequate foundation does not add to the debate here.ALR 15:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: http://economist.com/diversions/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1489200ALR 20:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External link to AboveTopSecret.com

message: the square and compass have much symbolism and the meaning is general and there is a degree of masonry which teaches this meaning to those who are intiated into the order, this should be revised.
f1r3r41n 17:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: comment placed in wrong topic area, ignoreALR 18:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since these tools are by far the most recognized symbols of Freemasonry, I do think they need to be discussed.  However, I do agree that we should do so in a generic - non-ritual manner.  I would use them as an example of how the tools of an operative Masons art are used by Freemasons to teach moral lessons.  For example, we could state that the Square is an emblem symbolizing rectitude of conduct ... which is not secret. (oops, forgot to sign my comments, sorry,  Blueboar 17:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  well said boar
f1r3r41n 20:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ritual and Symbolism

message: You know where to go. A little help please. Blueboar 16:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did what could be done. MSJapan 18:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to have helped... for now.  Thanks. Blueboar 18:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And now I notice that our favorite non-word has been restored as a Wikipedia Article! Blueboar 18:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what non-word are you talking about? im curious to know, and ill help where i can
f1r3r41n 01:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert war at Wiktionary 

message: Freemasonry page is a complete mess due to extreme POV edits by a group of Pro-Masonic editors who seem inable to distinguish between Masonic fallacies and Non-Masonic Scholarship. Will rewrite page to bring it up to Wikipedia standards.Jimmy James 12:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved this comment by Jimmy Jamesto the bottom of the list where it belongs (in addition to his POV edits, he did not follow the rule about puting new topics at the bottom of the talk page). Blueboar 14:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tut, tut. Past the wine to left Brother... Skull 'n' Femurs 14:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that rule was only for port? Blueboar 14:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ant port in a storm! I say.. golly good edits Brethren, what what... Top hole! Skull 'n' Femurs 14:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Up against 3rr - (and I have to run errands - life beyond Wiki, you know) I pass it to skilled hands.  Be back later.Blueboar 14:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Re-Edit