Template talk:Freemasonry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Freemasonry (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Usage[edit]

To add the navigational Infobox to a page paste the following line of code:

{{Freemasonry2}}

For modification to the Title:

{| class="infobox" style="text-align:center;" width="230"
|-
| colspan="2" |<small>Part of a [[:Category:Freemasonry|series]] of articles on</small><br /><big>'''[[Freemasonry]]'''</big> 
|-
|[[Image:Square compasses.svg|50px|Freemason]]
|-
| style="font-size:11px" |

For an Non-Collapsed category:

'''Title Example'''<br />
[[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]]<br/>

For a Collapsed category:

{| class="toccolours collapsible {{#if: {{{expand-freefigure|}}} | | collapsed }}" style="width: 100%; border: none;"
|-
! '''Title Example'''
|-
|
[[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]] · [[Link Example]]<br/>
|}

To end the code with the This box: view • talk • edit NavBar:

{{Tnavbar|Freemasonry2}}
|}

Symbolism[edit]

I note that several of the articles listed under the symbolism section, specifically Pythagorean theorem, Sacred Geometry, Jacob's Ladder, and Golden ratio, do not even mention Freemasonry, and that both Pentagram and Circled dot only mention Freemasonry in passing. I know these concepts are discussed in some Masonic rituals (not all... and there is no common interpretation between various Grand Lodges, or between approved rituals, as to what the meaning of the concepts are), but I see no reason to link to articles that do not discuss the connection. I am going to cut them. Blueboar 12:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I also question the inclusion of Boston tea party in the History section ... while that article does mention this myth (and myth it is)... it isn't really important to the topic of Freemasonry. However, since I have started a discussion to delete the paragraph in question at that article's talk page, I will hold off on deleting it here until that discussion is resolved. Blueboar 13:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Additions[edit]

Again, nice work. Gives good context to [the] related articles. How about adding some [all] of the topics at [from] the earlier template. ☻ Fred|discussion|contributions 16:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | 18:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Why bother, if we're going to replace the old one with this one? MSJapan 17:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I amended my comment. ☻ Fred|discussion|contributions 18:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Some comments[edit]

We should separate all the Youth groups into their own section, and I'm going to prod Triangle, I think, because 13 chapters in one state does not notability make. Also, there's no need to have an officers list - it all redirs to the same article. I'll see what else can go later, but those things I've mentioned definitely need to be done. MSJapan 17:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I added and removed stuff - see the diffs, but I added York and Scottish sections to the degree section and added what we had that pertained. I rm'ed Triangle and added Rainbow and OES. I added Prince Hall to Figures, and rm'ed Churchill as not Masonically important AFAIK. Moved Abiff (because he's not necessarily a historical person) to Miscellany (renamed from symbolism). Rm'ed Boaz and Jachin article because there's nothing Masonic in it. There's probably some more stuff that can go in the template as well, but I'll have to think about it first. MSJapan 22:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Problem with use of template[edit]

Something is wrong - The template formats incorrectly when you try to use it on a page. First it captures any text that comes after the insertion of the template... which causes it to secondly it center across the entire page... like this:

Fixed it. Just needed to div it.--Zef 01:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

<div align=right>{{Freemasonry2}}</div> Not even. There was a missing right bracket in the template (I must've miscounted), so it wasn't terminating. MSJapan 01:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

someone came by and fixed it[edit]

Thank you Blueboar 00:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Back to work[edit]

I have to question King Edward VII, Geogre Washington, and Ben Franklin under important figures... Yes, all three were prominent people who were Freemasons, but I think the info box should list people who played a roll in the developement of Freemasonry... like Anderson or Pike, not just people who were famous Freemasons. The point of the info box is to highlight important articles in the topic. Articles that will inform the reader about Freemasonry. They will not learn anything about Freemasonry from the Edward VII article other than the fact that he was one (and if we want to go this route, Edward VI was far more involved in the Craft than Edward VII was). I'm not insistant on this, so I will leave them for now... let's discuss. Blueboar 00:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. All the links that I put into the Template are examples. I just went around and found some info to put into it for filler. By all means change the links to what works. The important figues that I place were just some masons that I knew of and needed something as a starting point.--Zef 01:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The only one I question really is Edward VII. Washington is oft cited as a Mason, and Franklin was a Grand Master in PA, so I think they qualify. Truman would be a good addition, too. MSJapan 01:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, Edward VII (I misspoke above, by the way... I had the various Edwards confused) was an active GM of UGLE (photographed in his regalia at cornerstone layings etc.) but Actually, I would go the other way... Move Anderson and Pike to the history section and cut the Important Figures category all to gether... or just have a link to the List of Freemasons. Blueboar 13:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Before we start with the meat of the project, lets first break the skin. What categories should there be? Should they be expanded or collapsed? So far we have:

