Category talk:Freemasonry

message: I notice that the Freemasonry category has been added to a couple of articles about people who happen to have been Freemasons (usually with only one line indicating the connection by saying something like "he was an active Freemason").  Is this really something we want?  If so, we should put it on our Project to do list.  If not, let's remove them. Blueboar 14:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if it's a claim, it needs proof.  Sometimes it doesn't matter much, but it depends on the individual. MSJapan 16:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we want to list every Mason? 

message: Maybe I'm the only one, but I take offense at the term "Freemason" as the broad categorization of masonic activities. Generally, that term is used to implicate us in absurd conspiracy theories etc. Why not rename the project and categories the more correct "Free and Accepted Masons?" CigarBandit 09:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair question.  It's important to remember that we are not writing for Masons, but for the general public, whose accepted general term is "Freemason" (and we use the term as well).  Historically, the designation "Free and Accepted" (F&AM) is not the same as "Ancient Free and Accepted" (AF&AM), and the usage varies on the jurisdiction (which means F&AM is not always correct).  The end result is adding a level of unneeded obfuscation that really means nothing to anyone, as whether it's F or AF, one is still a Mason. MSJapan 01:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair Response :). I can certainly see the logic of that, and the argument for said side had entered my mind, but I still hold the possibly naive view that the truest of terms is the best way to better educate people and disseminate a more cohesive and complete document. Anyway, I was curious and you responded to my curiosity, so thank you and keep up the good work here at Wikipedia, gentlemen (and ladies). CigarBandit 09:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Umbrage 

message: I have a question concerning the POV of articles on freemasonry. There is a tendency to bias the POV of articles on freemasonry towards the POV of "regular" freemasonry by changing the content or re-categorizing articles. It seems to be very hard to adher to a NPOV on freemasonry as it is a controversial topic which invites POV and even vandalism. How to deal with this in a constructive and open way to lead the work on Wikipedia towards NPOV? I only ask this for the benefit of the content on Wikipedia, not from any POV towards "regular" or "irregular" freemasonry. Pvosta 07:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't there a fairly well-established consensus about its historical, original significance? Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Freemasonry POV

message: I have been doing some extensive revisions to the Henry P. H. Bromwell page and would like to add the freemasonry category to this page.  I understand that community consensus is against this, but I feel that his work with Masonic Geometry may merit an exception.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would personally say No, the category is not appropriate.  The entire concept of Masonic Geometry is debatable, and certainly not something that is part of mainstream Freemasonry. It isn't quite "fringe", but it comes close.  As for the article itself... it is one thing to discuss Bromwell's ideas as being his opinion, it is another to state them as fact.  A lot of statements need to be "hedged" with attributive prefixes:  "According to Bromwell...", "Bromwell believed that...", "Bromwell wrote..." etc.  Blueboar (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: no worries, a lot of what was written in that article comes from secondary sources as per Wikipedia guidelines, the fact is that outside the book itself I haven't been able to access anything primary from Bromwell, and the only thing I used from the book are the forwards and introductions.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

text: actually I have re-read the Bromwell piece and I am unclear on where you believe statements need to be hedged?  I am going to copy this conversation to the Bromwell talk page so that we can continue this discussion in the appropriate space.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Henry P. H. Bromwell