Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:54, 12 July 2007

Freemasonry Stub‑class

This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freemasonry articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to join us in our labors, please join the discussion and add your name to the list of participants. The "Top of the Trestleboard" section below can offer some ideas on where to start and what to do.FreemasonryWikipedia:WikiProject FreemasonryTemplate:WikiProject FreemasonryFreemasonry Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. ◆  WikiProject Freemasonry's "Top of the Trestleboard": Improve to Featured Article status Freemasonry Tracing board Isaac Newton University Lodge Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia Operative Masonry Primitive Scottish Rite Add content to stubs… Check recently changed articles for possible improvement, to remove vandalism, etc. Requests Articles for all United Grand Lodge of England-recognized Grand Lodges (if notable) Participate in articles listed for deletion Need images Scottish Rite York Rite Sovereign Grand Lodge of Malta New Article to be created Adonhiramite Rite Portuguese Rite Brazilian Rite Irish Rite Moorish Rite Rite Français Moderne Rétabli

Archives

Archive 1

Adding persons to this list

Additions to this page need to be cited, & if available, include Lodge information. There will almost always be Lodge details in the reference given.

Please consider searching the archived talk pages for a person before adding them.

article improvement: format

In working on this page, I was invariably led to List of Skull and Bones members article, & noticed a couple of things that are applicable here:

1. people without wikilinks are acceptable, with a reason, i.e. what they did/what they are notable for, which seems reasonable here, since we cannot say someone is not notable just because they aren't here. Go back do day-one of wikipedia: would that hold true? No.
2. Several things from there do not hold true here, like the subsections by professio etcs. That is one organization, with one source, & one body.
3. Their Category:Bonesmen survives, while this subject matter's Cat:Freemason does not? What's up with that? Not that I'm complaining, a cat: tag is entirely unciteable, I'm just sayin...

Grye 03:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Cat:Freemason is gone because it got CfDed and no one on the Project got notified. I think it got noticed because User:Stijn Calle went overboard and subcatted it to death. We could always send it to DRV. MSJapan 05:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Save me from my incompetence, i.e. kindly help out with the references

In trying to make some worthwhile additions to this list it occurred to me that I don't know how to cite reference in code like this. So, if you'd all like, I'll list the name and a credible citation and then if someone with more skills than I could fill out the reference that would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance!

Mozart: http://www.freedomdomain.com/freemasons/mozart01.html

Jean Sibelius: http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/sibelius_j/sibelius_j.html

Alexander Pushkin: http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/pushkin_a/pushkin_a.html LeNordique 14:45, 11 April 2007

Hey, sorry about that, I didn't see this here. I'll look at em, check the refs, & if they're good I'll make ref tags for you & replace them ;~) Grye 20:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Done Grye 21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, hey, in the future, assuming you checked the refs, you can add the reference for the source of information for the data you want to cite, at the end (& after punctuation, like"."), i.e. Lodge name, degree, etc. with this code:

<ref> website, book, etc</ref>.

That'll put a ref# there, & what you wrote between the ref /ref into the ref section.

The general article & section to look at, for day-1 starts, would probably be Misplaced Pages:Citing sources#Footnotes

& hey, all: We really do need to have this at the header of the article &/or Talk page...

Grye 21:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! I've also noted the format for how you've made the entries so I'll be sure to be consistent with that in the future. LeNordique 10:00 25 April 2007 (UTC)

DeWitt Clinton

I know DeWitt Clinton - Early 1800s Mayor of NYC, Gov. of NY State (during the Morgan Affair), US Senator, Presidential Candidate, and credited with being the main inspiration behind the building the Erie Cannal - should be on this list ... but I am having difficulty coming up with citations. The BC&Y website has confirmation that he was Grand Master of NY, and I can find reference to his being the Grand High Priest of the Grand Chapter of NY... but I can not find a ref. to his lodge info on line. He was raised in Holland Lodge No. 8, in New York in 1793, and was Master of that lodge a few years later. The lodge has self-published a history that includes this info, but I am not sure if this is a reliable source under WP:V. Blueboar 15:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it is, especially if you consider that a lot of sources only have 1° info, which does not mean they ever actually were raised... while GM & GHP does require 3°. so yeah, absolutely... Grye 17:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. In which case I'll add him in. The lodge's history discusses several other historical figures who were members of the lodge... I think several of them might be notable enough for the list... I'll bounce the names and details off of you (here) before I add anyone. Blueboar 13:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Theron Dunn

What criteria is used to determine if someone is worthy of being on the list?

