Talk:Grand Lodge of West Virginia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Frank Joseph Haas)

2008 discussion[edit]

(set off as a discussion section titled "2008 discussion", with indenting of several sections below, by me, for readability in 2016) --doncram 17:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This reads as a hit piece on WV's Grand Lodge.--Bedford Pray 00:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the removal[edit]

I disagree with this removal. And I don't think this was a "hit piece". This was a notable and newsworthy event; it is pretty clearly of encyclopedic importance by our standards; and this is the appropriate page for it. It would be great if someone would flesh out more of an article (clearly, this is a stub with or without that material), but that material should be restored. - Jmabel | Talk 20:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed this comment before I just restored the article, because the removal of the well-supported information in the article was clearly unjustified, in my view. Bedford's removal of the information was indicated in his edit summary to be for reason of WP:UNDUE. However, while that policy applies to general issues of balance in well-developed articles, it does not justify striking factual, well-supported information in a new article. If you question the balance, add information speaking to the other side.
However, Bedford has just reverted my restoration of the article, instantly, without discussion. Bedford, would you please comment here? doncram (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only reason you are involved is because you saw my name next to this article. There's 150 years of history pertaining to this Grand Lodge, and instead, 90% of it is negative-slant against the Grand Lodge, placing undue weight on an event that is not that particularly notable.--Bedford Pray 01:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed striking how i seem to disagree with your judgments on many matters, Bedford, you and i must think differently. But the news information from 3 separate reputable news sources is substantial and fine to include in a new article. About the previous 150 years of history, it would be fine to add material about that. I already went to the official website of the organization to look for other history to describe, but the website is pretty barebones. Do you happen to have access to other sources? doncram (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality tag[edit]

After i restored the article and was editing it "under construction", Bedford added a Neutrality tag which stated that the article is subject of dispute. I have developed the article somewhat with information from the official site of the organization to provide some description of the size and scope of the organization, and i have now removed the neutrality tag.

I would grant that there is the possibility of bias built into describing a news event when one side, valuing privacy, refuses to put forth publicly a different side. For example, coverage of the polygamist organization in Texas, prior to the recent controversy there in which children were removed, suffered from secrecy of the organization and its members. News articles state that the official West Virginia Grand Lodge organization has refused to comment on the lawsuit's charges. It is not clear what the official side could be, in response to the described situation. It appears that the organization's practices are out of line with those of other state lodges, and it could just be that the organization needs to update its practices. Whether it intends to do so is not known, but that could be made public by the organization if it chose to do so.

So I do not believe this wikipedia article is biased in any direction. It is factual as far as it goes. If there is another side, what the other side could be about should be expressed here and/or in the article. doncram (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, i observe Bedford has reverted my development of the article to add info from the official organization, and my removal of under construction and neutrality tags. Because of the revert removing the official organization information, it tends to appear that this revert is not in good faith. As another editor soon stepped in to fix a typo on the Bedford-reverted version, which was already fixed along with other development in the article, i am reverting to the most developed version. Bedford, you have to let others develop this article, it is not right to revert it to a poorer state. Your response and comments by others here would be welcome. doncram (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. It seems to me that the information on Haas's lawsuit is worthy of inclusion, but at the same time it's true that it takes up around 40% of the article. Bedford, do you have any suggestions for material to add from the other 150 years of the Lodge's history? If so surely that would settle everyone's concerns.
As for an official answer to the lawsuit, is it possible that while this Lodge has refused to comment another Lodge has done so in support (or otherwise) of the Lodge? Anyone know? Olaf Davis | Talk 11:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of attaining the material, and since I am a fair ways from WV, it would be hard. However, knowing what I do about the make up of Grand Lodges, I know that the existing lodges would have originally been under the Grand Lodge of Virginia, and given that the state of WV was split off extraconstitutionally from Virginia, I imagine there is a story to be told about the split. There might be something usable through a Google Books search; I saw something interesting and probably worthwhile to add here, but I was getting too sleepy, and I sometimes type odd things when I'm sleepy.--Bedford Pray 17:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look it over...[edit]

I'm familiar with the incident as far as news coverage has it, and I think I've got a pretty fair idea of what's acceptable and what isn't. I'll be looking this over, and I'm going to point out everything that shouldn't be in there because it's not reporting fact, but I will say trhs right off: WP is not a battleground or a debate club; the issue itself will be resolved by the courts, not here. If you want to do that sort of thing, get a blog. MSJapan (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the article should be better now. Financials are inappropriate and irrelevant, especially to look at one year and one year only. Why someone though the reporting forms would have anything of historical value is beyond me, but I removed that statement from the historical section. Putting in foundation dates and precedence would be a better start for this.
I also carved up the lawsuit section, as it's somewhat inaccurate, and a few of the quotes have nothing to do with the topic like the secret society quote). The section is also inconsistent - first it says Masons are prohibited from supporting non-Masonic charities, and then it says that Lodges are. The latter would be accurate, as GLs do not dictate the actions of individual members. Also, there may not be any black members in GLWV, but there is a Prince Hall jurisdiction, so some clarification is in order once I can get a source for the PHGL of WV.
I'm pretty sure that the lawsuit section is free of editorializing and other POV stuff, but the reason it takes up so much of the article is because there are other fundamental pieces of the article that are missing. It will all fall into place when the history section is written up. MSJapan (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge into Grand Lodge of West Virginia#Lawsuit. -- MSJapan (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Frank Joseph Haas be merged into the "Lawsuit" section here because his bio is currently about the lawsuit more than himself, and as GM is not inherently notable as per WP policies, it is a case of being famous for one event. Because it uses the same sources, the material is duplicated (which is also against policy), and I see too much potential for POV forking (also against policy) if there are separate pages. This does not, however, preclude a separate page on the lawsuit in the future if the topic gets big enough. MSJapan (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of both was pushing POV; which is why I was against this making DYK in the first place.--Bedford Pray 21:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Bedford responded to the question. I am not opposed to merging the two articles.
I don't know if I should respond to Bedford's aside, but anyhow, in response to Bedford's comment about the original article here, it seems that it was "unbalanced" only in that it presented the lawsuit information that was in the news, which I think he perceives may reflect poorly on the organization. I note with some minor irritation that Bedford succeeded in sabotaging the DYK based on that, a DYK nomination which I thought was interesting, justified, and well-supported. Bedford did so by suggesting that other history should be added, as if it were available, yet can't find anything to add. I myself made some effort to come up with other info to add, such as the financial size of the organization, and find it odd that someone thought that was the biased material in the article and removed it. I note that all the original info that Bedford perceived as negative and deleted, was always well-supported, and has been retained by everyone else involved. doncram (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MSJapan. A merger is in order. Blueboar (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger disputed - This was not canvassed with other contributors, it only has on "me too" comment, and it is closed by the proposer. There was a previous move to get rid of the article by the proposer. Totally out of order. JASpencer (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP edit....[edit]

Not entirely' factually incorrect, but the tone is wrong. The wording will be changed, but the recognition or not of Prince Hall really doesn't have a place here. MSJapan (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recognitions in general... but including the PH issue[edit]

I am not so sure there is no place for this here... The question is whether GLWV's recent de-recognition of Grand Lodge of Ohio has a place (see: this notice from GLOh). If so... then we may need to mention the Prince Hall issue, the expulsion of Frank Haas, the lawsuit, etc. to explain why this took place. That said, this is a recent event... so I think we should wait a while longer, and see what the broader ramifications of all this are (how will Ohio respond... what will other GLs do... etc). Blueboar (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with a wait, but we also need to look at things in the long-term. If all this clears up in a few months, it's 2 years in the scope of an organization that is 145 years old. Should 90% of the article be taken up with <1% of its history only because it's more readily out there and "current"? In short, yeah, cover it at some point, but be balanced about it. MSJapan (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not established[edit]

I don't mean to imply that the GLWV isn't notable (it is... especially since the Haas lawsuit) ... I mean this article does not (yet) properly establish that notability... the article does not meet the requirements for notability set out at WP:ORG. Specifically, it needs to refer to reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. At the moment it is entirely sourced to the GLWV website. Blueboar (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of references that can be cited in respect to the Haas lawsuit. Here are 3 from print newspapers on the decision alone: [1], [2], [3]. In it's current state this article is all but useless as well as completely inaccurate. I haven't reviewed what was here before but I'd vote for complete removal over 2 short paragraphs, one of which is wrong. Atlaua (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

statement of April 2, 2015[edit]

April 2, 2015

My name is Raymond Sean Walters, a Freemason and Master Mason in a regular lodge and Grand Lodge recognized by Grand Lodge of West Virginia. I also happen to be a Black man who is a Freemason in a regular lodge and Grand Lodge recognized by Grand Lodge of West Virginia.

In 2005 I was denied admission as a visitor to a lodge in West Virginia, that denial based solely on my race/ ethnicity. The denial was for an unmasonic reason and contrary to longstanding Masonic regulations followed by ALL Masonic Grand Lodges in the world.

I filed a formal complaint with the Grand Lodge of West Virginia and MW Bro. Frank Haas was the Grand Master when I filed that formal complaint.

MW Bro. Haas took action(s) on my complaint and other issues that he felt should be addressed or reconsidered for modification by members of the Grand Lodge of West Virginia. That led to the Wheeling Reforms.

Once MW Bro. Haas was expelled, I was to be a witness at trial, but the attorneys for the Grand Lodge of West Virginia were able to prevent my ever seeing the inside of the courtroom, or the possibility of my offering testimony as a deposed witness. This was accomplished even though attorneys for Grand Lodge of West Virginia brought my name up in cross-examination of MW Bro. Haas, and in questioning about a website called Masonic Crusade. MW Bro. Haas had nothing to do with that website, yet was accused of having created it and used it to launch attack against the Grand Lodge of West Virginia. All of that is completely false.

I may have been the only person that posted comments on the website that signed my full name, lodge and Grand Lodge membership at the time posted, and shared my thoughts about the ridiculous policies being carried out, and offered commentary about the violations of Masonic regulations that any Freemason who has done basic reading of said regulations could confirm.

Additionally, officers and members of the Grand Lodge of West Virginia have communicated threats of violence and bodily harm to myself and my immediate family on multiple occasions about me simply attempting to excercise my basic rights and privileges as a Master mason of a Regular Masonic Lodge. My employment in the mining industry was hindered by managers of mining companies who held membership in Grand Lodge of West Virginia from 2006 until the present.

I AM not certain whether my testimony concerning the events connected to MW Bro. Haas makes me a primary or secondary witness, but my testimony offered is outside the very limited information provided by the Grand Lodge of West Virginia concerning these events and what actually has taken place from 2006 until now. I experienced all of what I have shared firsthand concerning these matters, and was saddened that I wasn't able to share my experience for the jury to consider as evidence in their deliberations.

I have discussed these events and other unmasonic conduct on multiple occasions on my own personal blog page - http://raymondswalters.blogspot.com

I will ask that this information NOT be removed, and that anyone wishing to contact me can do so through my email address - raymondswalters@yahoo.com

Fraternally & Sincerely,

~WBro. Raymond Sean Walters Internet Lodge No. 9659 Manchester, United Kingdom United Grand Lodge of England — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.210.195 (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am not sure if this statement was read by anyone before I just fixed some formatting. Before anyone else says it, I'll say that the official policy is that Wikipedia Talk pages are supposed to be about the editing of the article, and they are not discussion forums about the topic of the article. However coverage of the Grand Lodge's admission restriction(s) and of Haas and related controversy is properly covered in this article, so some discussion here does seem appropriate. Blog pages like http://raymondswalters.blogspot.com will not generally be regarded as reliable sources but may nonetheless inform the discussion here and ultimately editing of the article. --doncram 17:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "blogspot" shows recent postings with some links to previous postings that didn't get me to what he is referring to, above. But Raymond Sean Walter's account about his living for a time in West Virginia and being denied admission, that prompting action by Haas, and his account of some of what happened is visible within this search for 100 preceding blog posts (going from January 9, 2016 back into 2013) (search on "Haas"). --doncram 17:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit's in there twice[edit]

