Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 27

message: Beyond the fact that any edit by lightbringer should be deleted as vandalism... I have taken a look at the two he recently added, and have decided to comment.  The first was to a Catholic News Agency report stating that the Italian Police are investigating several Masonic Lodges.  The article does not say what they are investigating or why.  The story might be of interest to our article at some point in the future (ie when we know what it is all about), but at the moment it is too premature to add it.  
The second is an interview by ZNET (which I will assume can be considered a reliable source?) with Father Manuel Guerra Gómez, an Anti-Masonic conspiracy author.  That, in itself, does not make it unreliable.  But if you read it, you will see that Fr. Guerra clearly does not know what he is talking about... for example, he states: 
::On the other hand, in the English-speaking world and in the northern countries, in Turkey, etc., it is not that they seek to gain power, they are the power.  
::Thus, for example, the sovereign of the United Kingdom is also the grand master of the United Grand Lodge of England, and of the more than 150 grand lodges -- one for every country, and in the United States one for every state. In 1995, in the United Grand Lodge of England there were 750,000 members belonging to 8,000 lodges throughout the world.
Exsqeeze me?  The last time I checked the sovereign of the Untited Kingdom was Queen Elizabeth II... Queen... as in a woman.  She can not be the Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England, since that body does not admit women as Masons.  If Fr. Guerra had done an ounce of homework on Freemasonry (and he claims that he dedicated many hours of study to the constitutions, rules and rituals of the different federations of Masonic lodges, spoke with Masons and ex-Masons in Spain and Mexico, and read books on Masonry by Masons and non-Masons), he would know that the Grand Master of UGLE is in fact her cousin, the Duke of Kent.  Getting this simple fact right would have been right in line with his theme of "Freemasonry is the power", but does he check even this little fact?  No.  But he does not stop there... he goes on to state that the Queen is also the Grand Master of every state Grand Lodge in the US as well (busy woman, ain't she)... need I go on. The interview is full of such nonsense.  I might be able to see this as a "it shows someone said it" source for something at the Masonic conspiracy theories‎ article... but definitely not here. Blueboar 23:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other links added by Lightbringer 

message: Is there a problem with making a category or list of confirmed (preferably self-identified) Masons? Preferably a category. Homagetocatalonia 14:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem at all... which is why we have already done so... see: List of Freemasons.  We require that you have a reliable source before you add someone, and limit the list to people who are notable, but the list is there. Blueboar 14:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Masons

message: Just curious, and realized someone here would probably know the answer ... which jurisdictions use the term "Grand Geometer"?  Blueboar 19:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not Geometer, sorry.ALR 20:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I Googled it, and most of the relevant hits are Wiki mirrors.  It may be archaic. MSJapan 21:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've heard it before, but I don't think it's actually in ritual, at least not significantly, more of an a.k.a in general Masonic lore... Grye 23:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is archaic, and only used in a few obscure texts or something, why do we include it in last paragrah in the "Ritual, symbolism, and morality" section?  The citation does not mention the term.  I don't mind the inclusion ... I just wonder why it is there in the first place.  Should we cut it? Blueboar 13:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have pre-empted you and corrected to Grand Geometrician .... a term we certainly use docboat 05:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting... which jurisdiction are you from, Brian?  Do you use it in place of Great Architect or in conjunction with that term? Blueboar 13:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's used in the second as an alternative, similarly there is a further term used in the third.  Wouldn't wish to go any further at this time.ALR 15:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry for the delay in answering - I am in UGLE and Scottish. We use GAOTU in first and GG in second openings, MH in third. How about yourselves? docboat 09:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of curiosity 

message: Where are we at the moment wrt references as per the discussion earlier? Any ideas for reformatting the article taking into account the suggestions? docboat 05:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure... we got sidetracked dealing with the Lightbringer Sock.  Personally, I am always on the look out for better sources, but have not had the time to do research recently.  Also, most of the criticism of how the article is referenced do not hold water with me (discounting GL websites for example)... so I have not been looking hard to find replacements.  Blueboar 13:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, quite .... but Awadewit did make some good points on principle - even if I do think he was trolling a bit. A closer look at the form of the article is in order - I would love to see the page reach featured article standard. --docboat 08:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Ref Blueboar's revert here.
To the best of my knowledge, no other rite than the Swedish is worked in the Scandinavian countries (ie Norway, Sweden and Denmark) by any regular Lodge. And I havn't heard about any irregular Lodges in Scandinavia either. WegianWarrior 15:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freemasonry in Scandinavia 

