Talk:Freemasonry
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Freemasonry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
![]() | Freemasonry is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | Freemasonry has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
Please change letter G redirect
[edit]the current link does not describe anything to do with Freemasonry. Please change the link from G to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Masonic_abbreviations#:~:text=with%20a%20G.-,G.,Grand%20Architect%20of%20the%20Universe. I would do so myself but my wiki-fu is admittedly not strong enough. 2603:800C:3D00:1ED2:F81D:98FA:D56:FB1A (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. Will do that for you:)) Michaelangelos (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Article Unclear
[edit]The article is not very helpful in helping the readers understand what Freemasonry actually is. The three introductory paragraphs only focus on organizational structure and differences within Freemasonry, but leave aside the primary question of what the modern freemasonry is all about. There should at least be an attempt to answer this fundamental question in the introduction. ---bssasidhar- >Talk Page 08:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- The fundamental question is answered in the very first sentence… Freemasonry is a fraternal organization. It is about fraternity (ie friendship and brotherhood). Everything else stems from (and reinforces) that basic concept. Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Freemasonry or Masonry refers to fraternal organisations and guilds of stonemasons that, from the end of the 14th century, regulated the qualifications of stonemasons and their interaction with authorities and clients."
- This sentence, being in past tense makes it confusing. -bssasidhar- >Talk Page 12:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sentence has been changed… hopefully it is clearer now. Blueboar (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Thank you. -bssasidhar- >Talk Page 08:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sentence has been changed… hopefully it is clearer now. Blueboar (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Are all stonemasons a part of freemasonry?
[edit]It is clear to me that freemasonry, a kind of fraternal organization with some secret rituals, code of conducts, and belief system; originated historically from stonemasonry. However, what is not clear to me that whether these 2 group of peoples are overlapping (as in venn diagram) or mutually exclusive. I know there are freemasons who are not stonemassons. But are there any stonemasons who are NOT associated with freemasonry by any means? or all stonemasons are mandated to go through freemasonry??
Please make this clear in the article.
2409:40E1:100D:518E:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. Historically, all stonemasons were Freemasons and all Freemasons were stonemasons (the two terms meant the same thing). However, beginning in the late 1500s and early 1600s they slowly drifted apart. Today they are separate. So… today, while there are some stonemasons who are Freemasons, it isn’t automatic… and most stonemasons likely are not Freemasons. Blueboar (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Proposed paragraph removal
[edit]Section proposed for deletion
|
---|
In contrast to Catholic allegations of rationalism and naturalism, Protestant objections are more likely to be based on allegations of mysticism, occultism, and even Satanism.[1] [better source needed] Masonic scholar Albert Pike is often quoted (in some cases misquoted) by Protestant anti-Masons as an authority for the position of Masonry on these issues.[2][better source needed] However, Pike, although undoubtedly learned, was not a spokesman for Freemasonry and was also controversial among Freemasons in general. His writings represented his personal opinion only, and furthermore, an opinion grounded in the attitudes and understandings of late 19th century Southern Freemasonry of the US. Notably, his book carries in the preface a form of disclaimer from his own Grand Lodge. No one voice has ever spoken for the whole of Freemasonry.[3] |
I believe that the above paragraph should be deleted due to poor sourcing and WP:OR issues. The deletion was contested by User:Blueboar, so I would like to elaborate more on the issues that I have with this paragraph.
The first sentence makes a general statement about what Protestant objections are more likely to be based on using one source alone: an anti-Freemasonry tract by Christian fundamentalist Jack Chick. Since this is a WP:PRIMARY work presenting the viewpoint of an individual Protestant Christian, we can only use it as a source for straightforward statements of fact that directly come from the source (e.g. what Jack Chick personally thinks about Freemasonry). We cannot engage in WP:OR and apply extrapolation and analysis to this source to say what Protestant objections are more likely to be based on overall.
The second sentence is published by the Masonic Information Center, meaning that it is not WP:INDEPENDENT of Freemasonry. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, it cannot be used to make claims about third parties, such as what Protestant anti-Masons have said or any misrepresentations they may have made.
The end of the passage is cited to Albert Pike's own Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, a WP:PRIMARY work. It cannot be used to establish whether Pike was learned, whether he was a spokesman for Freemasonry, whether it is [notable] that his book carries a disclaimer from his Grand Lodge, or whether his writings were controversial among Freemasons in general, all of which are not direct statements of fact about Pike's work but rather analytical statements contextualizing his work requiring a secondary source. As the paragraph states, His writings represented his personal opinion only
, so they cannot be used as a source for describing the role of Pike in Freemasonry in WP:Wikivoice. Zylostr (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- An initial comment (I will respond in more detail later) - first, the source for the second sentence (De Hoyas and Morris) was originally published by M. Evans & Company, which is INDEPENDENT of Freemasonry. The online version that is linked to (Masonic Service Center) is merely a “courtesy link”… a re-publication by permission of the authors. Second - It is a secondary source, not a primary one. And… even if it were, the authors are two of the most notable scholars on Freemasonry, writing about a subject within their expertise, so it would pass the EXPERT exemption. Blueboar (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- It still seems to me that the source may be WP:COISOURCE. The publisher being independent doesn't make the authorship independent—for instance, a public figure's autobiography might be published through a major mainstream publishing house, but it would still be a non-independent source. The De Hoyas and Morris source appears to carry the copyright of the Masonic Information Center, making it the work of a Masonic organization. Additionally, the genre of the work appears to be a polemical work in defense of Freemasonry, and De Hoyas and Morris are Freemasons who have held leadership roles in Freemasonic organizations, so this is not a work by outsider academics.