I was added to this list by someone who apparently admires the work I have done on behalf of freemasonry. The day he entered me, he sent me a link, and shortly thereafter, Gyre removed it, noting I was not "noteworthy" enough. I replaced it, correcting misinformation from the original posting, and gyre removed it.

So, if a brother decides George Washington was worthy of being added, and Gyre decided he was not, who decides?

Thanks

That's a good question. Obviously we cannot add every Freemason who ever lived to the list, but we shouldn't leave out important people either. The easiest criteria to use is to only include individuals who already have a Misplaced Pages article about them. George Washington has a Misplaced Pages article about him because he's notable enough to warrant it, Theron Dunn doesn't because he probably isn't. (If he is, somebody other than Mr. Dunn himself will at some point create the article, at which point we may include Mr. Dunn in the list. We have Autobiography policies against creating articles about yourself.) Philwelch 05:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that this list should be limited to people who are notable outside of Freemasonry. By this I mean that 1) your average non-Freemason will have heard of them, and 2) their notability can be established without mention of their membership in the fraternity. I can think of one or two people that are notable because of their membership (Albert Pike, for example), but those are rare exceptions. For boarderline cases, I would say the rule should be to discuss them here first. If the consensus is that someone is notable enough, we add them. If consensus is that they are not notable enough, we don't. Blueboar 13:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Barton

, Edmund

• I would like this person to be included on the list. He is nOtable and has a reference. I restored Benes, with a reference, and can not see how its addition was "vandalism". WP:OWN needs referring to here, it is starting to get a bit out of hand. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 07:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It is quite simple... for a name to be placed on the list, a citation must be provided (as you have now done). It is easy to claim that someone is/was a Freemason... not all of them are. Blueboar 14:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

TOC

I removed the compact TOC, as it appears multiple times within the article, including at the top. There is another alphabetical TOC that moreover also only gives you the letters that you actually have in the article, but the one article I saw it in was deleted. I'll look at the contents options and get a different one. MSJapan 14:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. If people want to add multiple instances of the TOC within the list (not that it helps that much), please c/p the template and parameters I've already created. MSJapan 15:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rename

I think there needs to be a clearer inclusion criteria for this list. If the goal is to list every single Freemason in history we'll end up with a list with tens of thousands names on it. I suggest as a first step that the article is moved to "List of notable Freemasons". Comments? Pax:Vobiscum 14:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand the point you raise... my only comment is that, since someone needs to be notable to be on Misplaced Pages in the first place, doesn't that in itself limit who gets put on this list? Blueboar 14:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I rather see the point being made, and whilst it's implicit that inclusion demands a fuller article, that's not clear. We then get into a debate as to whether this is best as an article, or a category. I appreciate I don't pay much attention here, not really my thing, but I'd lean towards a category as being more meaningful, I'm not keen on lists, but there may be a higher maintenance overhead there.

