Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 27

Catholic Encyclopedia link[edit]

Somebody dropped that in, and I rewrote the description a bit, but I find the following issues with it on further reflection:

It dates from 1917 (it's historical, and reflects methodology of the time).
The writers have a clear POV and opinion, even in the supposedly historical fact sections (as opposed to presenting info and then a conclusion, they intermingle).
The sources are usually the more fanciful Masonic speculative and philosophical writers like Mackey and Pike.
A lot of things used as "evidence" have been removed from their larger context.
The citations reference the now out-of-date Canon Law of 1917, so the statements are only valid for historical purposes (this was almost a positive for presenting a cited view from the RCC until I realized things had been rewritten since then).

So while I think I'm going to remove it, has anybody got any reliable contemporary sources that we haven't incorporated? MSJapan 23:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should not have been added as an external link anyway... since it is already used as a source in the article (currently #3) - although I do have to say that it is the best source for the "a system of morality" quote. Blueboar 12:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the ritual remains the best source for the system of morality point ;)

I think I remember why we cited the CE in the first place... we had a POV pusher that objected to the phrase, so we added the CE citation to show that the usage was not just limited to Freemasonry. If we use a ritual source we could get into the self-definition argument again... and could end up with the clunky "Freemasons claim that..." wording. Ideally, what we need are external sources that use the phrase in their definition of Freemasonry.... so that we can simply say "Freemasonry has been defined as..." I think the phrase was used in the old Encyclopedia Britanica... but the EB may have some of the same issues as the CE (ie the information is out of date). I am sure that it has popped up in other sources, we just need to find the best one. Blueboar 13:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair. I just think that using an independent source for something as basic as that is inherently POV in its own right.

ALR (no working tilde key on this laptop) :(

ALR, can't you just go to the top of your edit window, and click the button just to the right of the no-wiki (don't sign/slashed circle with W) which is the signature and timestamp button?--Vidkun 15:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. It was set up US format, so a lot of the keys were moved around and it was getting frustrating. Forgot about the onscreen buttons. Sorted now though, although I'm now at home on my personal machine.

ALR 21:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masons 'gaming' the link, no surprise, but it serves to demonstrate the disingenuous and deceptive methodology of the Masonic 'lodge' operating at Wikipedia. The Catholic Encyclopedia is an excellent resource as opposed to the one-sided propaganistic POV links that are posted currently and kept in place by the resident Freemasons.24.68.249.225 06:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer (aka 24.68.249.225) - Find us a better source for the "system of morality" quote and I will have no problem if you want to add the CE as an external link. Oh, wait ... you can't ... you have been banned by arbcom from editing articles dealing with Freemasonry. Oh well, I guess we will just have to do it ourselves. Bye bye. Blueboar 12:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make this clear for our Lightbringer sock... regarding the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia... The MOS states that if a link is included in the text as a foot note or citation, it should not ALSO be included in the External links section. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Freemasonry is already used as a reference in the text of the article. Thus, it should not be in the External Links section as well. The objection is not to the link, but to the repetition.

I have also removed your other additions, as ArbCom has banned you from editing any article relating to Freemasonry. Any edit by you constitutes vandalism. Thus, I will summarily remove any edit you make (even positive edits). Now please go away. Blueboar 22:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia rule on this Mason, it is just a part of your little invented Masonic world here. Masons like you have deleted all the critical links and the only reason you would include any reference to this site is so you could try and bury it in a maze of references, which no one reads. The link to the Catholic Encyclopedia stays as do the links to the news stories you keep deleting. You must immediately stop your personal attacks and slander, you probably shouldn't be posting here because of your hostile POV pro-masonic bias.24.68.249.225 23:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That should do it to convince the Admins, thanks ... OK folks, do not feed the trolls more than is needed. Blueboar 00:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi all i was reading a book on the knights templar and it says that after the catholic church murdered most of its members that the heads of the knights templar order became the free masons in order to continue to hide the Holy Grail. Ill find the books name when i go home next week outof town right now. but in other words it would dat bacck to well before the 15th century not 1917 ass stated above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meesterjames (talk • contribs) 21:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you are talking about... this discussion was talking about a particular Code of Cannon Law issued in 1917, and not the date of the origins of Freemasonry. As for the later... the origins of Freemasonry are really unknown, so any start date is only speculation. Blueboar 22:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Masons[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Out of curiosity[edit]

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)[reply]

Not Geometer, sorry.ALR 20:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled it, and most of the relevant hits are Wiki mirrors. It may be archaic. MSJapan 21:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have pre-empted you and corrected to Grand Geometrician .... a term we certainly use docboat 05:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

References[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Degree Stub Articles[edit]

I see from our new template that there are articles for each of the three degrees. I took a look at them, and all three are nothing more than one sentence saying: "<Name of degree> is the <first/second/third> of three degrees in Freemasonry", ie they are litttle more than the subbiest of stubs and border on being a dicdef. I don't really see how we could expand them to even a start sized article... Should we redirect these here? (and if not, may I suggest that we at least rename Fellow Craft to "Fellowcraft"... I think that is the accepted usage.) Blueboar 11:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that a redirect is the better option. WegianWarrior 13:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we redirect... should we remove the links from the template substitute a template link to the degree section here? I can see someone who is not familiar with Freemasonry finding a link to something that discribes the degrees usefull.