It belongs in its own section for now, not in the History section. Putting it in the history gives undue weight to a single event. However, bear in mind that while this sounds like "the great Masonic racist conspiracy", Haas' insinuation that he was expelled because he tried to reform the GL was not borne out in court, so there is a problem with that being stated as the factual root in the article. It implies that Haas was expelled for trying to change the Grand Lodge from its (presumably) "good old boy" racist, ableist roots, but there's no basis in fact to even claim that. Someone is taking Haas' words as the truth, and building the article from that standpoint, not looking at the fact that several issues unrelated to the reforms themselves were cited, and again, Haas lost in court, so clearly, whatever basis he was expelled upon by the GL was correct, not Haas' version. It just sounds better because then we can have a nice juicy conspiracy that way, though. It's stated very clearly in the [NYT that Haas did several illegal things, and thereby violated the bylaws of the Grand Lodge, which is why he was expelled. So let's at least go back to the fact pattern instead of writing fanciful prose. MSJapan (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the ref links don't work to Charleston Gazette for some reason, so here they are to fix the stuff already in the article. I'll do the formatting tomorrow if no one else does:

Also, the Phoenixmasonry link is nothing more than a copy of a blog post from somebody who posted here on the talk page. Whatever it is he researched thoroughly isn't stated, and there's nothing of value in it.

More research generated this: http://freemasoninformation.com/2013/02/pgm-frank-haas-alleged-to-have-been-expelled-from-the-grand-lodge-of-ohio-who-previously-granted-him-asylum/ "Haas Alleged to have been expelled from Ohio"

Also, a pretty balanced account from Kansas: http://www.kansasmason.org/news/west-virginia-pgm-trial-starts-this-week/

Non-masonic source: http://www.wvbusinesslitigationblog.com/2008/06/articles/litigation/lawsuit-challenges-members-expulsion-from-fraternal-organization/. This also has the case doc.

So if it's going to be written about, let's use the sources and make sure it's correct instead of coatracking confirmation bias. MSJapan (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting the above links. At the AFD I just asked whether anyone could provide info about the asserted booting of Haas from the Ohio masons, not knowing you had posted the above. I don't see anything much there, though. I agree it is a legitimate issue that blog-posted material, when repeated at other blogs, should not be regarded as very reliably confirmed by those repetitions, for purpose of mention in Wikipedia. On the other hand, there is _some_ assurance about asserted facts from repeated assertions when those survive without retraction and are not contradicted by other postings. Like how, for us as informed readers of Wikipedia, it is honestly reasonable to believe a statement of innocuous unrelated fact about a town, say, more if it has been exposed publicly for a very long time, than if it has just been added by an I.P. editor. It is subjective when a blog-asserted fact can be accepted or not (yes at least if it is very innocuous (not controversial) and there is no reason to expect bias, if it is believed to be true, and if there is no objection). It is reasonable to expect that confirmation bias plays into blog writers' views and into our reading of their repetitions. It's too bad several newspaper articles used as sources are no longer available online. --doncram 18:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I revised the "Lawsuit" section into this current version (permalink) as of 23:19, 24 May 2016 of the article. Please note:
  • I removed naming of Haas' reforms as the "Wheeling" reforms, as that phrase was not used later and did not need to be defined
  • I removed assertion that Haas' reforms included opening the WVGL to black members or recognizing the Prince Hall Freemasons. Those are not in any of the sources. In this line, it seems to me that he just made the milder step of allowing black Freemasons from other recognized jurisdictions to visit West Virginia lodges.
  • One source (I don't know which now) asserts he was booted in 2006, but it seems to have been November of 2007 ("a few months ago" from June 2008 New York Times article by Barry) instead, consistent with all other sources.
  • IMO the current version needs a statement on the side of the case defendants, e.g. add using the Ry Rivkin-authored Gazette-Mail article that the defense asserts Haas participated in unseemly campaigning on the reforms, including as an anonymous author at a website (meaning the Masonic Crusade website), about which Haas lied, and that Haas was harming the organization. (The "pretty balanced" Kansas site given above gives perhaps a good summary "The defendants have denied Haas’ allegations and counter with the argument that Haas was expelled for what amounts to unmasonic conduct." but I'd prefer not to cite that, as it is a local Masonic source with no individual author. Paraphrase as "essentially for conduct unbecoming to a Freemason" perhaps?
  • In trying to be careful, the length expanded somewhat, but I actually don't think it is too long. The lawsuit does seem unusual and "important". In a couple of the sources it is compared to the Supreme Court decision on Boy Scouts' private decision-making (I guess that is 2000 case Boy Scouts of America v. Dale ). If notability of the case is disputed then this section could become bloated with quotes and other evidence about its importance. How important is this case vs. other cases, as a precedent? It seems logically important, but is there some law-case equivalent to the Social Sciences Citation Index? Expanding very far along these lines would justify splitting out the "Lawsuit" section to a separate article, leaving a summary behind. I don't know if anyone wants that; I currently would rather it stay here and be long enough to be clear but still not overwhelming the article. For more about the case, we could try: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL but it would be nice to skip the ones about unrelated 1987 case "Haas v. Montgomery Ward".
Hits include:
About sources:
  • Actually the 3 Charleston Gazette-Mail links above work, and the 1st and 3rd are used in the 23:19, 24 May 2016 version
  • This is the Haas vs. Montgomery "Civil Action No. 08-C-1035 (May 30, 2008)." It's helpful to see, but I don't currently think it needs to be cited in the article.
  • Christopher Hodapp, the author of Freemasonry for Dummies, seems to me to be an "expert" so his (relatively factual) webpage should not be dismissed as merely like a blog by anyone else. Not sure what his website should be called. It shows an ad for the book, but is not itself a magazine or blog named "Freemasonry for Dummies", as the WV Business Litigation Blog thinks it is.
  • The two "FREEMASON INFORMATION" web magazine articles from 2013 and 2016 by Fred Milliken also seem reliable, a cut above mere blogging.
  • I think it's proper to use "Associated Press" as author of one article. If not as author, "Associated Press" needs to be otherwise included.
  • I have "named" all the references of this section and put them into "cite" formatting and found wikilinks for the newspapers involved. I think it is consistently done, except for the use of "first=" and "last=" versus use of "author=" fields which should be fixed (towards first= and last=, i slightly prefer, but don't care if it goes the other way).
Hope this helps. --doncram 00:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WV Gazette links previously didn't work for some reason. I don't know why, but they all 404ed, which is why I changed them. They definitely work now, and they definitely did not prior to when I changed them, which was probably the 23rd.