ALR 14:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A well maintained list offers several advantages over a category (the essay Misplaced Pages:Categories vs lists raises some good points), but that is a separate discussion. Pax:Vobiscum 15:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to be notable to have your own article, but you don't have to be notable to be mentioned in a wikipedia article (WP:NOTE). Since the article only lists notable people (which is a good thing) it should be made clear somehow, either by adding notable to the article name or by saying so in the lead section. Pax:Vobiscum 15:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The policy I mentioned actually says that list articles are expected to include only notable people, but it's always good to be explicit. Pax:Vobiscum 15:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth Aldworth

Elizabeth Aldworth did not receive 3 degrees, she was not a Master Mason, & Master Mason is pretty universally thought of when refering to one as being a Freemason. If the reference source is good enough for Sir Donald Bradman's citation, then consider what else it says: "Mason" generally refers to a Master Mason, or one who has received all three of the initiatory degrees of Freemasonry. Those who have received only the Entered Apprentice or Fellow Craft degrees are initiated members, but without all the rights and privileges accorded to Master Masons.

Grye 23:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, she's certainly a special case. It's probably worth keeping, but where to list her is a good question.MSJapan 02:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Those who have received only the Entered Apprentice or Fellow Craft degrees are initiated members, but without all the rights and privileges accorded to Master Masons.

Depends on your GL, in both of mine EAs are full members of the craft, although not entitled to the righs and privs of a MM, like the Masters word etc. In that sense the Duke of Edinburgh is a Mason, although he only rx'd the EA degree.

ALR 05:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be a difference between US tradition and English tradition.

In the US, Lodges work on the Third Degree (and "lower" the lodge to Entered Aprentice or Fellowcraft for degree work) ... while EAs and FCs are considered "Masons" (for example they are called "Brother", and they are entitled to have a Masonic funeral if they die) they are not full members of the Lodge... they can not attend most business meetings, nor vote on lodge issues or on candidates. However, since candidates in the US tend to go through all three degrees fairly quickly (typically about a month between each degree, although this will vary from Lodge to Lodge), this time spent as some sort of "half-mason" does not really matter... they gain full rights in short order.

In England, on the other hand, Lodges work on the First Degree (and "raise" the lodge to Fellowcraft or Master Mason for degree work). An EA has full voting rights... at least where basic lodge business is concerned. Candidates may spend years between degrees, and some never progress beyond EA.

Neither tradition is "right" or "wrong"... they are just different.

As for Elizabeth Aldworth ... Do we know if everyone else on our list was Raised? Do we list other EAs and FCs?... If so, I don't see that there is any justification for dropping her (as one of the few women who is documented as belonging to a regular lodge, she is certainly notable enough for inclusion). Blueboar 12:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand it's no longer consistent in the US either, with many GLs now working, or allowing Lodges to work, in the first, passing and raising as required.

If we look at the ritual we see that the EA is obligated to protect the secrets of freemasonry which may now, or at any future point, be communicated...., implying that an EA is in possession of at least some of the secrets.

ALR 19:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As interesting as this is... I think we are off track. The question is: should we include Aldworth? I think we probably should... I go back to my last question, have we listed others who did not take the third degree? If so, I can not see any justification for not including Elizabeth Aldworth. Blueboar 19:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to, I am however sensitive to Grye having issues with including irregular or clandestine Masons in this list.ALR 19:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

We used to have Lyndon Baines Johnson, who took his EA and that was it. Not sure if there were any other notables who stopped partway. MSJapan 20:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In looking at AQC article http://www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/aqc/aldworth.html, the date was 1710 which might have put it prior to the 3° going into the ritual (between 1723 and 1738). If so, she'd be as regular as Ashmole. A footnote might be warranted, but I favor inclusion.

J. J. in PA 01:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

We seem to have a majority opinion in favour of inclusion. Any objections if I embody that?

ALR 08:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I agree she should be included.--SarekOfVulcan 18:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Flags

It will take a bit of research, and may not be readily discernible at 15px, but could we maybe make sure the flags we use are historically accurate? For example, al-Qadir was initiated prior to Algeria's status as a nation, when it used the Ottoman Empire flag (which is similar to but in the same as the modern Turkish flag), and Aldworth was initiated when Ireland wasn't a part of the UK, but did have provincial flags (she is from County Cork in Munster, so I used that one). MSJapan 03:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not the Cross of St. Patrick? Blueboar 21:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

In which case, we will need to change all of the early English and Scottish Masons... anything prior to the Act of Union would need the either the English flag of St. George or the Scottish flag of St. Andrew (for example Elias Ashmole would have to have the English Flag of St. George)... and then there is a period when we should use the old Union Jack (without the Irish Cross). I don't dissagree with your comment (we should be accurate)... but it will be a rather time consuming project. Blueboar 12:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh... actually, it wasn't all that time consuming... we have very few early English and Scottish Masons (in fact our list is heavy on American Freemasons). Done!

One question... For Christohper Wren... should we use the flag appropriate for when he was initiated (St. George's cross flag), or do we put the one that would have been correct at his death (Union Jack w/o Ireland)?... He seems to be the only one on the list who was alive at the time of the Act of Union. Blueboar 22:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

St Patrick saltire was not official (or os the article states), and I was trying to minimize any political issues that might arise from using a flag that might not be appropriate. For Wren, I'd say to use St. George's, because the Act of Union took place relatively late in his life. MSJapan 23:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good (on both not using the St. Patrick saltire and on using St. George Cross for Wren). Blueboar 02:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Question?

Why are John Wayne, Billy Wilder, Jeff Winter, Levi Woodbury, William B. Woods, Steve Wozniak & Sir Christopher Wren listed under "T", and what is wrong with the formating in category "V" and "W"? Zef 14:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone forgot to close a ref (no </ref> at the end of the "T" section)... all fixed. Blueboar 15:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Mark Twain

It seems that I have missed something "cannonical" about calling Samuel Clemens: "Mark Twain". I can understand that the article on him chooses his pen name for its title, as his pen name is more widely known... but do we have to follow suit here? Is there some Misplaced Pages wide rule on this? His connection to Freemasonry was as Bro. Clemens, not "Bro. Twain". My edit (reverted) to Clemens did include an: "AKA Mark Twain" for those who don't know his real name. Blueboar 22:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I changed the "Count Basie" entry slightly (from William Basie) simply because the name is more recognizable, and happens to be what the article is listed under. It's not canonicity, but rather the most well-known name (which avoids a redirect, incidentally). Definitely put his real name there, but leave it under "T". MSJapan 02:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Smith

I deleted the following bit of information from the Joseph Smith entry: "Former mayor, presiding judge of municipal court, and registrar of deeds of Nauvoo, Illinois" as being non-notable... but was reverted with the request to raise the issue on the talk page (I also had a vandalism tag placed on my user talk page... sorry, but my deletion wasn't vandalism). I have no problems including Smith in the list, just including the bit about his being mayor, judge and registrar of deeds in a small town in Illinois. What makes Smith notable (and thus worthy of being included in this list) is the fact that he founded the Mormon religion... not that he held small town office. Your thoughts? Blueboar 12:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Very short descriptions to give enough context, any detail should relate to topic. (Removing one line is not vandalism) ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 12:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, funnily enough, he founded the city he was mayor of, but apparently him being the registrar was more important. This is not supposed to be a mini-bio; that's what the wikilink is for. Anything beyond founding LDS is nn compared to the founding of LDS. MSJapan 13:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep it as it is. First of all Smith's being founder of the Mormon religion was not even there when I stumbled upon the article, and I was the one who put it there. So, it's not as if all I added is the Former mayor, presiding judge of municipal court, and registrar of deeds of Nauvoo, Illinois that Blueboar and his tag team partner Fred.e personally deem to be non-notable. I can easily produce the ISBN of a dozen published works both by LDS and non-LDS authors mentioning these facts about the man's life. Apparently, those authors considered it worth noting.

Since when does holding "small town offices" became non-notable? Specially so if the personality in question has founded a religiois movement that presently has more than 13,000,000 members. The person was mayor, presiding judge and registrar of deeds, not just a security guard of the municipal hall. These facts make him 'more' notable. It clearly illustrates in a very short way that he was nothing short of monarch in his own city.

Fred.e said that "removing one line is not vandalism"? Where did you get that Fred.e? Not only is it a purely invented statement, it also muddles the issue and make it appear as if the mere removal of one line was the reason why your unscrupolous edit buddy was tagged with a vandal warning for removing contents, which is clearly vandalism according to WP standards.

I don't care what WP project you belong to, as you mentioned in my Talk Page, if you people are so good then why is it that I needed to edit the article just to point out that Smith was the first Prophet of the Mormon religion and the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement? You do not enrich the entries, all you do is remove relevant contents placed there in good faith, and you do this in a playing God trigger happy way as if you own the article and WP. Other people in the list have 9 lines of information below their names and you call this one a mini bio? - Watchtower Sentinel 14:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Users content refactored or removed. Page content discussion retained where possible. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 14:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on these comments, I will re-remove the non-notable content.Blueboar 13:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd support the position, it's lower granulrity than is really required.ALR 14:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You should not have done your last edit, ALR. Now, the matter is completely out of my hands. I hope your little gang is bigger than the number of Mormon freemasons in WP. Watch this portion of the article carefully in the coming days. - Watchtower Sentinel 14:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Watchtower... please stop placing vandalism tags on my talk page... my edit was not vandalism. It was a legitimate edit based on what I consider relevant to this article. You have every right to disagree, but that does not make it vandalism. What is going on here here is a simple content dispute.

Now... you state that you added the information that Smith was the founder of the Morman religion... GREAT! Thank you. I do consider that to be important information (which is why I did not remove that bit of information). It tells reader why he is notable. I have no problem with this part of your edit. It should have been included in the entry, and by adding it you made the list better. All we disagree about is the bit about him being Mayor and Register of deeds etc. I don't see how this adds anything to the list. You obviously think it is very important. So let me ask you: Why do you feel that this is important information? More importantly, why do you think this is important to include in this list?

To me, the whole point of this list is to note the fact that those listed on it were, or are, Freemasons... the "description" part of any entry is simply so readers can identify the person and know what makes him notable. In the case of Smith, the fact that he founded the LDS is what makes him notable, not the fact that he was Mayor of Navoo etc. Blueboar 16:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar, let us settle this matter and come to a compromise. We are not discussing what makes him notable, we are discussing whether being a mayor, etc. is notable. That should be clear. Smith was not only a religious leader, he was a political leader, if you take one of these facts out then you don't have a complete presentation of this undeniably notable freemason. He is actually the most notable person on that list, because the religion he founded is worldwide and there are more people who knows him than, even, George Washington. How many people in Malaysia, for example, knows who George Washington was? But Smith has hundreds of thousands of followers in Malaysia. If DeWitt Clinton was notable because he was mayor and because he was a presidential candidate (Smith was also presidential candidate but I did not include it because I find it non-notable) then you should at least mentione that Smith was mayor, nevermind other things about him, but alongside the information that he was the first Prophet of the Mormon religion and founder of the Latter Day Saint movement his office in government should also be mentioned. Being mayor, regardless of the size of the town, is notable in itself. Can you get yourself elected as mayor in even the smallest town in your country? Please do not belittle that position. That is mindlessness. Another person here who does not use his brain said that his being mayor is not notable because Smith founded Nauvoo. How many freemasons on the list founded an entire town? Even that is notable. So, my request, is that we at least include his being mayor. - Watchtower Sentinel 17:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

OK... I understand your point better... thank you for engaging in discussion rather than edit wars. Here is my take on it: The whole point of the list is that the people on it are/were Freemasons. THAT is actually the most important bit of information on the page as far as this list is concerned. We are not trying to give a complete presentation of those on the list (they have their own articles for that)... we are simply trying to list famous people who were/are Freemasons, and what Lodges they belonged to. We could actually leave out the personal information and still have the list. The pesonal stuff is simply a way for readers to quickly identify who the people on the list are. The average reader knows Smith for being the founder of the Mormon religion. After all, Why does Smith have hundreds of thousands of followers in Malaysia? ... Because he founded a religion, not because he founded a town or held a political office. Blueboar 18:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but we are not talking about why he has followers in Malaysia, we were talking about if being a mayor is notable enough to include in the information tidbit provided about him in the article. If being a mayor is not worth mentioning then apply it uniformly in the entire article or mention that Smith wasn't only a religious leader but also a political leader. You said that the average reader knows Smith for being the founder of the Mormon religion. Precisely, that is what an encyclopedia is for, to provide a little bit more information than what the average reader already knows. You are being overacting when you imply that I am attempting to present a complete information on Smith. Go to the article about Smith and you will see that it is bigger than this entire list put together. Nobody is attempting to provide a complete information on anyone here. I did not mention that Smith wrote a book revered by millions of people all over the world as inspired scripture comparable to the Bible or any other fact of that sort. I just want equality. If being mayor is non-notable and your huge ego cannot bear to admit that you're wrong then remove the same information on DeWitt Clinton, remove also the part that says he was a presidential candidate or I will also add that Smith was also a presidential candidate since such info is notable to you. What is so difficult with my request that you include Smith's being mayor? - Watchtower Sentinel 18:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you ask anyone who Smith was, I doubt the first response will be "He was the Mayor of Nauvoo". It would undoubtedly be "He founded the LDS Church". Similarly, JFK isn't "a senator from Massachusetts", he's "the 35th President of the US". All the Supremem Court Justices were also District Judges at some point. All those lower offices are certainly "notable" as far as WP policy goes, but all we're really concerned about here is Masonic membership and the most notable thing about a person. To put in a lot of info not only undermines the purpose of the list, it also defeats the purpose of wikilinking anything at all. MSJapan 18:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Quit crying, boy. Your "Our brainless bunch owns WP and what we are concerned with is" nonsense is no longer needed because your meat puppet already deleted the point of contention and I am already happy with the amount of fairness he has shown. And so this case is closed, or so until I see another discrepancy with your small gang's judgment. You can check my edit history and you will see that I did not spill the beans to any Mormon freemasons here. Always practice fairness and tame the ego. May the GAOTU bless and keep you still. - Watchtower Sentinel 19:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that Clinton's political carreer is what he is known for... but if it will make you happier, I can live without mentioning his being Mayor of New York City or that he was a presidential candidate. Consider it deleted. Actually, his being Governor is not even the most important thing about him... it was that he was both Gov. and Grand Master of NY at the time of the Morgan Affair. Thanks for reminding me of that. Blueboar

I did not remind you anything so don't thank me. Hypocrisy is not my game. - Watchtower Sentinel 19:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure.... are you saying that we have a consensus on the entry? Blueboar 19:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you retained the first half of my original edit, then you removed the mayor and presidential candidate info on DeWitt Clinton (you're from the same lodge, aren't you?), which I was contesting, of course we have a consensus! As long as every entry follows the same rule then there should be no problem. I am presently eyeing on the Michael Richards entry, it should be downsized... unless your entire gang belongs to his fan club. - Watchtower Sentinel 19:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Richards