message: Freemasonry has attracted criticism from theocratic states and organised religions for supposed competition with religion, or supposed heterodoxy within the Fraternity itself, and has long been the target of conspiracy theories, which see it as an occult and evil power.
I think that throwing in the conspiracy theory bit is POV.  I'm not disputing the facts as presented but I don't think conspiracy theory isn't intrinsically linked to the religous opposition.  Maybe conspiracy theory should have a section though, but it would need specifics.  Meekrob 03:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources prove the fact. MSJapan 05:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the sources, religious anti-Masons usually fall into two categories ... 1) Opposition to the fraternity on "legitimate" theocratic grounds ... ie that Freemasonry is in some way incompatable with their religious beliefs.  The Catholic objection that Freemasonry (in the Church's view) promotes deism is an example.  Masons may disagree with the conclusion... but the allegation itself is rational, and based on the Church's interpretation of actual ritual.  2) Opposition to the fraternity on conspiratorial grounds... IE that Masons are engaged in some sort of conspiracy (usually involving devil worship).  This form of religious opposition is based on irrational fear of the unknown, and not on actual knowledge.  Most sources blend the two.  Blueboar 15:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Read the source first. MSJapan 05:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't assume it is false just because it is broad. If you look at the sources they back up the statement. Remember, this is not saying that Islam is anti-semetic... only that the Islamic form of anti-Masonry tends to be.  All that being said, I don't object to your edit. Blueboar 15:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religous Opposition

message: Islamic anti-Masonry is closely tied with Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism
It's such a broad statement that it has to be false on some level.  I'm going to go ahead and make the edit.
:Read the source first. MSJapan 05:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't assume it is false just because it is broad. If you look at the sources they back up the statement. Remember, this is not saying that Islam is anti-semetic... only that the Islamic form of anti-Masonry tends to be.  All that being said, I don't object to your edit. Blueboar 15:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Muslim anti-Masonry

message: The Signs, grips and words section contains the following: 
*"There is no evidence that these modes of recognition were in use prior to the mid-1600s when speculative members were first admitted to Lodges. The easiest way to determine an operative Mason's qualification was the quality of his work."  
While cited and probably true... I have to ask, why is this bit of information included?  It seems to be a bit of a non-sequitor.  the rest of the section talks about modern Freemasonry, and does not discuss operative masonry at all.  The two sentences in question seem to be a counter to an argument that isn't made.
To me, the point of the section is to explain that a) Masons use such modes of recognition and b) like the rest of the rituals and traditions, they are not universal but depend on jurisdiction.  Should we remove these two sentences? Blueboar 12:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having thought about it further, I am going to delete the lines.  Feel free to revert if you disagree, and we can continiue to discuss. Blueboar 16:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct.  This is a generic article, and I've suggested to Iordanis that it might be better in History of Freemasonry. MSJapan 17:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  signs grips and words 

message: As Meekrob has been AFK for five days, I went to WP:GA/R to relist the article, and it turns out Meekrob violated GA delisting procedure: he was supposed to bring up the issues so we could fix them before delisting the article, not delist the article and then bring things up afterwards.  I could probably go ahead and re-add the article as GA for that alone, but I've simply posted a notice on GA/R to get someone else's attention.  I suspect we will get the GA back, along with a list of concerns (maybe), but I can't let this sit here the way it is ATM, with no listing and no dialogue. MSJapan 20:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent - and what about the NPOV disputed notice? The only ones who recently disputed NPOV in this article so far have been those with a biased POV, or based on ignorance of the sources or facts. I would like just to remove the flag. docboat 02:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus was for the article to remain delisted. The discussion, now in archive, can be found here. Once the POV issues have been addressed, please renominate the article at WP:GAC. If you would like me to continue to help, drop a line on my talk page or draft page. Regards, Lara♥Love 16:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Laura, your contributions so far have been helpful.  Please do continue.  I have left a similar message on you user talk page. Blueboar 17:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: We've got a whole section on Anti-Masonry, and yet it wasn't noted in the lead.  I added a paragraph at the end of the lead to address that, so ti flows the same way the article is outlined. MSJapan 19:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you have created is a five paragraph mishmash that says nothing. It is the literary equivalent of a junk closet.Lestervee 19:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How so?  It tells you what Freemasonry is, when it started, how it works, how it's organized, and even covers criticism.  So, two questions: how does it not meet the requirements for a lead as stated, and what would you have it say?  We're going to discuss it before any major changes are made. MSJapan 21:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AND in it's current (ie; as I'm writing) form it follows WP:LEAD, an important guideline on Wikipedia. As the regular editors are working towards getting this article to be a GA and possible a FA, guidelines are an important thing to follow. WegianWarrior 21:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead... 

