Talk:Masonic lodge

message: There were several erroneous statemens made, that I corrected. Freemasonry originally existed in Scotland, not England, for example. Also, originally there was only one degree to Freemasonry. By 1717, two degrees were in use, and sometime before 1725 the third degree was added. This is well established. Another thing, in NO jurisdiction is the blue lodge part of the Scottish Rite. The Scottish Rite is a totally separate organization. You said you are a Mason; so am I. Where do you hail from?
Justin  08:24, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: In some jurisdictions, there are lodges which are part of the Scottish Rite. This is well known.kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 00:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I'm still rather confused by the information on this page.  Mainly I just don't know whether things don't seem "right" to me because they're inaccurate, or if it's because other parts of the world do things differently.  I cleaned up as best I could, but I may have inadvertently removed or changed information relating to U.K. or other non-U.S. practice; if so, my apologies.
It seems to me that a great deal of the information on this page would be better-suited to other pages anyway.  Grand Lodge already contains information on the processes of governance and recognition.  The three degrees and the landmarks are really about Freemasonry as a whole and there isn't a good reason to tuck them away under "Lodge" in particular, is there?  If they're not already discussed on Freemasonry, they should either be moved there or should have their own articles.
I think ideally this particular article would be very short (a definition of what a Lodge is, its function, its place in the hierarchy of governance, relevant vocabulary) and most of the substantive content about Freemasonry would be elsewhere (wikilinked from here, of course).  Would anyone object if I pursued this approach?  —Bsktcase 17:34, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Bsktcase.  In addition, I would include the distinction that is made between the word "Lodge" and the Lodge Building or Temple that starts the Freemasonry page. Blueboar 19:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some changes, and proposal to relocate some info 

message: There's nothing in here that we don't have in the main article or can't add.  Is there a reason to keep this article? MSJapan 14:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that having this article is useful, it can be used to go into a little more depth on how an individual lodge is organised which is inappropriate in the main article.  Could probably afford to slim down the Lodge section of the main article.  This one probably needs more detail on officers and could lose the appendant bodies section.ALR 14:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I don't think it has a purpose, other than to be an alternate platform for alternative opinions. nearly everything here is redundant, when looking at Freemasonry. Plus, I'm not at all a fan of these alternate Masonic articles, as they are ill-watched. Grye 09:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternative opinions?  The main article is already pretty dense, and as has been identified elsewhere over the recommended length.  I'd move towards more sub-articles rather than less.  Agree there is some duplication though.ALR 09:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with sub-articles is, the main article is closely watched; sub-articles can appear & stay fairly unwatched for a while. Edit & rv wars can wage on & on, where they'd be but a moment's notice on the main article. I've experienced this issue first-hand, & have had hours upon hours taken out of my life by it. I'd rather like to see any sub-articles sunstantially & directly linked from the main article, is all. Otherwise, I agree, it is recognized that this article is large & could use sub-division. Either replicated info should be taken out of the main article, or this article merged with the main. Grye 09:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll add to what Grye said here. I think the main article is a little long (it's 19 pages printed) and could probably do with some delegating. I understand the concerns about the watch issues - I just think that might be the price we pay to make it more readable and understandable. Just my $0.02. Bdevoe 18:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TBH, not sure why this is here.... 

message: Hey i live in a masonic Lodge (The building) and there a a few mysteries that i was hoping this article would solve. e.g: Why are there 4 red lights in the floor and why is there a coffin shaped box at the front of the temple? Could we have a section called "Common Features of a Masonic Lodge"? or is there an article on the structure of masonic lodges?Paige Master 02:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt the veracity of the claim, and in any case, you'd be better off asking somebody there.  There are very few constants in Lodges, which is why there is no section on them. MSJapan 18:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, i live in the building(ex-lodge) so who am i going to ask, myself? And yeah there are lights in the floor and a sunken in coffin at the front of the temple room. I would think that some of these features would be shared with other places, as in 4 red dots or, 4 torches on the walls ect.Paige Master 06:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then you don't live in an active Lodge, which is not what your original statement led me to believe, and as for what's in it, I've got no idea what you're talking about, so no, they aren't shared. MSJapan 12:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: To a large extent it would depend on what orders worked in the temple, for example my craft lodge shares a temple with about 6 other orders.  I can imagine contexts for a coffin but the four lights don't ring a bell.  In any case, as MSJ says, there is little commonality so it would have the potential to become one of those interminable lists of exceptions.ALR 14:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not.  But it's a reasonable assessment, it may be a former Oddfellows building.ALR 23:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section to develop 

message: For what it's worth, here is another image which can eventually be used in the article. Fred Hsu 03:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More Images

message: I'm aware that this is a big change - but if nobody likes it, we can always agree to revert! The officers section of this article has always been a bit piecemeal, and in need of sorting out, despite several good efforts. For a while I've felt that a new main article was required for Lodge Officers, and a couple of days ago MSJapan encouraged me to finish the article - on which I started work just after Christmas. I've studied all the articles and sections of articles which address lodge officer roles, and I've tried to include everyone's ideas. If I've missed yours, SORRY, but you can always start editing the new article! I've included a table which may help clarify the overview, and that categorises the offices in the subsection write-ups below. I hope people like it - but if not, please tell me! Timothy Titus 20:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lodge Officers Again - new article 

message: If a Masonic Lodge is a group of people rather than a building, why are all the photos in this article of buildings? Perhaps we need a separate Masonic hall article to cover the buildings specifically. Kaldari (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a "Lodge" and a "Lodge building".  Furthermore, considering that every building is different in some respect, that article is an unnecessary impossibility. MSJapan (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Masonic buildings or something similar? As it stands now, however, having an article about groups of people that is only illustrated with pictures of buildings is confusing. Kaldari (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lodges vs. Halls 

message: "...but is subject to its direction only in enforcing the published Constitution of the jurisdiction." This statement may be true somewhere but is definitely not true in the U.S. where lodges are definitely subject to the direction, rules, laws, etc., of their grand lodge.kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 11:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening statement 

message: Perhaps this is just an exercise for the group, but we need to be more pro-active. I therefore propose this article be elevated to A-Class status per the standards discussed at WP:WikiProject_Freemasonry/Assessment. RiverStyx23{talkemail} 22:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for A-Class status 

message: The lead paragraph of this article is stolen from The Esoteric Codex: Freemasonry by Adam Prinkleton, chapter 36. I don't yet know how much of the rest of the material is suspect, but it clearly needs addressed. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Other way around, actually.  The book is dated October 2015 and claims it collects curated articles. MSJapan (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words... Prinkleton copied Wikipedia, not the other way around?  In which case, there is no copyright violation... just a case poor scholarship on the part of Mr. Prinkleton.  Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, although if the attribution is missing, Prinkleton has committed the violation. MSJapan (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Masonic lodge. 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/20170303125248/https://grandstewards.org/About to https://grandstewards.org/About
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) 05:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified