Talk:Supreme Council, Scottish Rite (Southern Jurisdiction, USA)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rename?[edit]

Note: this discussion has been carried over from Mother Supreme Council of the World, a previous title for this article. Wikipedia policy is to use the most common name for things as the article title... and "Mother Supreme Council of the World" isn't all that common, even though it is part of the "official" name. Shouldn't this be renamed to something like: "The Supreme Council, 33°, AASR, Southern Jurisdiction, USA", with the the official full title listed as an alternate name? Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Note: this discussion has been carried over from Mother Supreme Council of the World, a previous title for this article.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was
Stale
 – no users have entered comments for a month. --JPG-GR (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK... per my reasoning above, I am formally requesting a move to: Supreme Council, Scottish Rite (Southern Jurisdiction, USA). As is indicated in the article itself, something like this seems to be the most common varient of the entity's name. Please discuss. Blueboar (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Rename, Don't Move[edit]

Mother Supreme Council of the World is, I feel, the correct title of the page. That is what it is, that is what it often known as by Freemasons, and that title conveys the proper originality of the organization. It is the Mother of all Supreme Councils of the Scottish Rite. It is a correct and historical name, as well as a name that conveys the propper meaning. There is is no page for the Supreme Council of the Northern Jurisdiction...why?--Because "WIKIPEDIA POLICY," is to have pages on things that are notable. This is notable BECAUSE it is the MOTHER SUPREME COUNCIL OF THE WORLD. Honest to God, if you had not the gumption, will, and/or KNOWLEDGE to create this article in the first place, why the sudden fascination? I have personal connections to the damned thing! Sorry, but I am really sleep-deprived and am not in a good mood, but your argument seems really assenine, because just as many people know of it by my proposed title as by yours, which is no more or less accurate, though mine is more significant to the history of the group. Members of the Freemasonry project here have helped me edit the page, and have not argued one tiny bit for a change in name. Unless you want a plethora of very un-notable articles to pop up concerning this subject, why don't you leave well enough alone?

As-is, it meets the criteria, without the title and main description being unnecisarily redundant because of minimally hashed-out arguments elsewhere. I will provide links to the page from other Freemason articles concerning Supreme Councils, but you must understand that it remains the foremost body of the Scottish Rite, and therefore the title is entirely accurate. People that want to know what this is should get a page with an accurate title, not a merely technical one. I will set up more re-direct pages if you wish.

Mainly, CEASE YOUR OBFUSCATION OF MASONIC MATERIAL ON WIKIPEDIA! Freemasons stand for liberty and the freedom of individuals. If you want to invest your obviously vast ammounts of free time, create your own article, and talk to me about merging it later, once it becomes more notable and proven to be more "common." —Preceding unsigned comment added by FearAndLoathing08 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa... This is not an attempt to "obfuscate" masonic material on Wikipedia. Nor is it an attack on Freemasonry (Just so you know I am a Freemason, and proud of it) ... this simply has to do with Wikipedia's nameing conventions... When there are multiple names for something, we are supposed to use the name that the greatest number of English speakers (not just Freemasons) would recognize. Run a simple google search on "Mother Supreme Council of the World" and you will find that most of the hits use that title as a secondary one (usually in paretheses). Even the Scottish Rite, SJ web page is not consistent (see their forum page for example). All I am saying is that other titles such as "Supreme Council, Scottish Rite, Southern Jurisdiction USA" are more common.
No one is doubting that the SJ is the "foremost body of the Scottish Rite", nor even that it is the "Mother Supreme Council of the World"... that title should continue to be mentioned (and I would mention it prominently, in bold, as an alternate name... as in: "Also known as The Mother Supreme Council of the World")
As for why there is no article for the Supreme Council, Northern Jurisdiction (or any of the other Supreme Councils in other areas of the world)... the answer is simply that no one has written it yet. Lack of an article does not really mean anything. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Corrected History section[edit]

Note: this discussion has been carried over from Mother Supreme Council of the World, a previous title for this article. The 1811 and 1815 dates were corrected to the proper 1911 and 1915 dates respectively. All cites on this page, the temple's page, and all other data I've read points to the 20th century dates as opposed to the 19th century ones.--Feddx (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feddx, I assume you are just talking about the dates for the laying of the cornerstone and completion or the House of the Temple, and not dates for rest of the history section. The Scottish Rite in general, and the Southern Jurisdiction in particular, clearly goes back to the 19th century. Blueboar (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the construction dates which were listed as 1811 for the cornerstone and 1815 for the completeion of the Temple in DC were incorrect. As I wrote, I corrected them to their proper 20th century dates.--Feddx (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renewing discussion on renaming the article[edit]

Note: this discussion has been carried over from Mother Supreme Council of the World, a previous title for this article. Last June, I proposed renaming/redirecting this article to something along the lines of Supreme Council, Scottish Rite (Southern Jurisdiction, USA). My proposal was met by a somewhat confusing plea from the article's creator (User:FearAndLoathing08) that we not rename (he seemed to think my proposal was some sort of anti-Masonic attack) <see discussion above> so I desided to drop the idea for a while.

