Talk:Masonic Landmarks

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

Notability and accuracy issues

I have two issues about this article... first is notability. Is a list of Masonic Landmarks really all that notable? I can see it being of mild interest to Masons... and perhaps interesting to a few Anti-masons who want something else to misconstrue to attack the fraternity. But notable to the general public? I doubt it. I would also raise WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information.

The other issue is accuracy and verifiablility. Since each Masonic Jurisdiction defines for itself what are (and are not) Landmarks, this list would have to contain hundreds of different variations to be accurate (not to mention those jurisdictions, such as New York, that do not define exactly what it considers to be a Landmark or not). Add to this the fact that there is no way to verify each list, since few GLs have published this information. ALL you can say, and still be accurate, is that Masonry contains a concept of something called "A Landmark", but that there is no agreement between Jurisdictions as to what exactly this means or what these landmarks are! This is why the issue was not discussed further in the main Freemasonry article. Blueboar 20:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that citing Mackey and showing brief examples of the variance, as here, covers things nicely. --SarekOfVulcan 21:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The snag is that doing that doesn't really add anything to the paragraph in the main FM article. The Landmarks as articulated by the three home GLs are already listed in the Regularity article, since I copied them from the Book of Constitutions, but I'm not convinced that the subject is big enough to really justify an article in its own right, at least not one that really meets the guidance of the Manual of Style. It runs the risk of being a long list of GLs with the various permutations (potentially with a list of the changes over time?). I suppose that's illuminating in it's own right, showing that the Mackey principles don't even hold up, however I think that would constitute OR.ALR 21:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find the remarks here of great interest, and indeed raise both issues I have considered at length and those which I have never considered before.


a) Discrimination:: clear this list maybe hetergenous, but is clearly not indiscriminate. On the contrary, groups of Masons have discussed together and made certain decisions about their relations of amity with one another This is clear discriminate behaviour. As regards notability, clear the discussion about whether UGLE recognised the Rite of Memphis-Misraim in the 1850's clearly involved political decisions taking place in consequence of the Revolutions of 1848. Involving such key figures at Louis Blanc and Giuseppe Garibaldi, this is clearly highly notable people and events. And there has yet to be any serious discussion of the role of revolutionary freemasonry in the International Workingmen's Association, which will also of couse link us into the very contraversial figure of Mikhail Bakunin. Onfortunately these issues are all far too notable.

b)

Charles Peirce
very helpful in this respect.

c) Likewise

Harrypotter 17:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Um... what does any of this have to do with a list of Masonic Landmarks? Blueboar 17:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... on a tangent... your "level in a circle" symbol is not Masonic. Blueboar 18:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to with any "list" of Masonic Landmarks, but rather with Masonic Landmarks. Now I understand why you were originally unsure of the value of such a page. And if it were merely a matter of listing the hallmarks, I would certianly go along with you on that, but ibnstaed seeing how the landmarks might provide the key to understanding the differences between
Harrypotter 16:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
AH... So what does any of the above have to do with Masonic Landmarks? As for the differences between UGLE and GOdF... this is fully discussed in both the main Freemasonry article and the History of Freemasonry article... why go over it yet again in this context? I still don't see the need for this article.
As for the symbol, I assure you that I have a VERY deep understanding of Freemasonry and its symbolism. The symbol is NOT Masonic. However, I can see how some people might think it is... Can you give a citation to back your idea that this symbol is somehow Masonic, or at least to show that someone thinks it is? Blueboar 17:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that a relationship between FM and IWA is sufficiently notable to justify an article then feel free to write one.
The issues of regularity are already adequately discussed in
Christianity and Freemasonry
articles. A list of lists without amplifying, referenced, commentary is not a useful addition to the portfolio.
As it stands I'd see this article as an AfD candidate unless some, informed, meat is added.ALR 10:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research?

If Harrypotter is going where I think he may be going with all of this... he is definitely getting into Original Resarch territory. My thinking on this is based on a few comments that he made above....

*"... And there has yet to be any serious discussion of the role of revolutionary freemasonry in the International Workingmen's Association, which will also of couse link us into the very contraversial figure of Mikhail Bakunin."

*"The information contained on a wikipedia pagelinks other pieces of text, from which people may infer facts or events existing outside language. I would further argue that the distinction between original research are the difference between relying on publisjed sources and unpublished ones, institutional denoted by the separate organisation of archives and libraries."

This leads me to two conclusions... 1) his goal in creating this article is to some how link the IWA to Freemasonry (which would indeed be Original Research). And two, he is using his own personal interpretation of what constitutes Original Research. If I am correct, I would advise him to carefully review

WP:NOR - especially the section entitled "What is excluded?". If I am incorrect, then I appologize. However, I still would have to ask: Where is all this going? At the moment it is indeed just a list of landmarks... which is not, in itself, notable. Blueboar 17:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:NOR
. Anyway following Blueboar's kind apology, I would point out that adding the piece about the Grand Orient and Newton and Pound makes it clear that this is not just a "list". Perhaps
Harrypotter 23:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I have no interest in adding to the article, as I feel all of this is more fully dealt with in the other Freemasonry articles. Adding one or two lines on the Grand Orient split does not make it less of a list... just a list with a few comments thrown in. Newton and Pound just make the list longer. I still don't agree that any of it is notable... But I will let you run with it a bit longer to see where you take it. Blueboar 02:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have added a bit more re UGLE and Prince Hall and the North American situation. It is a shame that we don't have someone with your knowledge helping out as it would make the work so much easier, but no doubt you are nvoved with other issues and I wish you well with them.

Harrypotter 09:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Oh goody... more listing! Still not notable. Blueboar 14:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could reveal what VSL stands for, the it would make the article truly notable!!!
Harrypotter 21:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
What, you mean: "Volume of Sacred Law"... ie the Bible, Quaran, Torah, Vedas, etc? How would adding that make the article notable? It is already FULLY discussed in the main Freemasonry Article. Or do you think it means something else? Blueboar 21:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So this would also refer to the Book of Constitutions?

Harrypotter 22:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

In regular or "mainstream" lodges, NO... the VLS must be a recognised religious text such as the Bible, the Quaran, or the Vedas. In a few irregular lodges, yes. Blueboar 02:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be VSL as discussed in the Freemasonry article already.ALR 10:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move for AFD?

Given that (without the list of landmarks, which does not pass muster under WP:NOT) everything in this article is more fully discussed in the other Freemasonry related articles... is it time to post this article to AFD? Blueboar 18:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that.ALR 18:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons?...

  • WP:NOT (what wikipedia is not)
  • WP:NN (not notable)
  • Inaccurate in that landmarks vary from jurisdiction to jurisdicton, so to be informative you would need to create a list for every jurisdiction.
  • Repetitious of information more fully discussed in other articles

Please add to this list. Blueboar 20:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clearly the landmarks are notable as a form of organising. And please remeber not all of us are Freemasons and what may seem obvious to you, sometimes is not to those of us who are Cowans. the commenst as regards WP:NOT seems to bear no relation. True the article needs to be better organised. But I do not understand why those people who have better access to information do not work on the page a bit more. As regards accuracy,
    Harrypotter 22:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I can not speak for the other editors who are in favor of deleting this article... but I can tell you why I am not contributing... all of this information is already fully discussed (and better discussed) in other articles such as
Catholicism and Freemasonry etc. etc. etc. Blueboar 22:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I can also reveal why I am not editing this article, and will vote for deletion if an AfD is raised: as it stands today it's mostly listcruft, and if the listcruft is removed the subject is well covered in other articles as Blueboar pointed out. In addition, there is no way this article, in the way it's laid out now, can ever be complete. WegianWarrior 22:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot find the information about Landmarks being in the
    Harrypotter 19:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
That has to be the silliest reason to ask to keep an article I have ever heard... what does the Book of Proverbs have to do with Masonic Landmarks? Blueboar 21:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also... the link to the Proverbs citation bit did not work... per Wiki guidelines I have removed it for now... if you feel it is key to the article, please replace with a working link. Blueboar 21:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My dear
    Harrypotter 00:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Thanks for correcting the link. As for the bit about the word Landmarks being in Proverbs and being something that operative masons referred to... so? the word is in common english usage for exactly those same reasons... It is a minor point that really tells us nothing about what makes masonic landmarks - MASONIC. It is hardly a reason to deny an ADF motion. Blueboar 01:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that it is the other way round, surely. It is claimed that it is the Masonic Landmarks which make masons masonic. I thought Percy made a very interesting remark, linking the quote from Proverbs to the definition of inheritance. Perhaps from your advanced knowledge all this seems
Harrypotter 01:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
It may be mildly interesting to know that the word Landmarks is contained in Proverbs etc., but it does not make the article notable, or any less listcruft. Blueboar 04:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter version

Improvement... the article is much less of a "list of lists". However, most of the material is still more fully (and better) explained in the other Freemasonry articles. Blueboar 12:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still needs work....

The tie to Proverbs is iffy at best - the reference is by no means well-known, and the statements made are by no means official statements, but rather personal opinion. Once again we're leaning on Mackey and other individuals whose scholarly ability is questionable. MSJapan 21:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As there is such a broad range of opinion amongst freemasons, it is hard to imagine what value any so-called "official statement" might have. Of course, the whole topic has a
Harrypotter 21:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Mackey

Did Mackey say Three or Twenty-Five? The article is confusing on this. Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newton's definition

Currently, the article states that

  • Joseph Fort Newton, in The Builders (1914), offers a simple definition of the Landmarks as: "The fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man, the moral law, the Golden Rule, and the hope of life everlasting."

This has been tagged with a "citation needed" tag, so I checked the source in order to formulate a more detailed citation... and while Newton does use the quoted phrase, it is not at all clear that he does so in the context of defining Landmarks. Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Masonic Landmarks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pound's Seven

The Later Interpretations section ascribes to Roscoe Pound six landmarks in language which differs somewhat from that of the seven quoted in a footnote citing the source. The quotation is accurate as far as I can tell; Google Books doesn't currently display p. 171 in full. Bn (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The original 1924 source is his Lectures on Masonic Jurisprudence, p. 26. Might that be preferred to the reprint?
Bn (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to be married to become a grand master

Do I have to be married in order to become a grand master 2603:6011:C942:4CE9:B5D3:517:48EB:D6A3 (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not as far as I know. Of course, the specific qualifications to become a Grand Master vary from Jurisdiction to Jurisdiction - In England, for example, the tradition is for the Grand Master to be a member of the Royal Family (although that tradition may change soon, given that none of the younger Royals have joined the Fraternity). Meanwhile in the US Jurisdictions, the Grand Masters are simply respected Freemasons who have served their various State-wide Grand Lodges in other offices, have become well known and gained a good reputation.
That said… since each Grand Lodge has its own rules that govern qualifications for Grand office… and there are hundreds of Grand Lodges around the world (thousands, if you count all the splinter groups, unrecognized pseudo Grand Lodges, and outright scam outfits)… I suppose it might be possible that there are one or two GLs that do require their GM to be married… however I don’t think it is a very common qualification. BUT… I do think that there are many jurisdictions where it is “expected”, even if not required. A long and healthy marriage shows character. Blueboar (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Masonic_Landmarks&oldid=1203912686"