Alternatively, we could create a new article on "Masonic Degrees" that would roughly discuss the three basic degrees and how they relate to those in the York and Scottish Rites? (I see it as essentially combining material found in both this article and the two Rite articles... which could be duplicitous... just pondering options.) Blueboar 15:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we choose that path, we must also discuss how they relate to other degrees in the Swedish Rite. WegianWarrior 15:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There would be value in a single article discussing the three degrees of craft masonry, but I would be reluctant about then including relationships with the A&AR and other higher degrees, specifically I'd object to a correspondence to the York Rite.

The Third degree is a pre-requisite for every other order. For A&AR it might be reaosnable to add the caveat that candidates for A&AR are exempt from the first three degrees of that system.

ALR 16:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by my comment "how they relate to those in the York and Scottish Rites" was that we would mention that, after the three basic degrees, a Mason becomes elegible to take a plethera of other degrees. We would include our standard caveat that, while there are other degrees, they are not "higher" etc. I was not thinking of an in-depth discussion of the exact connection between the various Rites and basic Freemasonry... just a brief nod to the fact that they exist (and links to the articles that talk about them). Blueboar 16:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, suspect I came across as a bit more abrupt than usual there, blame tiredness and a cold.

I'm just a bit conscious of the Americanisation of Freemasonry in Wikipedia at the moment. I'm not entirely convinced of how to approach generalisation though.

ALR 16:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very bad idea. There are plenty of books on the degrees, and they're all different. There's no real value in even trying to generalize an article, because that really won't work. MSJapan 17:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not having an article is fine too... as I said, I was just pondering options. So we come back to the original question... do we keep the stubs, or redirect to the degree section of this article (and if so, edit the template accordingly)?

I like the proposed idea above. Create an article on degrees in freemasonry, do what it takes to create it as neutral and provide as much generic appropriate information as possible. Redirect each stub article to the new grouped article and fix the template to point to the new article. Just my reccomendation though. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what MSJ is trying to get across is that any such article would basically include:

1) Freemasonry consists of three degrees. (sort of... have edit war about quoting that confusing bit from 1813 UGLE constitutions about Royal Arch degree.)
2) Both the content and interpretation of the content of those degrees varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. (no two masons can agree on anything... have edit war about whether sources are reliable and representative or not)
3) There are other degrees that other groups that are related to Freemasonry offer, but they do not confer any higher rank or status in Freemasonry. (delete repeated vandalism about the significance of the number 33)
4) There is no uniformity between jurisdictions in reguards to these additonal degrees either. (polite edit war between regular editors concerning US and UK practices)
5) list caveats and exceptions to anything anyone may have said about the degrees.... because something that may be true in one jurisdiciton is not true in another. (go to mediation cabal over use of obscure text as source)
6) list misinterpretations and misinformation about the degrees that are claimed by Anti-masons (demanded by Anti-masonic editors to keep the article "NPOV").
7) list of reasons why the Anti-Masonic claims are false.
8) Edit war over the last two sections.
9) (fight off continual vandalism - both POV vandalism and the usual claim that "Joe is Gay")

In other words it may be a really bad idea to go this route. Blueboar 13:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree these are difficult tasks. But then again I like a challenge. In response to issue 1, why do we not create the article on blue lodge degrees in freemasonry? Then for now reidrect to this article. We could later create articles about the different degrees associated with pendant bodies. 2.) while the context and information differs, as far as I know most regular lodges have the three degrees? We do not need to go into specifics just a little history and other information. It may be sub-stub but being it will be a combined article this should not be an issue because the overall content will be good. I think it would be important, just like we did with the obligations in freemasonry section, be generic as possible, and not list specifics. While it may seem like a daunting task, I would be willing to take it on. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about this, the less I like the idea. I think we (the regular editors on Masonic subjects) could write a good article, but we would soon find ourselves repeating the edit wars that took place on articles such as "Jahbulon" and "Obligations in Freemasonry"... both anti-masonic POV editors and misinformed good faith editors would start demanding that we include snippets from obsolete exposes as "examples" of what goes on in the degrees, and we would spend an inordinate amount of time and energy explaining why such "examples" should not be included. In all likelihood we would end up redirecting back to this article anyway.

I know that people would find an article on the degrees to be interesting and noteworthy... but the content of such an article would end up being a never ending battle. Also, any accurate article would probably be disappointing to the average non-masonic reader... they would click on the link out of curiosity as to what goes on in the degrees, and all we would basically be telling them is that a) there are three degrees, and that b) for a host of reasons, we can't tell you anything further about them.

That said, if you want to try to attempt such an article, I would suggest drafting it in a sandbox first... so the rest of us can comment and help find sources etc. before going live. Blueboar 14:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was contemplating the sandbox idea. I will give it some more thought before I delve into such a task. THanks for the feeback! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can sympathise with Blueboars position on this. Even discussing the Craft degrees will be challenging:

FM started with two degrees.
Second degree split into two, with additional material to form three.

This split English Freemasonry one group claiming third degree was "Modern" and a different degree (HRA) was discovered/created and should be used.

Following the Union, London came up with half baked wording suggesting that HRA degree was really part of third degree, formed as a result of the expansion of the previous second degree (perhaps).
Yet further material exists which is seen as the completion of the second degree. This last material being part of the York Rite in the US, a standalone order in England and may be conferred in either Craft or HRA chapters elsewhere.

Notwithstanding that I do think it's worth trying to capture it, somehow.