- To be charitable, I believe it might make sense to limit the extent to which COISOURCE applies to work written by members of very large organizations or movements, as well as work belonging to organizations that fall under the umbrella of a broader movement but are not necessarily formally connected to the movement as a whole. For instance, it seems to me that works written by scholars who happen to be religious are not categorically COISOURCE on religious matters. I can see an argument that De Hoyas and Morris's work is on par with the work of legitimately credentialed religious apologists, which could make it usable but not in WP:Wikivoice. Zylostr (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have been thinking about this further, and while I still disagree with your objections to Morris and De Hoyas, I do think these paragraphs are too long. In fact, I think the entire “religious objections” section (not just the paragraphs in question) could benefit from better summarization. The opinions that various religious sects and denominations have about Freemasonry (and Freemasonry’s response to those opinions) are covered in detail in linked articles. We don’t need to repeat it all here. This article is supposed to be an overview. Blueboar (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think I would also agree with summarization in accordance with due weight. Perhaps the whole section could be replaced with a brief paragraph cited to academic sources about religious history, with secondary sources guiding due weight considerations. This would potentially obviate concerns over De Hoyas and Morris by replacing the source with very similar information from an academic source.Zylostr (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have been thinking about this further, and while I still disagree with your objections to Morris and De Hoyas, I do think these paragraphs are too long. In fact, I think the entire “religious objections” section (not just the paragraphs in question) could benefit from better summarization. The opinions that various religious sects and denominations have about Freemasonry (and Freemasonry’s response to those opinions) are covered in detail in linked articles. We don’t need to repeat it all here. This article is supposed to be an overview. Blueboar (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- One problem is that there are no completely independent academic sources that cover the sub-topic. The closest we have are either Religious scholars or Masonic scholars like Morris and De Hoyas. Still, I will give it a shot. Be patient please… this will take time. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Jack Chick. "The Curse of Baphomet". Retrieved 29 September 2007.
- ^ Arturo de Hoyos and S. Brent Morris (2004). Is it True What They Say About Freemasonry, 2nd edition (revised), chapter 1. M. Evans & Company. Archived from the original on 2 December 2013.
- ^ Pike, Albert; T. W. Hugo; Scottish Rite (Masonic order). Supreme Council of the Thirty-Third Degree for the Southern Jurisdiction (1950) [1871]. Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. Washington, DC: House of the Temple. OCLC 12870276.
In preparing this work [Pike] has been about equally Author and Compiler. (p. iii.) ... The teachings of these Readings are not sacramental, so far as they go beyond the realm of Morality into those of other domains of Thought and Truth. The Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite uses the word "Dogma" in its true sense of doctrine, or teaching; and is not dogmatic in the odious sense of that term. Everyone is entirely free to reject and dissent from whatsoever herein may seem to him to be untrue or unsound (p. iv)
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Freemasonry is a secret society
[edit]The lexical knowledge:
- Encyclopedia Britannica Freemasonry (Definition): Freemasonry, the teachings and practices of the fraternal (men-only) order of Free and Accepted Masons, the largest worldwide secret society — an oath-bound society, often devoted to fellowship, moral discipline, and mutual assistance, that conceals at least some of its rituals, customs, or activities from the public (secret societies do not necessarily conceal their membership or existence).
- Wikipedia: Secret Society#Definitions: Historian Richard B. Spence of the University of Idaho offered a similar three-pronged definition: The group's existence is usually not kept secret, but some beliefs or practices are concealed from the public and require an oath of secrecy and loyalty to learn. ...Spence's definition includes groups traditionally thought of as secret societies (Freemasons and Rosicrucians) ... Historian Jasper Ridley argues that Freemasonry is, "the world's most powerful secret Society".
The logical thinking:
- The principle of secrecy with the obligation of confidentiality and the hierarchical initiation system implies that there must necessarily be secrets kept, otherwise it would be an open community like any other. It is also known from Freemasonry that there is secret cipher (Masonic cipher), rituals, gestures, handsigns, symbols and passwords for mutual identification, as well as non-public membership lists. All of these secret aspects are therefore more reminiscent of the practices of a secret service than of an ethical association that only withholds a few scientific secrets from humanity that could be learned by oneself anyway.
- To assume that just because some (very old) secrets of Freemasonry are now publicly known, is as naive as believing that a secret service would stop its work just because a few of its encryptions were decoded. Of course it can be assumed that, as with any secret service, these methods are constantly being improved and developed in secret.
- If secret symbols and codes have been used once (secret society), it can be assumed that they can always be used. It is not possible to prove the contrary. An exposed enemy secret agent will always be classified by security authorities as a possible spy, even if he becomes a stonemason afterwards. Because it is impossible to prove, that he no longer is an enemy agent.
- Thank you.
Wikiprediger (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, neither Britannica nor Wikipedia are considered reliable sources here. They're both tertiary. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Another issue is that there are multiple definitions of the term “secret society”. While some of these definitions do apply to fraternal groups (such as the Freemasons, Knights of Columbus, Elks, and college fraternities)… other definitions DON’T apply.
- And because there are multiple definitions, we can not state in Wikivoice that such and such fraternity IS a “secret society”.
- What we CAN do is note that while definition “X” applies to such fraternal groups, definition “Y” does NOT apply (see WP:NPOV). And that requires going into context and nuance that isn’t really appropriate for the lead sentence. Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia former featured articles
- Wikipedia good articles
- Philosophy and religion good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Former good article nominees
- GA-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- GA-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- GA-Class vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- GA-Class Freemasonry articles
- Top-importance Freemasonry articles
- WikiProject Freemasonry articles
- GA-Class organization articles
- Unknown-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- Wikipedia controversial topics