  • Masonic Bodies - expanded
  • Masonic Youth Organizations - expanded
  • History - expanded
  • Opposition to Freemasonry - expanded
  • Important Figures - collapsed
  • Masonic Degrees - collapsed
  • Masonic Miscellany - collapsed

There should be a section for offshoots, but not apart, of freemasonry. This category should be collapsed and placed just below Masonic Youth Organizations. Lets keep adding to the list above and discuss if it should be added or not. --Zef 12:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Zef, we need to discuss at least some of the meat at the same time as we discuss the skin... different editors may have different ideas as to what a category means and what should go into it, which could lead to contention and edit warring. Better to come to an agreement as to definitions now. For example, you suggest a category for Offshoots... I could support that, or I could absolutely oppose it... depending on what you mean by "Offshoot". Are we talking about quasi-recognized organizations like Allied Masonic Degrees? Are we talking about groups that patterned themselves after Freemasonry like Elks, Oddfellows, and K of C? Are we talking splinter groups that claim to be Masonic like OTO and Golden Dawn? Blueboar 13:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point and your right. I did add a link to the WikiProject Freemasonry at the vary bottom of the template. I would also like to add back the links to the sacred geometry and golden ratio. Within our juristriction we talk about this type of mathematics often and how it is a part of speculative Freemasonry. Maybe placing it into an area for Mathematics or Sacred Geometry.--Zef 16:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Geometry in general is an important Masonic concept, although most jurisdictions don't go into it as much as your's seems to do (it's one of the many facets of the Craft... along with Charity, Brotherly Love and Affection, the 4 cardinal virtues, etc. etc. etc.)... but neither of the individual articles you mention discuss this. A reader interested in Freemasonry will click on the link, read those articles and wonder why we put it there. The thing is, you know what the connection is, and apreciate its meaning in Freemasonry and have a desire to share that appreciation with others ... but we need to focus on those who don't know what the connection is. If the article being linked to does not seem to have anything to do with Freemasonry, then we do not do the reader a service by linking to it... it becomes random information without context. Blueboar 17:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Agree as to people, except for Ben, who was notable as a Freemason as he was in so many areas. Suggestion this template could have a paramater |hidden=true so that it could be placed on pages of people who would (and often do) appear in books about Masrony, such as Geo. Washington, without messing up their articles with an infobox about an important part of their life that is not important in the greater context of their impact on society. So there.
RiverStyx23{talkemail} 17:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Article space[edit]

Great work with this template, a couple of things might need fixin' though:

  1. Some of the links from the previous template are missing.
  2. A link to a project should not appear in 'article space', only on the talk page.
  3. Something else, I've forgotten what ;-)

I think this template will encourage editors to help improve articles on this topic, I know readers will find it useful. ☻ Fred|discussion|contributions 02:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fred, if a link is missing... just add it. Same with the project link... I don't mind it being there, but if the standard is not to include it, just delete it. Blueboar 15:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I removed the project link - it doesn't belong there. I'm not sure where to put in some of the links, but I'll add in what I can figure out. MSJapan 17:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Places[edit]

I've added places as well - but many of these need some work!Harrypotter 17:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Need to collapse most sections....[edit]

They're getting so big that they're taking up too much space. Can somebody add the collapse syntax into the Bodies and Views sections? MSJapan 17:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if collapsing Bodies is such a good idea - a collapsed section can be taken as being less important than an uncollapsed one by some people. I suggest collapsing all the sections - even if openign them means the formating of the various articles changes as the box grows and shrinks.
I've tried my hand at collapsing the two sections suggested ([1]) and at collapsing all the sections ([2]). Feel free to revert or change as needed - I'm basicly just learning the craft of templates =) WegianWarrior 13:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes made to the collapsable navigation. Having ALL the subjects collapsed makes the project look sloppy. The reason I made this Template was for readers to navigate with ease through the Freemason pages. Just by glancing over and saying "I didn't know The Shriners were apart of Freemasonry" or "What does Solomon's Temple have to do with Freemasons?" The subject that are collapsed will be seen as less important to the craft by the public. This is unavoidable. I have already gotten feedback from some readers in my Lodge. "If Important Figures & Important Places are so important, why are they collapsed and hidden at the bottom?" and "Why is Views of Freemasonry displayed like dirty laundry?" Masonic Women's Groups, Masonic Youth Organizations and Views of Freemasonry should be collapsed but left in the current location under Masonic Bodies. Important Figures and Masonic Rites and Degrees should be viewed.--Zef 16:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'd argue that there aren't a whole lot of important places and figures. Secondly, if this is supposed to be a comprehensive navigational template, it can't take up screeens full of space, because then it will start to mess up article formatting (which is something I'm sure your feedback givers aren't aware of), and I hope you told them that the Views section was where it was because that's where you put it. There's about three articles on degrees, so I fail to see the value in displaying it, especially since it's a subsectioned topic. Moreover, this isn't the "Pro-Freemasonry Project" - the fact is that people have issues with Freemasonry just like anything else. We can't simply ignore NPOV and only make the good stuff important. MSJapan 15:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I see that you are vary passionate on the subject and I appoligize if my suggestions for reducing the amount of space the Template takes has struck a nerve. These are just that suggentions nothing more. That is why I did not make the changes. I do see your point with the NPOV and now agree with you. This should not be a one sided navigation but something for the public to read and understand Freemasonry more. I would appreciate leaving the personal attacks out of the discussions page and post these on the User:Talk pages. Comments like "which is something I'm sure your feedback givers aren't aware of" & "that the Views section was where it was because that's where you put it" are not creative criticism. From the original post that you had made Can somebody add the collapse syntax into the Bodies and Views sections? I was under the impression that Collapsing the Views was a good idea? I guess I read your posting wrong. Moving on...