ALR 14:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting my non-expert two cents in, would an article detailing the major differences between U.S. and U.K. Freemasonry be in order? Many a reader may not realize there is a considerable difference in ritual: for example in the US a man may go through the three degrees within a matter of months, whereas in the UK (unless they have altered the process) it can take as much as a year for each degree. Excuse me if I am wrong- I am a Mason, but no scholar.Saxophobia 18:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry in Scandinavia[edit]

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)[reply]

This is my understanding also. It helped that the king of Sweden was the Grand Master. --Bolognaking 14:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and GA delisting[edit]

Maybe this article was once held to a higher standard, but it currently strongly favors one point of view. This article does not meet Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines, please read them ( WP:NPOV ) before editing or removing the POV tag. The following issues need to be addressed:

Opinions are presented as fact and some items embarassing to the Freemason organization are rationalized or absent. The article has grown bloated with these lengthy rationalizations:

Two examples:

While Freemasonry has often been called a "secret society," it is more correct to say that it is an esoteric society, in that certain aspects are private.[3] From many quarters, Freemasons have stated that Freemasonry has, in the 21st century, become less a secret society and more of a "society with secrets.

If membership is secret and some proceedings are secret, then Freemasonry meets the definition of a secret society. Instead of quibbling over semantics the article should factually discuss what aspects of Freemasonry have opened up recently. Based on this statement I would believe that the only two secrets a Freemason cannot reveal are handshakes and some ritual details.

Correct. MSJapan 18:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Hall Masonry has always been regular in all respects except constitutional separation, and this separation has diminished in recent years. At present, Prince Hall Grand Lodges are recognized by some UGLE Concordant Grand Lodges and not by others, but appear to be working toward full recognition, with UGLE granting at least some degree of recognition.[18] There are a growing number of both Prince Hall Lodges and non-Prince Hall Lodges that have ethnically diverse membership.

Is Prince Hall regular or not? Much of this paragraph seems to be a response to a critiscm not even raised.

It's still an issue in some jurisdictions. Therefore, for some it is regular, and for others it is not. MSJapan 18:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generalized arguments to unexpressed opposing points of view:

There have been many disclosures and exposés dating as far back as the eighteenth century. These often lack the proper context for true understanding of the content,[6] may be outdated for various reasons,[7] or could be outright hoaxes on the part of the author, as in the case of the Taxil hoax.[8]

Disclosures and exposés of what exactly? The generalized retort that follows presents no verifiable facts and the Taxil information belongs in the Taxil section. The implication is that because one 1890's exposé was a hoax then all exposés are.

Have to edit that a bit, but as most exposes are written by those who were never verifiably Masons and because ritual content is set by each Grand Lodge and does change over time, there's no way to gauge accuracy. As a note, one of the more famous exposes by Duncan references a lodge that did not exist as well as using terminology for a group that was not used by that group. MSJapan 18:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Majority of sources have the same POV.

Because many of the anti-Masonic POV claims fail RS, and to sort that out in the article violates NOR. Also, certain statements need to come from official GL sites because they pertain to positions on membership. They could be sourced from one of many Masonic encyclopedias, but that probably wouldn't address the POV concern. MSJapan 18:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight given to minority POV.

This I'm not sure about. Can you give an example? MSJapan 18:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biased claims should be attributed to their source.

I thought they were. What'd we miss? MSJapan 18:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article should not segregrate based on POV. There should not be an Opposition to Freemasonry ghetto at the bottom of the article. Opposing views should be present inline.

We tried that before, and it came out looking like claim and counterclaim. Anti-Masonry is a big topic, so it has its own article. MSJapan 18:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairness of tone.

Again, when the negative sources fail RS, there's only so much that can be done. The information as presented is accurate. MSJapan 18:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meekrob 18:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MSJapan has answered many of the issues... but I thought I would echo his comments with some further explanations:

On the issue of secrets... Memebership is not secret, each Grand Lodge has records that are available for public scrutiny. Also the proceedings are not secret. Minutes of meetings are sent to and kept by the Grand Lodges, and are available for public scrutiny. All that is truly "secret" are the signs grips and words (as the article states). However, the meetings are "private" ... for example, if the Lodge is voting on a potential member, any comments comments made by the members are kept confidential (and by this, I mean comments like: "I can't recommend him as a member... I heard he cheated on his wife").

The secrecy thing is something the article left me feeling confused about. Is this true for European Freemasons as well?

My suggestion would be something like this: 'while often referred to as a secret society, most modern Freemasons consider themselves less a secret society and more a society with secrets', followed by a discussion of precisely how the organization has evolved. Remove the assertion "more correct" That way both descriptions can be present, without an interminable dialogue about which one is more correct. Meekrob 02:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The public can not access Freemasonry membership records or rolls for current or past members by contacting a Lodge or Grand Lodge. All such requests from Non-Masons are refused. Freemasonry IS a secret society.24.69.97.51 13:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of Prince Hall... MSJ explained this well. The status of Prince Hall depends on who you talk to. The majority of mainstream jurisdictions have recognized them and consider them regular... but there are a few hold outs. If we can make this clearer, please let us know.

I think it's the last sentence that feels POV. Would it better to replace the last sentence with a statement that expresses that race/ethnicity is not a factor for membership in Prince Hall/UGLE Masonry, if that is indeed a verifiable fact? Meekrob 02:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exposures and exposés... of the ritual. The point is that you can not trust exposés of the ritual... there are some exposés that are only selected snippets and do not put those snippets in context so the reader understands them... there are some exposés that may have been accurate for when they were written, but are now outdated as the ritual has been changed (such as Morgan's exposé)... and there are some exposés that have been proven to be hoaxes (such as Taxil's). If you think we can state this more accurately we are willing to listen.