message: Under this section it links to Masonic Lodge Officers. I'm wondering if it would be appropriate, despite this main article template, to pipe link to titles. For example, Worshipful Master, Junior Warden, Tyler, etc. Comments? LaraLove 19:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would work.  I keep forgetting we can do that. MSJapan 02:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Freemasonry#Lodge Officers]]

message: After reading this article, I still don't understand what the point of the organization is.  The article has a lot on the history of it and what the requirements are for joining, but doesn't really have anything on what the masons actually do.  --74.14.36.60 20:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Charitable effort" section is a large part of it. MSJapan 20:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: a lot also has to do with the bit about morality - freemasons should do what can be done to improve the edifice of our being into a more beautiful moral structure. docboat 04:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, funny you should say that considering what you want to do with Plastic pipe systems.  Let's not start engaging in retaliatory editing. MSJapan 22:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are actually asking two different questions.  Both of which could probably make several sub articles to explain.  First... Freemasonry does not really have a "purpose".  But it does have different aspects that different members will think are important.  For some Freemasonry is purely social... its about getting together with a group of men you like hanging out with and enjoying the bonds of fellowship... a convivial few hours chatting and perhpas having a meal or a few drinks.  For others, the key thing is that its rituals teach and reinforce a code of somewhat old fasioned moral and social values and virtues, such as: faith, hope, charity, fortitude, prudence, temporance, and justice.  For some it is our charitable stuff... Masons give over a million dollars a day to charity and do a lot of hands-on charitable work in their communities.  And this is just the tip of the ice berg of what Freemasonry is.  In many ways, its purpose will be slightly different for each membper.  There is an old saying that Freemasonry's goal is "to take good men and make them better".  As for what Freemasons do... what every Franternal orgainization does... they have purely social gatherings: dinners, cocktail parties, dances with their ladies, outings to the local baseball park, etc. etc. ... what ever might be considered enjoyable by the brethren of the individual lodge.  More formally they have business meetings where they pay bills, elect new candidates, discuss what the latest charitable effort will be, etc. At some meetings there might be a lecture by either a brother of the lodge or a guest speaker... the topic is often on something relating to Masonry (say a discussion of the various theories of the Fraternity's origins) but it does not have to be.  And, of course, there are meetings to initiate new brothers into the fraternity.  Masons will also gather to perform community service, or hold a fund raising event for charity. That is what Masons do... or at least part of it... What masons do often depends on what the interests of the local lodge are.  In short... Freemasonry does not really have a set purpose, or DO anything that is definable in a brief Wikipedia article... Freemasonry isn't something you do... its something you are.  does that help? Blueboar 17:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it very much does.  I'm thinking back to my fraternity days in college...and realize that I already sort of knew what Freemasonry is.  That phrase you used, "to take good men and make them better", I suppose describes it perfectly.  I wish it had been in the article.  Maybe I should have simply followed the link to fraternal organization. Thanks very much.Iglam 12:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So what is the point? 

message: User:LaraLove has created a page (User:LaraLove/GA draft) with her comments about how we might improve this article to GA status... I have found her comments to be both helpful and interesting.  She comes to this as a completely neutral third party, knowing next to nothing about Freemasonry... which means that if she is confused by something we say in the article, so would be the average reader... and that means we have not done a good enough job of explaining the topic or sub-topic.  If you have not done so... please check it out. Blueboar 13:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't seen it, actually, but I'll take a look at it next week sometime, unless someone else wants to take a shot at it in the time being.  As a quick note, the lack of commas is a problem of the English style, so we need think about that after we sort this other stuff. MSJapan 14:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In case you have not seen it 

message: So aside from needing a total rewrite because it reads rather badly and goes into too many details while facts and near-trivia are laden about in strange orders(as mentioned above), I think that the "political opposition" part is... well, weak. For example:
"Even in modern democracies, Freemasonry is still sometimes accused of being a network where individuals engage in cronyism, using their Masonic connections for political influence and shady business dealings. This is officially and explicitly deplored in Freemasonry.[26] It is also charged that men become Freemasons through patronage or that they are offered incentives to join. This is not the case; no one lodge member may control membership in the lodge and in order to start the process of becoming a Freemason, an individual must ask to join the Fraternity "freely and without persuasion."[26]"
What? "they're accused of being more than what they say, but this Freemason page says they're not more than that!" Although there probably shouldn't be any all-too-specific pointing involved, a comment about how many powerful men have joined the organization is AT LEAST something that should be worked in. Yes, it's very much possible that they only come for the freemasoning; but the criticism needs to be explained so people know why freemasonry is being criticized. As it stands now, the oppositional voices are depicted as paranoid and/or zealous. Hardly a NPOV article. --81.216.111.196 21:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if you read the anti-masonic criticisms, they don't focus on the rich and powerful men who joined... they tend to harp on the fact that "a perfectly nice guy I know" was rejected.  In otherwords the charges of cronyism tend to be from the outside looking in.  They don't know why the "perfectly nice guy" (or they themselves) were rejected, so they assume it must be because they were not part of the "in" group.  As for mentioning that there were rich and powerful men who joined... statistically this is a very tiny minority.  The vast majority of Masons are "regular joes". Blueboar 23:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uh-oh! 

message: We have a section on other bodies and groups... which links prominelty to Masonic appendant bodies which in turn both discusses and links to the DeMolay article.  Do we really need to confuse the issue by discussing it here?  I have cut the section in question. Blueboar 15:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DeMolay 

message: Does no one think its strange that the only 2 presidents who weren't part ofthe free masons were assasinated. I do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.130.17.64 (talk • contribs) 
:Except that plenty US presidents weren't Masons.  Of course, this isn't the forum for such discussion.  I recommend you take it to ATS. Lexicon (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as a note, the last modern President to be a Mason was Gerald Ford (38th President), who was the next after Harry S Truman (33rd President), so there's four between them and at least four after Ford (up to the present time).  That's a bit more than two.  So yes, 81.30.17.64, clearly you're entirely correct in your assumptions about Masons controlling the US government, and being a Mason having a lot to do with being assassinated - Lincoln was apparently going to join after his Presidency was up, and Kennedy wasn't allowed to join because of a prohibition by the Roman Catholic Church.  Moving on... MSJapan 15:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to get the facts right... only 14 out of 42 Presidents were Masons (see this site for the complete list) ... and two of them (Garfield and McKinley) were assasinated (that's half of the assasinated Presidents).  It's sad when a perfectly good conspiracy theory does not stand up to facts.  Sorry to burst the bubble. Blueboar 15:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird 