MSJapan, which ones do you think should be viewed and which ones collapsed? Masonic Women's Groups & Masonic Youth Organizations could be collapsed to save space but I would like to see Important Figures expanded. Anyone else have some feedback on this subject?--Zef 16:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I would cut the Bodies section in two... have a "Core Articles" (not collapsed) section for stuff relating to Craft Masonry, Move "History" second in order (also not collasped); Create: "Other Masonic bodies" (collapsed - move the stuff from "Degrees and Rites" into that section). The rest should all be collapsed. This basically means that the core section and the history are the only sections not collapsed. This tells the reader: "These are the core articles that you need to read for a basic undertanding of Freemasonry... and these other articles are related articles that you should read for a more expanded understanting. Blueboar 16:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I could go with that. MSJapan 02:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

suggested format[edit]

It may help to spell out what I envision:

  • Core Articles (Not collapsed)
    • Freemasonry
    • Grand Lodge
    • Masonic Lodge
    • Masonic Lodge Officers (?)
    • Prince Hall Freemasonry
    • Regular Masonic jurisdictions
  • History (Not collapsed)
    • History of Freemasonry
    • Masonic manuscripts
    • Liberté chérie
  • Other Masonic bodies (collapsed)
    • For Masons (nested collapse)
      • Masonic appendant bodies
      • York Rite
        • Order of Mark Master Masons
        • Knights Templar
      • Scottish Rite
        • Knight Kadosh
        • Pike's Morals and Dogma
      • The Shrine
      • Tall Cedars of Lebanon
      • The Grotto
      • Societas Rosicruciana
      • Grand College of Rites
    • Masonic Women's Groups (nested collapse)
      • Women and Freemasonry
      • Order of the Amaranth
      • Order of the Eastern Star
      • Co-Freemasonry
    • Masonic Youth Organizations (nested collapse)
      • DeMolay
      • A.J.E.F.
      • Job's Daughters
      • International Order of the Rainbow for Girls
  • Views of Freemasonry (possibly rename?) (collapsed)
    • Anti-Masonry
    • Anti-Masonic Party
    • Anti-Freemason Exhibition
    • Christianity and Freemasonry
    • Catholicism and Freemasonry
    • Freemasonry under totalitarian regimes
    • Masonic conspiracy theories
    • Taxil Hoax
  • Notable People and Places (collapsed)
    • (not going to copy them all here... you get the idea)
  • Masonic Miscelany (collapsed)
    • (anything not included in the above)


Collapsed it would look like this:
  • Core Articles (Not collapsed)
    • Freemasonry
    • Grand Lodge
    • Masonic Lodge
    • Masonic Lodge Officers (?)
    • Prince Hall Freemasonry
    • Regular Masonic jurisdictions
  • History (Not collapsed)
    • History of Freemasonry
    • Masonic manuscripts
    • Liberté chérie
  • Other Masonic bodies
  • Views of Freemasonry
  • Notable People and Places
  • Masonic Miscelany

Hopefully that helps people visualize what I am talking about. Blueboar 19:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making that clear, I agree that not all sections need be expanded at every article. In fact it is possible to add a bit of code that can toggle the collapse/expand and be adjusted for each article. I would do it myself, but ..!? ☻ Fred|discussion|contributions 21:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Beautiful! It's perfect! --Zef 02:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Then let's impliment... I'd do it myself, but I can't seem to get the coding right... Blueboar 12:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Done--Zef 15:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