And of course the opposite is true, you can't debunk the claims without revealing the secrets. Still I think that the whole paragraph adds little to the readers knowledge of Freemasonry, and that rebuttals should be specific and belong in a section that presents the expose. I think that this material could belong in a Famous Exposes" section. Meekrob 02:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the majority of sources having the same POV... True... the majority of sources do have the same POV. That is because that POV represents the views of the majority. Wikipedia policy does not require equal time for all views. (See: WP:NPOV#Undue Weight.) However, we do discuss the minority views, and we include sources for those views.

On Undue weight given to minority POV - this one has me stumped as well. Which minority POV do you think we have given Undue Weight to?

It looks like we have differing opinions on where the majority is. If you ask a majority of people "what is Freemasonry?" I think most would reply "a secret society", whereas the Freemason minority would say they are a fraternal order. But if we address the point of view issues we address this, so there really isn't a need to argue over who is in the minority. Meekrob 02:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On attributing biased claims... Huh? This is probably one of the most (overly) cited articles in Wikipedia... MSJ has it right... what did we miss?

It's not so much a lack of citation, some things are cited but not presented as a citation, but as a third person omnipotent fact + citation.

On the others issues I can only repeat MSJ's comments, so I won't comment myself. In conclusion... This article is not intentionally POV. If you work with us, you will find that we are quite open to good faith suggestions and comments. But some of the things you raise are very broad statemens. To solve these, It would help to have more concrete and specific examples (line by line or paragraph by paragraph) raised. Blueboar 23:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make things clear I don't think that anyone is acting on bad faith. I will make some more specific suggestions in the near future.

I am struggling to see how the article can be considered non NPOV - as seen from the discussion just now the objections are baseless. I would really like to see your constructive suggestions for improving the article, a better style of writing, a clearer flow of text. But the NPOV objection needs to go. BTW - would you also please make your particular contribution on the talk page clear, by signing your edits? Replies which are unsigned may appear to have been written by others. docboat 02:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is also interesting to compare the version that was considered to be so good it was a GA, with the one Meekrob had issues with. Me, I don't see a change either way in the Neutral Point Of View it's presented in. Please note that I'm not claiming a bad faith GA delisting here. I believe it's more of an issue of how the rules are interpreted. WegianWarrior 05:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure myself now, actually. It might be an interpretive problem, but Meekrob, despite being a Wikipedian for quite some time, has under 150 edits, and large stretches of inactivity, so I'm not 100% convinced that he's familiar with the content of the policies he's concerned with, but let's see what he has to say after what I'm presuming is holiday-related inactivity. MSJapan 13:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no reply to the issues rasied concerning the removal of GA and NPOV assertion. I would propose that GA be restored and NPOV comment removed. docboat 02:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meekrob hasn't been active since his last post here on the 1st. Let's give him a little more time. MSJapan 04:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He, and others, have had more than a week to present his/their arguments. As mentioned by BrianWalker further down on this page, it sems like all recent claims of failing NPOV has come from people with a strong bias or who fails to read the references and sources. Therefore I'm taking the NPOV tag off the article. WegianWarrior 09:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regularity[edit]

Is the section on Regularity NPOV? Would GODF Freemasons consider themselves irregular? Meekrob 03:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question of relativity - all Masons are regular within their own frame of reference, and regularity is only an issue in a comparative sense. UGLE-style Masonry is what most people know about and what is most visible in the world. For regularity to exist, it needs something to compare against, otherwise there's no need for it.

That being said, I've never seen a GODF source stating either way, so i don't even know if they care. However, the problem is that irregular Freemasonry is so splintered it's very hard to track, and the Internet has only made things worse - two guys with a computer can make a GL if they want. It's also next to impossible to get GoDF sources. I'm pretty sure the section is as NPOV as it can get with what we have available. MSJapan 05:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GOdF probably does consider itself to be "regular" ... so do a ton of tiny self-proclaimed Grand Lodges. The question we have to ask is: what do the terms "regular" and "irregular" mean in a Masonic context? To some degree, the terms are self defined... regularity is what whatever someone declares it to be. Thus, if I started my own tiny Grand Lodge, I could declair that Grand Lodge to be regular. No one else would agree with me but, according to my POV, I would be regular. However, Freemasonry has developed a clear historic precident for what makes a lodge "regular"... does the body in question adhear to the ancient Landmarks, and is it recognized by other Grand Lodges (or Grand Orients) as being regular? GOdF falls into the "No" category on the first criteria... When GOdF removed the long standing "Belief in Deity" landmark, they broke with this definition, thus becoming "irregular". That GOdF redfined the definition after the fact should be mentioned (and is, in a round about way)... but it doesn't change the fact that the definitions exist. As for the second criteria... the Majority of Grand Lodges do not recognize them as being regular. Yes, a significant minority (mostly created by GOdF) do recognize them... but in this case, majority rules.

Now, if the article were to state that GOdF was "Not Masonic" (and there are those who make this argument) that would be a clear case of POV... GOdF style Masonry definitely is a form of Masonry. The article acknowleges this. Instead of ignoring the existance of this form of Masonry (an attitude which many regular Masons would probably prefer) we adopt the use of the term "irregular" ... ie they are Masons, just not in sync with the majority.