message: Given the comments on the GA review, which I'd generally agree with, other then the evident personal issues, I've been thinking about how to take this article forward.  One thing that comes through is that the article is probably too ambitious and we probably need to scale back what we're trying to achieve.  In light of the range of subordinate articles which now exist then we can probably afford to scale back considerably.  that also gives the opportunity to move some of the GA issues elsewhere and deal with them individually.
In terms of process I think it might be worthwhile just baselining the extant article and leaving it as it is, working on a replacement in a sub-page.
My thoughts on where to go include:
*We need to stop pandering to the resident antis.  The opening paragraphs imply a hostile position with regard to FM, the point is made about over-use of claim.  I think we need to state a position, and we can highlight that this is disputed.  cf the FWBO article for similar issues.
*Stating a position that this article is about UGLE derived FM, we can take a strategic view and create a complementary article on Oriental.  I think a lot of the difficulty in understanding comes from the issue of regularity.  Given that we already have an article on regularity we transfer the issue.
*Applying some rigour about summary style and perhaps spawning a couple of additional subordinate articles to support that.
*In terms of sourcing it might be beneficial to exploit the Sheffield University output.  Andrew Preston is not a Freemason so is clearly independent, although he is probably one of the most informed academics in the field.
Thoughts?
ALR 08:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, I agree.  I have been thinking that we need a re-focusing and major re-writing for a while, but have not been able to figure out where to start.  I definitely agree that we have let this article become overly defensisve in tone as a result of pandering to (or trying to counter) Antis.  That does make the article seems POV.  We should focus this article on explaining what Freemasonry is.  Everything else can be summarized and shifted to secondary articles. Blueboar 13:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure ow to resolve some of the issues - everything you're bringing up is valid, but tends to put us into the "man-boy-donkey" issue, which is a problem.  It seems that every time a discussion comes up on this article by non-specs, the objections are different.  I think your second point might be a good place to start, because it's more easily solvable at the moment, and we should take a look at Sheffield, though I wasn't aware they had a lot of output.  May be worth looking into, but obviously with the UK caveat, unless their scope is larger. MSJapan 20:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If I could add my thoughts - the points made are spot on. Resolving some of the issues ... the main issues are two-fold. Firstly, the problem of writing an article well. The principles illustrated in Strunk & White are not generally known. Secondly, once the article has been re-written, how do you deal with POV bashers and religious fundamentalists whose principle aim is not to improve the article, but to discredit, deface and remove it. I would start with an outline of the main points, the flow of text required, and fill in from there. All those points which need to be split off to fresh pages can be planned on that outline. The article itself ("What is freemasonry?") could be very short indeed, but we would need quite a few sections hived off. As for those whose aim is not that of good faith, I would suggest that the article be written and corrected on a user page, and then protected for a short while until the main edits elsewhere have been made. Changes to that article should not be made by IP contributors - can that be arranged? I would love to help with the re-write. How about if I sketch out an outline sometime today? docboat 23:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Creating an outline/draft on our various user subpages may be a good exercise for all of us to do... then we can see where we have ideas in common and where we don't.  Also, if we are going to rely on sub-articles for some of our information, we need to pay more attention to them.  Some that exist now need improvement, and any new ones should be more than just stubs. Blueboar 12:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have created my sandbox at User:BrianWalker/Sandbox, copied the freemasonry page, and begun to edit it freely. If you want to edit it at will, please do, and I shall work on it as work permits. docboat 01:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some comments there.  I am going to do a similar exercise on my own sandbox page... we can compare notes as we go. Blueboar 14:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future development 

message: Anyone know if it is true that Gen. Santa Anna was a Freemason? I was taught this in college; my prof. had previously held a position in the TX state archives. Whitehorse287 04:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a quick google search on this... there are one or two sites which relate a story that upon surrendering to Sam Huston, Santa Anna gave a Masonic sign of distress ... but the story may be just that - a story. There does not seem to be any other evidence to support the idea that he was a Mason.  There are a lot of websites (both pro-Masonic and anti-Masonic) that list famous Masons, and while they list many other Mexican presidents and historical figures, none of them include Santa Anna on thier lists. One site goes out of its way to say he was not. I think we have to place him in the "Not proven, but probably not a Mason" category. Blueboar 12:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer is "yes," Santa Anna was a Mason, but he was an "Escosses" Mason, which was the older form of Masonry that had been imported from Spain. Those members were much more of the old centrist political faction. However, in the 1820's, Joel Poinsett, the American Minister to Mexico, imported American style York Rite Masonry as a more populist form of democratic Masonry that would appeal to the new liberal minded men who wanted representative government. Initially, they like Santa Anna and elected him President. But then Santa Anna declared himself dictator and swept away the Constitution of 1824. Men like Lorenzo de Zavala, a newspaper publisher, a former Mexican Minister to the Court of Spain, and a "Yorkino" Mason, fled Mexico under Santa Anna. They were of the more liberal and democratic Yorkino strain of Freemasonry. Zavala eventually became the first Vice-President of the new Republic of Texas. There were reports, after the Battle of San Jacinto, that when Santa Anna was captured by the Texians, wearing a private's uniform, he literally filled the air with "secret Masonic signs" hoping his life would be spared. And it is true that Sam Houston, also a Mason, did spare his life, but not because Santa Anna was a Mason. Certainly, Santa Anna, having ordered a number of atrocities like the murder of captive Texian soldiers at Goliad, had broken a number of moral principles that Masons adhere to, thereby releasing Houston from any Masonic oath to protect him. But, Houston spared his life for two reasons that had nothing to do with his Masonic membership:  1) If Houston had executed Santa Anna after capturing him, it would have put a stain on the legitimacy of the new Texian government;  and 2) Santa Anna was more valuable to Texas alive than dead, as he subsequently signed the Treaty of Velasco, ceding Texas from Mexico and ending the Texas War of Independence. From Texas, Santa Anna was sent to the northeastern U.S. and eventually returned to Mexico. PGNormand 01:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gen.Santa Anna a Mason? 

