Talk:Grand Lodge of New York

message: Something is wrong with the way the info box nd template is working... we keep getting a stray line reading: New York under where the freemasonry2 template appears.  I have tried to fix this, but can not figure out what is wrong.  It first showed up in one of the early edits. Blueboar 22:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind... I think I fix it. Blueboar 23:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template problem 

message: Even though the copy vio tag has been removed, I too and concerned that the article contains so much that is simply copied from the Grand Lodge website.  We need to paraphrase, not copy.  I'll work on re-writing what I can to make it original text.  
Also... WP:EL discourages having so many External Links... most of the ones listed are not directly related to the Grand Lodge itself (it has no jurisdiction over the Scottish and York Rites for instance, and only marginally over some of the other bodies.)  Most of them are linked on the Grand Lodge website anyway... so really, all we need is a link to the Grand Lodge itself.  I am going to cut back a bit on them. Blueboar 18:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your attention to this.  Happy editing.  18:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy vio tag 

message: I am a Mason from New York, so this is my Grand Lodge.  And while I am proud of it, I do have to ask: Does GLoNY really qualify as being notable under Wikipedia's guidelines?  The guideline that determines notability in this case is WP:ORG... specifically the section entitled: WP:ORG#Non-commercial organizations, which reads as follows: 
:Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization. In other words, they satisfy the primary criterion above. Other criteria are:
:*Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information may be included in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included. 
:*Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found.
:*The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive.
:**Even though the parent organization may be notable, individual chapters of national and international organizations may not be notable enough to warrant a separate article.
:**Local chapter articles should start as a section of the parent organization article. If the parent article grows to the point where it may be split to a new article, and notability can be demonstrated using the  general notability guideline, then it can be split.  This should occur as a top down process. 
By my reading of these criteria, GLoNY might qualify as being notable ... if that notability can be established through reliable sources that are independant of GLoNY.  At the moment this is not the case.  The article cites the Grand Lodge's webpage and a self-published history written by one of the lodges under its jurisdiction.  While I do think both are reliable, neither can be called "independant of the subject".  After a google search, I can not find anything that fits the requirements on the web.  So the question becomes... are there any reliable sources that are independant of the subject that can be used to establish notability here? Blueboar (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Establishing Notability 

message: In this edit another editor removes the mention, in lede, of the major Freemasonry organization serving blacks, as being inappropriate for the lede.  I do think it is highly appropriate for the lede, to give an indication of why there would be more than one NY organization.  The main reason is that Freemasonry was, historically like many organizations, racist and led to segregated, separate organizations serving African-Americans.  I may not have the best wording to state that in the lede, but I think it should be mentioned in the lede.  And in more depth elsewhere in the article.
By the way, the article's lede was previously incorrect, and was seemingly grandiosely claiming to be the one New York freemasonry organization.  In general the tone of this and other Masonic group articles should be revised to be objective and encyclopedic, and to reduce fluffery and self-revering phrasing. --doncram (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd have to copy the exact same text into every grand lodge article -- much better to just treat it in the Freemasonry article. Oh, wait, it's already there! Who knew?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is highly relevant in this article, to mention the general segregation, and further to provide specifics about New York.  Few are aware of actual outright slavery having existed in New York State, which it did;  the origination of separate, segregated freemasonry is relevant here.  Otherwise, why would there be multiple major freemasonry organizations in the state?  More specific sources than i am aware, would help. --doncram (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Prince Hall Masonry originated in Massachusetts, not New York.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Surely you don't believe that blacks were allowed into this organization, early on?  See History of slavery in New York for some background.  I really pretty strongly believe that "Historically it included only white members" was a correct statement, without specifying when a black member was first admitted.  Other fraternal organizations claim to have admitted blacks and women much sooner that Freemasonry, i have noticed in passing. --doncram (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The string "mason" appears nowhere in that article. Please stick to arguments that are actually relevant, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Surely you don't believe that blacks were allowed into this organization, early on?  Actually, I don't just believe, I know... my own lodge lists a least one black man as early as the 1790s.  Slaves could not join, but not all black men were slaves. Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  white vs. black Freemasonry 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Grand Lodge of New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050528022710/http://www.fcassociates.com/id27.htm to http://www.fcassociates.com/id27.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified