User talk:MSJapan/Freemasonry MOS

Terminology[edit]

Good idea to create a MOS (I have been thinking of creating a similar project page for notability)... You will probably get a challenge on "mainstream" as being POV, but I agree that it is the correct term (it is the term used in most of the reliable sources). Perhaps you should add "Fringe Freemasonry" to account for any self-constituted, unalligned bodies that do end up meeting the requirements of notability. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need[edit]

How about this, keep to Wikipedia general policies? This is quite simply a terrible idea. JASpencer (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refered to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Balkanising_MOS. JASpencer (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given the recent debates over how to discribe the majority bloc of US Grand Lodges... I think there definitely is a need for a MOS for the Freemasonry Project. We can discuss and debate what the MOS says before we finalize it, but a Project specific MOS itself is needed. In the future, once it is finalized and we have reached a consensus version, we won't have to keep arguing the same debates over and over. Instead, we can all point to the Project MOS page and say... "see, this has been argued before and here is the consensus." Blueboar (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it can be tyled? JASpencer (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So that we can avoid having the same arguments over and over again. I really think you are over reacting here... You seem to think there is something underhanded going on ... there isn't. A lot of Projects have internal guidelines for the articles that come under their scope... MSJ thinks we should have a MOS guideline for articles in the Freemasonry Project. I agree. What you are currently seeing is his draft of such an MOS... it reflects MSJ's thoughts as to what he thinks the MOS should say. It isn't offical, and hasn't been approved by the project. I assume that when MSJ has completed his draft, he will submit it to the project for approval. When he does so, if his proposal still contains something that you object to, you can voice your objection. We will all discuss it, propose changes, reject changes, offer compromises, and (hopefully) reach a consensus. If we can not reach a consensus, the MOS will not be approved.

In the mean time, you are free to make suggestions... and MSJ is free to either incorporate them or ignore them as he wishes... it's his draft on his user space after all. Blueboar (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm free to make suggestions, but they will be ignored. Simply put he will tyle any suggestions from a cowan. JASpencer (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And since this is his own user space, he has every right to do so. Blueboar (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how will that reflect concensus? JASpencer (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to reflect consensus... not at this stage. Again, this is MSJ's user space, where MSJ can do what ever he wants (that's why they call it user space). Blueboar (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Suggest adding something like the following (feel free to change the wording):

Lodges, Grand Lodges and other Masonic bodies:

Individual Masonic lodges are generally not considered notable, unless they have historical significance. Such notability must be established per WP:ORG.
Some Grand Lodges and Grand Orients are notable, others are not. Criteria such as size, age, and influence on the Fraternity must all be considered when determining whether a given Grand body is notable or not, and any claim to notability must be established by reference to reliable secondary sources that are independant of the subject, as per WP:ORG. The Grand body's official website may be cited, but should not be the principal source upon which the article is based, and does not establish the notability of the body.

Just some thoughts. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appendant bodies[edit]

Probably worth making clear the separation of Freemasonry and Other bodies which require the candidate to be a Freemason. Related to that it's probably worth putting some thought into the York Rite, as it's not a single body but a consolidation of bodies which, in the US, are administered in a unified manner.

ALR (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first point. However, York bodies in the US are generally not administered in a unified manner. They might have the same office (and that's a relatively new development for economic reasons, mostly), but neither the assets nor the grand lines of the various bodies are shared. MSJapan (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a perception issue, which is what I'm concerned with. As it stands at the moment the wording suggests that the YR is the norm, and the UK have broken it up, whereas in the US it's really just a convenient collective term.

My inclination would be to avoid discussing the detail as a style issue.

ALR (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the job of the MoS is to clarify terms to avoid confusion. I think we need to deal with it, but maybe it needs to be presented structurally differently. Maybe just reverse it and use the UK version as standard and American as the exception? MSJapan (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP?[edit]

Since when has WP:BLP included biographical details of dead people? The middle inital should be a clue. I'd narrow the List of Freemasons nonsense pronto. JASpencer (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability (individuals)[edit]

Suggest a slightly different wording on individuals, something like:

"To conform to WP:V, and especially to conform to WP:BLP, entries on List of Freemasons without citation to reliable sources that clearly indicate membership may be removed from the list."

To my mind, the primary reason for removal is WP:V... which is reinforced and made more urgent when dealing with living people by WP:BLP. Blueboar (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being aware that you in the US have different criteria for membership than elsewhere, is there any value in being clear about what we consider? Here in the UK an EA is a member, whilst in the US that's not conferred until one is raised.

ALR (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, we have been using the UK meaning of membership at the article so far... but that can be discussed at the list itself. Blueboar (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, though there are very few famous people who are known as Masons who never finished the degrees. Lyndon Baines Johnson is the only one who comes to mind. MSJapan (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V says that to be less confrontational you should be using the fact tags first. JASpencer (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no it doesn't... what it says is:

"Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed..."

it then goes on to caution...

"... but editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references."

In other words it is permissive as far as removal, but notes that people might get upset if you remove without reason.

Whether to tag or remove really is an editorial judgement call. It depends on many things... how controvercial the article topic is, the nature of statement that is unsourced, whether there is a likelyhood that the statement can be sourced, etc.

In the case of the List of Freemasons article, I think we are justified in taking a fairly hard line stand on inclusion and citations. I know several "list of" articles that require citation to multiple reliable sources for inclusion. We only require one. Blueboar (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you miss the point of that, which is that you should try to edit in a concensual manner and only drop from that when you need to. And I've seen this with behaviour that looks rude (instant removal, no citation requests, etc.) but I know that's not the intention. However you and MSJ simply seem to be unable to see how it looks. This is an area in which the proposed guidelines are attempting to override Wikipedia policy, override concensus and why it is a simply awful idea. JASpencer (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you miss my point... it may well look less rude to tag, but it does not "override Wikipedia policy" to remove. Nor does it "override Wikipedia policy" to say that the preferred method of dealing with unsourced information in a particular article is removal. Especially when there is good reason for removal. Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MOS[edit]

A Freemasonry MOS is sorely needed. This is basic stuff, but is badly needed, particularly with the tendency to over-capitalize. Here are my suggestions:

Dates. "Articles will therefore follow U.S. dating formats for US-specific articles, and Commonwealth formats for all others." Some countries other than the U.S. may use U.S. English and dating formats. How about this instead?:

Dates and spelling. Articles which are area specific will therefore use date formats and spelling of the area's state or region, e.g. U.S. date formats and spelling for US-specific articles, Commonwealth date formats and spelling for Commonwealth-specific articles, etc. Articles which are not area specific will use date formats spelling as determined by WP:MOS, taking into account WP:ENGVAR (Opportunities for commonality, Consistency within articles, Strong national ties to a topic, and Retaining the existing variety).

General terminology. Add something like this:

4. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia intended for a general audience. Freemasonry Project pages concentrate on Freemasonry but are to be written toward the wider audience, who are not familiar with customs or usages internal to Freemasonry. The term "the fraternity" can certainly be used in its generic sense (i.e., as a common noun), but avoid phrases such as "in amity with," "the Craft," "the Institution," "Brother So-and-So," etc. Refer to Masons as "Masons" or "members" - do not use the terms "brothers," "Worshipful," etc., when describing or referring to members of a lodge or other organizational unit. See WP:NPOV and WP:JARGON. Although "Freemason" is a noun, "freemasonic" is an awkward double-adjective, is not part of the organization's terminology, and should not be used. I note that some work I've done needs to be wrenched around a bit to comply with this. I read them yesterday and then had to go find a syringe full of insulin.

Add a new section on capitalization.

Capitalization. General nouns are never capitalized in English. Capitalize proper nouns (Ben) and proper names (the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania) only. Do not capitalize common nouns (words which usually refers to a class of entities) except when discussing the matter in question as a larger concept.

Plurals are always common nouns (brethren, lodges, grand lodges). An example of discussing a larger concept would be the concept of Lodge, e.g., "A Lodge consists of a particular number of Freemasons with the Volume of Sacred Law, square and compasses, and a charter or dispensation from some grand lodge" or "Lodge of Master Masons," or of a type of Masonry, e.g., "Capitular Masonry," but in most cases the words "lodge," "grand lodge" and similar terms are being used generically and should be treated as such (i.e., not capitalized), even when the reader knows which grand lodge, lodge, etc. the writer is discussing. For example: "Harry Truman was Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Missouri in 1941-41. During this time, the grand lodge...."

Capitalize names of organizational units (New England Lodge) and masonic bodies and degrees that have proper names (York Rite, Degree of Fellow Craft) but not names of degrees or other terms used generically (the Entered Apprentice degree, a lodge of perfection).

Capitalize masonic office titles when used in conjunction with a specific person but do not capitalize masonic office titles (including "grand master") when used generically. (See Proper noun, WP:JOBTITLES). Exception: "Grand Master" may be capitalized when used in conjunction with a specific grand lodge, e.g., "Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Alaska" but "grand masters and past grand masters of the United Grand Lodge of England." Do not capitalize adjectives, e.g. "masonic."

Always capitalize: Mason, Freemason, Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft (Fellowcraft), Master Mason, Volume of Sacred Law, and, per WP:MOS, names of the various VSLs.

How to decide? Avoid self-importance or trying to impress the reader. Keep in mind that too much capitalization easily comes across as I'm Really Important or I've Got a Secret. Just read M&D! Do not capitalize words which do not genuinely demand it.Last sentence paraphrased from the AQC style manual.

RiverStyx23{^talk_email} 14:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]