Talk:Freemasonry in Portugal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Freemasonry (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a project to improve all Freemasonry-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Freemasonry-related articles, please join the project.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Is this topic notable?[edit]

I started this article due to a suggestion made at the GLRP article. That article has a serious problem establishing notability, as did the article on the Grande Loja Legal de Portugal (now deleted), and as does the article on the Grand Orient of Lusitania. The idea was that seperately these bodies may not be notable enough for their own articles, but that the broader topic of Freemasonry in Portugal might be.

However, I am finding almost nothing in the way of reliable secondary sources (as required by WP:ORG) to establish that even this broader topic is notable. I have found multiple sources that discuss John Coustos and his arrest by the inquisition, but have found nothing that talks about Portugese Freemasonry after that (and we already have an article on Coustos). Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


LOL you have proposed to merge relevant contents from GLRP, GLLP, GOL and other historic portuguese Grand Lodges to a main article Freemasonry in Portugal. After your pretension been accepted you are proposing to delete your own "arguments". Does anyone (who speaks and write en:) see this? ... PTorg (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The argument for creation of this article is still valid... It was discovered that the various Grand Lodges are not notable enough for their own articles (due to no sources that discuss these orgs)... I hoped that by broadening the topic to a discussion of Freemasonry in Portugal as a whole, we might have something that was notable. However, since creating this article, I have searched for reliable sources to substantiate this idea without success. And so I am begining to think that the problem we had finding sources on the sub-parts of Freemasonry in Portugal, is due to a more fundamental problem... that Freemasonry in Portugal may not be a notable topic. In other words I am having second thoughts about my own assumptions in creating this article. Blueboar (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Portuguese Grand Lodges[edit]

I think that this article it was the excuse to delete the Grand Lodge GLRP. I have seen this page a copy of deleted article. It has important information that should not be cleared in order to understand Freemasonry in Portugal. However a quick search showed me the deleted talk page. Theres is a lot of interests in masonic issues all around recognition that explain it all. 213.22.30.138 (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If you read the AfD debate on the GLRP article, the reason it was deleted was because there were no reliable sources that discussed it. Under Wikipedia's rules that means it is not notable enough for an article (see WP:ORG). In fact, I have to wonder if this article is going to last much longer... we are running into the same problem with this article that we did on the articles on the various Grand Lodges. There is a distinct lack of reliable sources that talk about Freemasonry in Portugal (in any form). If you know differently, please let us know what those sources are. Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
When we read the history of the article, we notice that the "old" argument (notability) or "reliable sorce" came after the recognition of the GLRP by the Grand Lodge of Scotland. The article existed since 2006 but it was heavily discussed and persecuted since the new source from. Grand Lodge of Scotland was revealed. Tendencies should be banned from WP particularly at en:WP or contributors investigated. PTorg (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure what are you insunuating. Are you saying that the article was deleted because GLS recognizes one Portugese GL while UGLE recognizes another? Why would that matter to Wikipedia? Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I am no insinuating nothing. I am explaining facts .... deleted facts! Why would that matter to Wikipedia, well i really know that this would matter to portuguese Freemasonry and true world historicist. Freemasonry in Portugal have been condemned and silented by the ancient dictatorial regime ( António de Oliveira Salazar) . The government that presided over have controlled Portugal from 1932 to 1974, (Carnation Revolution).
Some info preceding the Salazar regime and the role of freemasonry in Portugal may be of interest. --197.229.143.147 (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
There is no information or sources just because of that. Unfortunately not even the recent history and information is safe ... thats probably what makes freemasonry in Portugal still so unique. A small country with some small Grand Lodges and grand masters elected from 3 in 3 years. Thats probably why also Grand Lodges and Grand masters have been deleted from english wikipedia and also doesn't gain notability, they are in "command" 3 not 40 years as in some Obediences ... Well by now you may have learned something about Portuguese Freemasonry, let others do the same Keeping and letting the article grow up PTorg (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but none of that is enough for Wikipedia. I am not going to spend more time re-arguing the AfD debates. Now... If you wish to help with this article, please point us to any reliable sources that discuss Freemasonry in Portugal. Blueboar (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, my help ends here. This is a destructive wikipedia. Your work user's Bluboar and MSJapan its impressive and good enough to serve Freemasonry!! at least in english wikipedia. I am very sorry for the silent eyes over all this deleted articles and your "work".

If there's a debate to AFD which im certain! consider my vote. Assuming your Bad Faith i propose DELETE. Regards PTorg (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)