Finally, some article history... we have had Masons from the GOdF tradition assist us in editing this article... they had no complaints about POV, and in fact helped to write the section in question. I hope this clarifies things. Blueboar 15:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religous Opposition[edit]

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)[reply]

Sources prove the fact. MSJapan 05:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Muslim anti-Masonry[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Structural changes[edit]

Meekrob was bold and switched around some of the sections... at the same time omitting a paragraph or two. I can understand his making edits that try to correct the individual POV wording issues he has raised above, but none of his comments have touched on problems with the basic the structure of the article. In short... it is too much to digest at once. Meekrob, this article deals with a controvercial topic... major changes such as restructuring the article really must be discussed and have consensus on the talk page before uploading them to main space. Please slow down, and deal with the issues one at a time. Thanks, Blueboar 12:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The history of Freemasonry related pages shows there is absolutely no point in discussing anything with Masonic Editors whose repeated tactic is to revert all edits from non-masons. The Masonic Editors are operating a lodge at Wikipedidia - an organized network. Known Masonic Editors should not be allowed to edit Freemasonry related pages. All Freemasonry related pages should be permanently locked and edited by non-masonic scholarly professionals. Any edits that Meekrob does will be reverted by the Masonic network of editors controlling this and other pages.24.69.97.51 14:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the previous comment was made by a suspected sock of a long term POV vandal (theISP matches). Thank you Lightbringer, for that comment from the peanut gallery. You know you are not supposed to edit pages relating to Freemasonry... Now go away.

Meekrob... Pay no attention to the puppet... we do take your concerns seriously and are more than willing to discuss them with you. It's just that your last buch of edits were a bit much to swallow in one bite. Blueboar 14:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am 100% willing to work as well towards an article that meets all wikipedias policies. However as Blueboar mentions, it is difficult when such large changes are made. Lets take it a section as a time and see where it goes from there. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least "non-Masonic scholarly professionals" would leave LB out of the mix. I didn't actually see the changes, but I would prefer we hash them out one at a time each in its own section before anything gets changed on the main page. MSJapan 20:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes by Meekrob involved shifting around the various sections (moving and/or slightly amending the history and holocaust sections up towards the front of the article) cutting the disclosure paragraph from the opener (and not replacing it somewhere else), and a change in tone to in the start of the Muslem anti-Masonry section. I reverted most of it, but re-added his change to the Muslem anti-Masonry paragraph as it seems reasonable and in line with the source. The rest needs to be discussed further. Blueboar 22:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then can we do it as one talk section per change and see what's what? MSJapan 00:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, the article is overly long, especially the introduction. I shall make changes to improve it's readability.Lestervee 05:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you - first; the link to the disambig page should be kept(see WP:D, second, the lead should "be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." (see WP:LEAD. Since the article is long and covers a lot of ground (which it has to do, considering how large the subject matter is), the lead is large as well.WegianWarrior 06:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

signs grips and words[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Layout[edit]

I moved some things around and changed a header here and there to try and improve the overall layout and flow of the article.

Moved History to the top. I thought it might be better to get some overall history before the minutiae of membership, and History first seems to be the way most articles go.
Retitled Opposition to Freemasonry to "Opposition to and Criticism of Freemasonry" (sounds less POV) and put "Women and Freemasonry" in there. I don't think that one paragraph, linked to another article or not, was worthy of a top header. I also dropped "the Holocaust" under "political opposition" because it's the most appropriate place for it.

So see how that looks. MSJapan 21:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think moving the history up to the front is a good idea... besides "what are the secrets?" that is probably the item that non-masons (ie the bulk of Wikipedia readers) are most curious about. As for the rest... The only move I disapprove of is your placing the "Women and Freemasonry" section under "opposition and criticisms"... it doesn't really belong in there. As written, the section talks more about how women DO fit into Masonry... in regular Masonry through orders such as the Eastern Star, or in brands of Freemasonry that admit women. Perhaps what we need to do is break the topic into two parts... talk about the ways in which women are fitted into freemasonry in the the other masonic bodies area... and then raise the issue again in the criticisms section, to discuss the complaints that this is not enough (ie that women are not admitted a full members in mainstream lodges). Blueboar 00:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added to the "women in freemasonry" section a small point about US predominance. As far as I have been able to see, women in freemasonry is mostly confined to the US, with very small pockets elsewhere. I may be wrong, so feel free to revert, but I need to point out the creeping US-centred (spelling!) approach that may enter the article. docboat 02:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The plethora of non-masonic orders for women does appear to be a USian phenomenon, although OES exists in Scotland, Canada and Australia. I think overt feminine and androgynous Masonic orders appear to be more euro-centric.

ALR 08:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vague introduction and article[edit]

The introduction of this article has issues with being incredibly vague. After reading the intro, I still had absolutely no idea what freemasonry is. The rest of the article isn't much better -- it baffles me how an article so vacuous could have achieved featured status. I've added a vague intro tag for the moment, but that is the understatement of the century. The entire article needs work. Ultiam 04:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific please, without some guidance on where you've got difficulty then it's hard to progress your issue.

ALR 08:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultiam, the first sentence tells you what Freemasonry is... "Freemasonry is a fraternal organization". Is there some way we can make this clearer? Blueboar 12:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to sound snippy, but could you be any more vague about how this is vague? I'll also point out the FA version was lousy compared to this. MSJapan 22:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The intro is still vague, but at least with my changes it is an actual intro, not a main body paragraph that wanders off in every direction. Some people possess writing and editing skills, and some people clearly do not.Lestervee 19:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, Lestervee, that the lead has been worked on over so much time answering people's objections to it, that it's gotten to the point where it is now. Are you familiar with the story of The Man, The Boy, and The Donkey?--SarekOfVulcan 21:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. It is really vauge. What is the purpose of masonry for instance? Not a word on that.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.1.63 (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You assume it has a "purpose"... it doesn't really... at least not any single purpose. It depends on the individual member. It has so many "purposes" that it would take several articles just to discuss them. I suppose I could be trite and quote an old saying: "Freemasonry takes good men and makes them better", but I am sure you would not be satisfied wiht this. Instead, I will point you two threads below where I seriously try to answer this question in some depth. Hope this helps. Blueboar 22:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead...[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Freemasonry#Lodge Officers[edit]