No, I'm not a big fan of Richards... not even before his racist remarks... but that is besides the point. He is famous, and he is a Mason, so he gets to be on the list (if Hitler had been a Mason he would get to go on the list). Anyway, what needs to be downsized? We don't mention any personal info (we should probably identify him as an actor). Or is this a different issue? Blueboar 19:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not questioning his being on the list. Stop playing stupid. There are nine lines under his name and your braindead meat puppet says that the one additional line under Smith's name turned it into a "mini bio." The entry on Richards should just mention his lodge and that he's an actor. - Watchtower Sentinel 20:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are his Masonic credentials... which is the whole point of the list. Ideally we would have full degree info on everyone on the list, the way we do for Richards (and a few others)... but, unfortunately, for most of them all we have verified is lodge number and (sometimes) date of initiation or raising. In the case of Richards... because of his recent notariety the Grand Lodge of BC&Y looked deaper into his masonic history, and posted it on their webpage so we have more information. If you can add cited information on initiation, passing and raising dates, (as well as other degrees taken) for anyone else on the list, please add it. Blueboar 20:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have a hundred ballerinas, and they are all supposed to spin counterclockwise, but they all did it in reverse except for one girl who got it right, that one dancer who did it correctly is the one who will appear wrong to everyone else. Why don't you downsize your secret idol's entry just to be fair to your other brothers and to make WP appear organized and credible? - Watchtower Sentinel 20:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That might make sense if his was indeed the only entry that was complete... but if you look at the entries for Ian Flemming, James Garfield, the Mozarts (father and son), Theodor Reuss, Ernest Shackleton, Harry Truman and Mark Twain you will see that others have similar levels of completeness. This isn't about the number of "lines" each person gets... it is about having as complete a list of information on Masonic affiliation as we can. Richards gets more "lines" because he joined more Masonic bodies.

As an aside... I would apreciate your keeping the conversation civil. Making snide remarks does not help. Blueboar 21:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about what you would appreciate or not, this is about the article. Where in the article does it say that it is about having as complete a list of information on Masonic affiliation as we can? It is just supposed to be a list of notable freemasons. You people keep on citing invented standards that isn't even in the article. Were you the one who created this article? It seems that you don't even understand the nature of it. Read the article well and quote the parts that support your invented standards. Also, how many entries do we have here? If you have less than ten persons who are presented differently than everyone else then it still fits my analogy. Do you sniff the autographed item before you sleep? - Watchtower Sentinel 21:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

OK... that's it... between that last comment and your edit summaries, you have lost all assumption of good faith on my part... I have tried to be civil and engage you seriously and you insist on making personal attacks. I am breaking off the conversation. As a final comment - no, I didn't create the page... but I have worked for a long time with those who did create it, I was involved in the discussions that led to it being created, and I have been a part of this project since shortly after it was created. I do know what the intent and inclusion criteria is. You don't. If you don't like how we have set this list up, you are welcome to go edit some other page. Good bye. Blueboar 21:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Section break

I've had a look at the source of all this conflict and noted the following:

Is Joseph Smith, Jr. really the First Prophet of the Mormon religion and founder of the Latter Day Saint movement.? I don't know if familyforever.com is a RS. I leave this to you to decide on it. I just read that Smith's followers declared him to be the first latter-day prophet. Can this help as a consensus? Could one party leave what the other party brought there but make sure to add a note stating what is said on Smith's article? I believe this is how it should be. As for the rest i really don't see that being a registar of deeds is encyclopedic. A mayor is. Anyway, that is up to you.

Watchtower Sentinel, please do never accuse anyone of sockpuppetry, vandalism or anything of the kind. We have Requests for Checkuser but make sure that Checkuser is not for fishing. If keep accusing someone w/o proof or w/o requesting a CheckUser, you'd risk a block. The same thing applies to vandalism and templating people instead of leaving them your questions gently. I see that you a newbie and this is a good thing but we just don't like to work in a noisy environment. I hope you calm down and seek a consensus instead of any other thing. Thanks. -- FayssalF - 21:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I never accused anyone of sockpuppetry, User:FayssalF, are you on drugs? I said meat puppet not sockpuppet. If you know the difference then you should not have even brought up CheckUser. Meat puppetry cannot be established by CheckUser. You seem to be clueless about everything that you're blabbing about, actually I doubt if you even speak English. No, I am not a new user. We already reached a consensus on Smith, you are late, and your inputs are immaterial and irelevant to the issue. Calm down and take your nonsense to Iraq or wherever it is that you came from. - Watchtower Sentinel 21:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

1. "Famous Freemasons. Political and civil rights leaders: Australia".

• Stub-Class Freemasonry articles
• Unknown-importance Freemasonry articles
• WikiProject Freemasonry articles