Hodapp, expert or not, is running a personal blog he controls, and his sourcing comes from elsewhere. The problem is not with his credentials, but the fact that it's a still a personal blog. It was indeed an outgrowth of/concurrent creation with the book, however. He actually recently created an issue out of nothing on said blog via idle speculation, so I really don't want to use it if the "commentaryless" source is available (which it usually is). Some judgment is required, and in this case, I don't think it's appropriate to source to him.

I took out AP because AP is a news agency, not an author. Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/Archive_29#Question_about_Citing answers the question, and the TL;DR is that because only the repub says it's AP, we can't prove it, and that it therefore goes in an "agency" parameter in citenews with the local source as the source.

As far as Freemasonry in the Civil War goes, there are several books, but I don't own any of them. A House Undivided by Allen Roberts is probably the best-known, and Roberts' research in general is excellent. There were, by the way, many instances of families ending up on either side of the issue, so assigning some sort of special importance to the fact that they were Masons is trivial. One of Roberts' points (given in the title) was that Freemasonry transcended the politics of the time, so speculating otherwise as to politics being a factor is probably not going to be borne out in fact.

Previously existing Lodges changing GLs when a new one is formed in their area is a common occurrence. It happened after WWII in Japan when the Lodges that were part of the GL of the Philippines but were in Japan joined the new GL of Japan in 1957, it happened when the previously existing Lodges in Maine did the same thing when the GL of Maine formed after it became a state, and so on and so forth. Thus you get the situation where the subordinate Lodge is sometimes older than the GL. Therefore, I wouldn't read too much into that occurrence, either.

Freemason Information is not peer-reviewed; they'll pretty much take anything that's submitted, and so I don't want to rely too heavily on it. I used it because the information stated therein was not found elsewhere, but it's still very much hearsay, as Milliken notes.