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? Lara Love 19:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would work. I keep forgetting we can do that. MSJapan 02:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the point?[edit]

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)[reply]

The "Charitable effort" section is a large part of it. MSJapan 20:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Having read the opening of this article it reads in very biased way and is more like an advert for the freemasons, it clearly breaks various guidelines in WP:NPOV and should be re written. --Grumpyrob 21:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Again, from a non-Mason and independent observer, I would reiterate, I cannot tell from the article what the purpose of Freemasonry is. Again, what does it do? Iglam 17:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In case you have not seen it[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Uh-oh![edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

English vs. American language[edit]

In her comments on this page to help us regain GA status, LauraLove notes the fact that we are inconsistant as to British vs. American spelling and usage in our writing. We have had discussions on this in the past, and chose to defer picking one over the other (as we are a mixed lot, some of whom write in British English and some in American English we agreed to let people write naturally, and fix it all at a later date)... but she has a point. To get this article to GA status we should now make things consistant. I think we should just pick one and conform. Remembering our previous discussions, there are good arguments for using either... (I for one, really don't care which we use) ... so I think it really comes down to flipping a coin and going with that. Now all we have to do is decide what denomination coin... pound or dollar? :>) Blueboar 15:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may be excommunicated for this, however, I think British English is appropriate here by virtue of the fact that the subject of the article has its roots in Great Britain. (You are now free to yell) the_undertow ^talk 19:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to anyone to yell ... that was one of those good arguments I was talking about. Blueboar 19:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also concur with this reasoning. GlassFET 19:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree as well. I however have no experience with British English so fear I will be of no help. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL... Chris, I'm in the same boat (worse... I grew up attending an American school that had mostly British and Canadian teachers... which means I end up being wrong in two languages). That was one of the "good arguments" for using American English... I think a majority of the regular editors to this article are more familiar with US English than British. If we conform to British, the burden of actually doing the work will fall on just a few editors ...I suppose we could always call in a few "hired guns"... they don't need to know about Freemasonry, just how to conform to British English. Blueboar 19:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just add a random 'u' here and there, and zubzitute 'z' for 's.' :) On the realz, tho, the manual of style would agree that a British automobile's article will be in British English, regardless of who actually works on the article. I'm just saying...the_undertow ^talk 20:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Freemasonry is independent of Britain outside of Britain - it may be derivative, but it's unique, and thus not necessarily of British manufacture (especially in the US, I would wager). Therefore, it's not a given that we use Commonwealth English. We basically need to decide which we use based on whether we want to consider historical origin, or the larger modern worldwide picture. I personally think that even today we regular folk (even in the US) still hold UGLE in great esteem, and that's a fair argument to write this in Commonwealth style regardless, but the majority of our editors are not familiar with the usage differences (I am, but that's because I work in both styles and have had to learn), which might be an argument in favor of US style just so there's still a division of labo(u)r. As a note, The undertow's statement is wrong; the substitution he gives is backwards, so don't do that. I'm comfortable with either, and I can do a fair job on Commonwealth English, but ALR or one of the native users is going to have to proof it to make sure I didn't make a mistake. MSJapan 21:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely correct about the substitution. I didn't reali(s)e that it was backwards! Thanks for pointing that out, however I hope your warning to editors' was tongue-in-cheek as I clearly wasn't trying to 'enlighten' anyone. What's an ALR? the_undertow ^talk 23:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALR is a who, not a what :) My "warning" is a pseudo-warning, because somebody who doesn't know might think you were right, and act on it in good faith, so I don't want the article to end up worse because of a GF misunderstanding. MSJapan 23:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well my preference clearly is for British english, I just can't be doing with random Zs and chopping Us out of everything for no particular reason. I have to say I find reading US english quite jarring, but as it's starting to saturate WP anyway that's just an experience I'm getting used to.

That said there are arguments either way, the majority of editors and readers are USian and on quite a few of the articles I edit which are clearly British topics there are frequent fly-by mis-speeling corrections which need monitored. The craft originated in the UK, probably Scotland, but UGLE has the oldest assured heritage.

I can proof, but bear in mind that I'm an engineer and management consultant, so my usage tends to reflect that; information rich, or quite terse. I'm also pretty busy at the moment, so I'm not getting much opportunity to really stop and think about my contributions here, they're tending to be pretty minor.

ALR 09:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've grown up with American but tend to use British styles for a number of words. In this case, I concur with the above reasoning which is supportive of using UK style; plus the article was initially written in British style. That criterion tends to be what I turn to whenever the debate reaches a stalemate: first edit sets precedent. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 11:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Poll on US v. UK writing style[edit]

OK... this is a case where a quick survey poll might help determine the way to go... two questions:

Which are you most comfortable with?
What is your preference, if you have one? (we can discuss why at a later time, if there is no clear preference)

US English (although I can fake UK)
No preference

Blueboar 01:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK
UK

ALR 09:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK
UK, but I can tolerate US

docboat 13:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US (although UK is a close second)
No preference

MSJapan 14:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US
US, as many of the related articles are primarily US-based.

--SarekOfVulcan 14:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I had to log in, just to change "servey" in the question to "survey." But since I'm here...

Texan
No preference. Well, Scottish if I've been drinking.