message: We seem to be having a project wide revert war over whether to use "Ancient" (with a "c") or "Antient" (with a "t").  We need to hammer this out and reach a consensus, and we should do so in one central location.  Since this impacts several articles, I have started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry#Ancients vs. Antients... consensus? to be that central location.  Please discuss at that thread.
Thank you, Blueboar 13:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancient vs. Antient

message: OK... I think the edit wars are over and we are settled on UK conventions. (I think most of the regular editors of this article don't care as long as it is consistent). So... would one of our UK editors please check the entire article and conform the rest of the spellings and usages.  Thanks.  Blueboar 12:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we are talking about the name of a specific body ... we should use the spelling that the body uses.  I was talking about the basic text of the article.  If you are saying that we should us US usage in the text when talking about Freemasonry in the US, and UK usage when talking about Freemasonry in the UK... no.  The entire article should be consistent one way or the other. This was a point raised by the folks at Good Article Review.Blueboar 14:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  spelllllling and other conventions 

message: We have gone back and forth on whether the title is: Grand Junior Warden... or Junior Grand Warden.  In fact, both are used.... for example: [Virginia] and [Kentucky] use Grand Junior Warden... while [Maine] and [Washington] use Junior Grand Warden.  We can certainly note that both forms are used... The question that comes to my mind is: why?  The point of the sentence is that Grand Lodges add the word "Grand" to titles.  Do we need to confuse the issue by going into the minutia of where they add it? The parallel is what is important, not the title. Blueboar 14:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we should definitely note both are used, and then pick one, or people are going to keep changing it because it's not "theirs".  I prefer JGW because it seems smoother to me, though I will also admit that that is what we use. MSJapan 15:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We only talk about it in one sentence in the "Lodge Officers" section (as an example of GL's adding the word "Grand" to the title), so it isn't a question of picking one for consistant use later in the article.  At the moment it mentions both usages (my recent edit).  Just wanted to make sure that people felt there was need to get that detailed just to make a fairly simple point about parallel titles at the grand lodge level. If mentioning both usages will help prevent needless edit wars, then let's keep them both. Blueboar 15:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grand Junior vs. Junior Grand 

message: we seem to be getting a LOT of IP vandalism recently... should we request a semi-lock? Blueboar 02:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of the vandalism comes mainly from IP users, and I wonder if it would be at all possible to permanently semi-lock the article? I have been doing some anti-vandal roaming recently, and I was dismayed at how much stupidity is perpetrated on Wikipedia from IP users. Freemasonry seems to be a favourite target. docboat 10:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, this is a result of the "anyone can edit" concept behind Wikipedia.  It has always been a problems and I suspect it will always be a problem.  Your idea of having permanent semi-locks has been discussed at the village pump many, many times... and has been consistantly rejected.  It is a long standing practice that no lock (semi or full) be permanent.  All we can do is lock an article "for the moment" so that the problem that required the lock has a chance to down (be it IP vandalism, edit warring, or some other problem) at that article.  Will IP vandals continue to plague Wikipedia... yes.  Will they continue to plague this article... of course.  All we can do is make it so they can not plague us right now. Blueboar 14:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quick heads up, if the IP vandalism gets too much on this page.  Drop me a line and I will gladly semi-protect it.  It may take me up to 12 hours to get to it but I can get er done.  Just let me know. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Chris... it seems to have died down over the weekend (which makes me think that a lot of it was being done by school kids), but if it builds back up we will certainly call. Blueboar 18:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP vandalism 

message: It is interesting to note that in Treatise on the Astrolabe Chaucer refers to "Lyte Lowys my sone". This appears normally to be interpreted as a proper name, but is at least as appropriate taken to mean "apprentice" or "novice". MarkMLl 13:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting... but as there is no evidence to show that Chaucer was a Mason, I don't think it is something we could discuss here. Blueboar 18:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lewis