The crux of the matter, however, is that the case, despite coverage, isn't important at all in the larger sense - it neither led to a policy change in WV at that time, nor did it affect any other Grand Lodge. As one of the fundamental rules in all GLs is that a Grand Lodge is "sovereign in its jurisdiction", what it does will only ever affect itself, and it cannot be affected by the actions of other GLs. Recognition is a different animal, however, and it changes. For example, when GLNF was under court control, recognition was withdrawn precisely because it was no longer "sovereign in its own jurisdiction." In real terms, all it means is that members of one jurisdiction can't go to official functions in the other, should they happen to be there. Recognition is never universal, either, so it's not such a huge deal, and it wasn't due to the lawsuit, but rather other actions. Therefore, giving so much weight to the lawsuit is an issue, because in the end, it had no effect. MSJapan (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American Civil War stuff[edit]

Stuff about Virginia & West Virginia masons' involvement in the American Civil War is going off-topic in the AFD. In recent version of the article, it is mentioned that some lodges in what became West Virginia, preferred to continue with Virginia grand lodge, referencing the conflict. It would be interesting if this article could report factual info about Masons from the same family fighting on opposite sides, or the like. A main reason contributing to West Virginia's separation from Virginia during the war is that many Western counties had far more commercial ties and other interaction with Ohio and other states along the Ohio River that makes W. Virginia's western border, than across the mountains to Richmond and coastal Virginia. However there were counties whose residents were split in their connections and views, and surely many extended families were split as happened in other border states. There was an entire Western Virginia Campaign included battles in Randolph and other counties now part of WV. (The Kanawha River-New River (West Virginia) valley which crosses the modern WV vs. VA borders might have been more contested but apparently was not.)

It is asserted here that during the war, "approximately 410.000 soldiers were interned in prison camps and it has been estimated that about 56,000 of them were Freemasons," far higher than I would have guessed. That source gives an example of Freemason prisoners being treated better, and anecdotes about individual interactions, but none I see about Virginians / West Virginians. --doncram 18:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 10, 1865 vs. other founding date[edit]

It is established with source of newspaper article from 1915 in the article that the Grand Lodge was founded April 12, 1865. Then what happened May 10, 1865? That is the date on their seal, which I thought was the founding date (and I said that at the AFD). --doncram 01:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The history on GLWV's own site doesn't go that far, so that doesn't help. April 12, 1865 was the surrender at Appomattox, so I think there's simply a mistake in the article. What is certain is that the official date on the seal is the official date that should be used, because that's the recognized official date, no matter what anyone else says. MSJapan (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The surrender at Appomattox was April 11. You think there was a mistake in the 1915 newspaper article, but its stating a precise date of April 12 seems like it would not be a mistake to me. Perhaps there could have been a gathering on April 12, then a larger gathering on May 10, and in 1915 there were still persons who were proud they or their fathers were there on April 12 so they were still keeping that memory alive. As the May 10 date appears on the seal, I tend to agree that the May 10 date should be given as the founding date, with mention of the April 12 date relegated to a footnote. It would help if there was any source that says the May 10 date was the date of founding, so it is not just our interpretation of what the date on the seal means. --doncram 15:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, stop with the irrelevant and baseless speculation. Second of all, the date on the seal is the official founding date, period; that's why it's on there. There's no "interpretation" involved. That's simply what it is. MSJapan (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You make it hard to agree with you. Given no source besides your personal interpretation ("irrelevant and baseless speculation"?), which you see no need to support, IMO the April 12 date should stay in the article. Actually the seal at the Grand Lodge's webpage shows a date "May 10 A.L. 5865" which could mean anything. Who knows what silly ritual meaning that has, for the wannabe secretive Masons of WV. Whatever. --doncram 14:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to agree with me. The seal is official, period. Therefore, the date on the seal is official, period. There's neither a question nor room for discussion on the matter. Also, a basic Google search or some basic math would pretty much sort out "A.L.". It's not secretive at all; it's on public cornerstones, and we have a Wikipedia article on it - it's called Anno Lucis. As a former NRHP contributor, I'd think you'd be aware of the very public cornerstone ceremonies that have been done, but I guess not. If you're just going to end up denigrating a topic you know nothing about instead of trying to actually contribute, you have a choice. Walk away, or I'll simply open a disruptive editing case at ANI. MSJapan (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand Lodge of West Virginia. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because this URL currently works, I changed the parameter to "checked=true" in the above. Whatever that was about, I dunno. --doncram 14:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand Lodge of West Virginia. 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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grand_Lodge_of_West_Virginia&oldid=1202420397"