PGNormand 02:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US & UK
UK

Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 11:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"esoteric" society[edit]

The statement is somewhat accurate, but "esoteric" has a particular meaning that doesn't always apply to Masonry. People can make Masonry esoteric, but I don't believe that it is in and of itself. We also don't have an explicit source for this statement, and I think it's too loaded to use without a source, so I'd prefer we didn't use it. MSJapan 14:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree... esoteric has "mystical" implications that don't really fit. I have no problem deleting the phrase... I just wanted to make sure it was discussed before we did so. Blueboar 20:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So does anyone object if I return the edit that Mrpearcee made... the Paragrpah would read (omitting citations):

While Freemasonry has often been called a "secret society", Freemasons themselves argue that it is more correct to say that certain aspects of it are private, the most common phrasing being that Freemasonry has, in the 21st century, become less a secret society and more of a "society with secrets". The private aspects of modern Freemasonry are the modes of recognition amongst members and particular elements within the ritual.

One other thing on this... since we discuss this in the intro, we do need to expand on it in the article. This is something that was raised in the GA review. We need to explain why Freemasons disagree with the tag "secret society"... and what Freemasons mean when they say it is "less of a secret society than a 'society with secrets'". Blueboar 12:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that esoteric inasmuch as hidden is accurate. We do keep some aspects of our work hidden, the recognitions under UGLE and GLoS, the whole ritual in some GLs. The description is accurate, but perhaps needs qualification, recognising that many readers will read more into it than is relevant.

ALR 12:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the real question is: are we confusing the reader by our use of the term... does the average reader know what the word "esoteric" really means? I suspect that most readers will see the word and (mistakenly) assign it to the same category as "mystical", "occult", and other such words. If we keep the phrase, I think we need to explain it more. Blueboar 13:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Women and Freemasonry[edit]

The section on Women and Freemasonry needs some serious work... there are several rather dubious claims that need citations. I don't really think the fact that women may have been members of Stonemasons' guilds during the middle ages is relevant (Freemasonry may have been an out growth of the guilds, but it is definitely not a direct continuation of them). The fact that one or two women (Elizabeth Aldworth, for example) were initiated into the fraternity prior to Anderson's Constitutions is worth noting, but the fraternity was quite different in those days (they didn't even have the third degree yet) and the rules were in flux... and even then, a women joining was exceptional (at least in England... on the continent there was more acceptance of the practice). To imply that women in general were once regularly accepted, and state that have now been "expelled" from the fraternity is definitely a bit over the top (I have toned this language down). In any case, we need to seriously look at this section. Blueboar 15:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares about women in relation to freemasonry, they can't be masons and that's the end of it. I can't imagine much more to say about it than that. Pop a link to the page for the Eastern Star, that's about as much as we need on this article. It's not like the Catholic Priesthood, where there's been alot of feminist hullabaloo about it. It's pretty much a non-issue.

I dare say most female Freemasons care. OES isn't Freemasonry, however a number of feminine GLs do exist, they're just not recognised as regular.

ALR 10:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section has the flavour of our German, irregular, colleague. I don't recall seeing him around for a while though.

I'd agree that it needs reviewing though.

ALR 10:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the material that I have a problem with (the stuff about the guilds etc.)... but we should not stop there. For one thing, the section does not have any references. We need a source to show that omiting women is a cause for criticism, we need a source for the existance of Co-Masonry, and probably one for the existance of the various "official" groups. Also, should we mention that intervisitation with co-ed Freemasonic groups is one of the things that divides "Continental" Freemasonry from "Mainstream" Regular Freemasonry? (or is that extranious to the article?) Blueboar

I'd agree that with the exception of an article about Co-Masonry, the few extra-ordinary examples (many unproven) of a handful of women being "initiated" into regular Freemasonry during the 17th & 18th centuries are so obscure and unproven that they don't warrant inclusion in the main article about Freemasonry. But, to be clear, I take exception to the statement that speculative Freemasonry is "not a direct continuation of the Guilds." Whereas there is no proof that the London Grand Lodge of 1717 was a continuation of the old "Masons Company" of London, there is extensive proof that the earliest speculative lodges of Scotland did transition out of the operative lodges of Scotland, once again providing proof that the "transition" from operative lodges to speculative lodges did indeed occur in Scotland during the 1600's. The fact that the same transition cannot be found in England does not mean that it did not occur. It simply means that it did not occur "in England." This troubling fact has caused many English Masonic historians to ignore the 17th-century Scottish evidence and simply state that "modern Freemasonry began with the formation of the London Grand Lodge of 1717," thereby ignoring the Scottish evidence as if there was nothing north of Hadrian's Wall but the North Sea. However, they cannot make the old 17th-century Scottish minutebooks disappear. They stand as an indelible reminder that the previous statement about the primacy of the London Grand Lodge is simply false. Further, the previous statement that the Irish Masons did not have the Third Degree at the time of the initiation of Elizabeth Aldworth is open to question. The time of her initiation would have been about 1713. Just because the Moderns of the early London Grand Lodge of 1717 did not have the Third Degree at the time of its formation does not mean that the Ancient Masons of Ireland did not have it at an earlier date. There is evidence of many of the elements of the Third Degree during the late 1600's. It may be, however, that the Third Degree was worked as an optional, occasional, degree that was conferred only on rare occasions and was not considered required or necessary for full membership in the lodge. Its existence prior to 1717 in the work of the Ancient Masons of Scotland, Ireland and Northern England, simply means that it took some time for the "Moderns" of London to obtain it and begin to work it. Lastly, the comment that the O.E.S. is not "Freemasonry" is open to debate. I could argue that any organization in which 1) at least some of the members wear Masonic Aprons, 2) the meetings take place in a Masonic lodge room, and 3) administer oaths upon the Three Great Lights (HB, Square & Compasses) arranged upon the Masonic Altar, is in fact a "Masonic organization" and is "practicing Freemasonry," albeit of a distorted nature. The U.G.L.E. considers the O.E.S. to be an irregular form of Freemasonry and therefore does not permit its members to belong to it. PGNormand 18:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeMolay[edit]