I think it is time to re-open that discussion. As with my previous proposal, I am suggesting a rename/redirect purely to bring the name of the article into line with Wikipedia's naming conventions. While the current title is one that is used by the Southern Jurisdiction, as the article itself points out it is not the most commonly used name for the organization. This is especially true if you go outside of the SJ... the rest of Freemasonry tends to use something closer to my proposed title.

Please comment. Blueboar (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? Blueboar (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK... it is obvious that no objects anymore... so I will move it. Blueboar (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been moved/renamed[edit]

As per discussions above. Blueboar (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


M&D The 'first philosophical document'?[edit]

I am not convinced with the validity of this statement. Wouldn't the Circular Thoughout the Two Hemispheres, published in 1802 not only precede M&D, but as the "manifesto" of the SC, it asserts a basic philosophy of the rite while asserting its superiority over the Craft degrees, and thus qualify as a 'philosophical document'?

As a whole, the comments on M&D seem artificial and contrived in this location. Perhaps a listing of documents published by the SC? M&D is a great work, I love it, but there are many worthwhile and perhaps even more important documents concerning the SC (the Grand Constitutions come to mind).

Please comment. - Jmitchell4466

WP is not original research. Therefore, if it's there, it is sourced to somebody else. If you can find another source that says otherwise, we can just add it. Also, note the clarification of "philosophical" and that M&D is a lot longer than the original manifesto. Context may be important here. MSJapan (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little lost by your comments MSJapan. WP? I don't know what you are referring to. As to M&D, no doubt the success of the AASR is no small way resultant from Pike, and his works, like M&D. But to the Charleston Supreme Council, which exist several decades before Pike came along, there are other documents that I think have very profound historic and philosophic import - such as the Circular. Jmitchell4466 —Preceding undated comment added 07:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
"WP" -> Wikipedia. Again, what you are saying is coming across as an opinion that you have formed, rather than being based on any third-party sources, and we cannot use opinion on Wikipedia, as we do not engage in original research. As a side note, you need four tildes to sign a comment. MSJapan (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. As for sources, the Charleston SC's Ritual and Monitor, Brent Morris's lecture on high degree Masonry in America. I don't have either here with me at the office, I can follow up this weekend with chapter/verse. I am curious: the comments concerning Pike are themselves uncited, how is that not opinion? Jmitchell4466 (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 December 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per arguments that USA is in the proper name of the council, and therefore not a violation of WP:NOTUSA. (non-admin closure) Bradv 02:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Council, Scottish Rite (Southern Jurisdiction, USA) → Supreme Council, Scottish Rite (Southern Jurisdiction, U.S.) – WP:NOTUSA, and the fact that someone moved it back in 2009 after the requested move in '08 was stale and no further discussion for the new [current] title. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 18:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - In this case, the chain of words: "Southern Jurisdiction, USA" is not a disambiguation (governed by the style guidance of NOTUSA) but part of an official alternate name for the topic organization, (governed by WP:UCN). See the organization's website. To give an analogy... the article title for the notable Bruce Springsteen song is "Born in the USA"... we would not change it to "Born in the US" because of NOTUSA. That said... the parentheses in the current title should probably be removed.. i.e. the title should be --> Supreme Council, Scottish Rite, Southern Jurisdiction, USA. (With a comma, not parentheses). Blueboar (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Supreme Council, Scottish Rite. This already redirects to the article, making the disambiguation pointless and unnecessary. Alternately, if there's a more WP:COMMONNAME, move the article there instead.--Cúchullain t/c 20:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is more than one "Supreme Council" in the Scottish Rite (For example the Northern Jurisdiction has one). Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Tutelage"[edit]

What is "titulage"? is this a Mason's only word, or did the writer mean tutelage? Wcichello (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a Masonic only word... it is a somewhat old fashioned word meaning "ways things are titled" ... It is related to the word "titular" Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Supreme_Council,_Scottish_Rite_(Southern_Jurisdiction,_USA)&oldid=1198835924"