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)[reply]

Re-working of several sections[edit]

In an attempt to respond to some of the suggestions that LauraLove made in her GA review comment page, and comments made at the last GA review itself... I have reworked a few sections. Please take a look at my edits and see if there is anything you disagree with (I did my best... but you never know). Blueboar 20:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going ot add this in yet, because I'd prefer not to confuse big changes with little ones, but we have an article on CHIP that needs to be linked in, and I think the statement about Duncan's needs to be sourced from someplace, because that's the first I've heard of it being a composite. Women and Freemasonry I'll probably work over a bit more, and we need to section link the Officers bits. MSJapan 21:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE Duncan: If you look at the preface of Duncan's ritual, he lists several old rituals that he used in writing his. I think we could cite to that(?) (Perhaps "merged" is the wrong wording... But it was the best I could come up with.) It seems clear from what he says that he took bits from previous rituals to create his version.

RE CHIP: the article can certainly be linked. Feel free. (Never mind... SofV took care of it)

Re women... I agree... I just did a first stab at it. Blueboar 21:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further re: Duncan... The preface is [here](it's the Sacred Texts site)... he lists his references and talks about how he used them... continue to [here] go to the end and read pp 147 - 149 (after the Charge at the closing)... more interesting stuff on his sources, and repeats how no two rituals are really alike. It seems clear to me that Duncan is saying that he cherry picked stuff that he liked from other rituals, but he does so in a bit of a cryptic manner. The question is... are Duncan's own words enough to support the statement that he created his ritual by (in part at least) merging? Blueboar 21:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he was a bit vague - the things he referenced might have had explanatory notes in them, and it doesn't explain the mistakes he made. He didn't come right out and say he was creating a unified ritual, so I think it's synthesizing a bit to say he was. I've never heard any endorsement of it by anyone. MSJapan 15:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the point of my including him was as another example of a very well known exposé that can not be relied on... primarily because his ritual was never adopted by any regular jurisdiction. I agree, on reflection, that stating that it was written in a failed attempt to write a unified American ritual could be considered my OR (I have cut that)... I think we can say that it was, in part, a combination of several other rituals - as that is stated by Duncan himself (or at least clearly implied). So the final question is do we need or want to do so. Blueboar 14:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weird[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Future development[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Gen.Santa Anna a Mason?[edit]

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)whitehorse287[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hmmmm.... what about PHGLs?[edit]

Given that most of the US State GLs now recognize the Prince Hall GL in their state (and in others), can we actually say:

"There can be hundreds or thousands of subordinate Lodges in a jurisdiction, but only one recognized Grand Lodge" (bolding mine)?

Do we mean that there is only one recognized GL in any given area (in which case, I would say that is accurate)... or do we mean that (for example) GLNY is in a different jurisdiction than PHGLoNY (which I think is technically accurate, but confusing to explain to a non-masonic audience). I think this needs reworking. Blueboar 03:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd need to read the recognition documents to get the technical wording, but maybe we can get away with, "in most cases, a given stream of Freemasonry (which we should explain prior to this, BTW) has only one recognized GL in its jurisdiction." MSJapan 06:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oy Vey! We do not want to get into that kind of detail in the opener. Let me ask a more basic question: What concept are we trying to convey in this sentence? Blueboar 11:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that was for the opener. I'll have to think about that, because I think we mean both, and it's just a technical legal-style mess any way you slice it. MSJapan 20:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just let me get some popcorn and watch the outcome of this conversation! docboat 04:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can come to a few objective conclusions: one, that a "mainstream" state GL and a PHGL in the same state are not in the same jurisdiction - otherwise there would be no need for mutual recognition. Thus, there can be multiple jurisdictions in a state (just like Chapter and Council and Commandery, et al coexist but are not the same as the state GL). Second, that in any given stream of Freemasonry, there is only one recognized GL per jurisdiction, because it needs to be differentiated from one or many clandestine ones. What can we say, then, given those two objective facts? MSJapan 06:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say nothing at all - it does not answer the question "what is freemasonry", it gives too much information tat could be hived off to a subpage if the demand to know was there, and I think it will be better to drop it (and other similar areas of detail) altogether. But then again, I am all for a simple life. docboat 09:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't recall the formal wording, but geographic control is one of the principles for recognition. And I can't document things based on conversations over a glass of wine in London ;) The mutual recognition of PH Lodges in the US is recognised as a peculiarity, based around the shared history, and shouldn't be considered as a precedent. PH GLs are recognised because they exist already, I'm not convinced that efforts to establish a PH GL elsewhere would be well received.

So I think the point is valid, but would agree that we need to find a better way to say it.

ALR 09:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure we really need to say it at all... Is this another example of our getting distracted by trying to explain the minutia of Masonry to the point where we just confuse the reader? It certainly is too complicated for the opener. I have cut the line (if someone feels that we do need to go into all of this, they can re-add it somewhere in the body of the article.) Blueboar 10:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient vs. Antient[edit]

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)[reply]

spelllllling and other conventions[edit]

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)[reply]

I will go through it a bit at a time if that is okay, I think where the sections refer to US organizations then the Z's should Boooooom 13:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Grand Junior vs. Junior Grand[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

IP vandalism[edit]

we seem to be getting a LOT of IP vandalism recently... should we request a semi-lock? Blueboar 02:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lewis[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]