Collapse Issue[edit]

There is an issue with the Nested Collapse. When the Other Mesonic Bodies is expanded, the scripting code expands all the categories within it. This may not be correctable. If anyone knows a solution, please help. --Zef 15:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Great job so far Zef... thanks.
On the "nested collapse" issue I will ask at the Village Pump "Assistance" page, and see if we can get a "template expert" to help us out. Blueboar 15:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Other Masonic Bodies->Masonic Bodies[edit]

MSJ... how does changing the wording of the section title from "Other Masonic Bodies" to "Masonic Bodies" and changing "For Masons" to "Masonic" make things clearer?

I think I understand what you are trying to do, but are you perhaps getting overly wrapped up in subtle distinctions of how these groups are connected to basic Freemasonry? Remember that we are creating this info box primarily for reader who do not know anything about Masonry ... What we want to show is that the articles in this section relate to Masonic groups not listed in the core articles... and then to indicate, when they see these articles, that some of them are for Masons (ie men), some are for Women, and some are for youth. At least that is my interpretation of what the template is designed to do. Blueboar 19:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"Other Masonic bodies" has no context - "other" as opposed to what? In short, it requires the reader to have information they may not have, namely the definition of a Masonic body, and what one is. "For Masons" I changed because it looks too much like the links are only for Masons, while "Masonic" means it's generic, which is what it really is. MSJapan 21:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah... not at all what I assumed then ("never assume... it makes an ass out of u and me"). I now understand. I just found the repetition of the word "Masonic" to be confusing. Hmmm... perhaps no sub-title on the first part (reserving that for the women and children)? Blueboar 01:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Papal bull[edit]

We have a small list of papels that could be included. Any idea where they might fit? --Zef 14:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, no idea at all ... Actually, I don't think we should include them at all. They really don't discuss Freemasonry but the Church's view of it... and we already include that view in the link to the Catholicism and Freemasonry article. Someone who wants to learn more about the topic by reading the about the various Papal bulls can find them by going to that article. I don't think we need to include every article that mentions Freemasonry... only those that directly relate to the topic. I also don't think that they really belong in our category (I suspect that the only reason they are included in the category is so that we can monitor any changes and make sure that they are factual and NPOV). They belong more to the Catholicism Project than the Freemasonry Project. Blueboar 14:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
They're mentioned, but they aren't important enough to get listed separately for two reasons: one is that much of the papal materials on Freemasonry don't deal just with Freemasonry. IIRC, Humanum Genus is pages and pages long, and as the article states, only part of it is specifically Masonic. Secondly, anything the Pope does only affects Catholics, and putting more emphasis on the Catholic view as opposed to any other religion's view at the template level would be POV. MSJapan 15:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Freemasonry in Russia[edit]

Should this be in the template? We could write hundreds of "Freemasonry In... " aritcles to cover every country... but I don't think we want to go that route. In fact, I could see it being incorporated into the History of Freemasonry article. Thoughts? Blueboar 15:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a crap article somebody originally wrote to claim that Masonry was a Russian aristocratic thing. None of the sources given in the externals are reliable, or they don't say anything useful to the article. I'm AFDing it. MSJapan 15:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Blueboar 15:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What should get the template and other matters[edit]

Zef... I understand your eagerness to propigate the template through Wikipedia, and to add lots of articles to the template... but I think you are over doing it a bit.

First, lets discuss where we should put the template. I think we should only put this on articles that primarily discuss Freemasonry... not articles that only partially discuss it (for example Eye of Providence... Freemasonry is only a small part of that article, so I don't think the template should be put there).

Second let's discuss what types of articles should listed on the template. There are a lot of articles that mention Freemasonry or discuss some aspect of Freemasonry... while I can see tagging them with the Freemasonry category tag, I don't think they all need to be listed on the Template. To me, the template should be limited to those articles that contain truely important information on the topic. Articles that only tangentially mention Freemasonry should be not be listed. Also, we should not list every group that calls itself "Masonic" ... Note that I am not saying we limit this to just "regular" UGLE type masonry... to me the criteria is size and notability.

Your thoughts are welcome Blueboar 16:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Categorization[edit]

This template is currently tagged as uncategorized. The tree of navbox templates doesn't really have an appropriate category, so I'll suggest two very general: Category:Religion and belief navbox templates and Category:Organizations navbox templates. When there is sufficient need for subcategories I suppose Category:Clubs and societies navbox templates or similar will be created. – Leo Laursen –   10:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved from User talk:MSJapan

Hi MSJapan. You reverted my effort to categorize "tl|Freemasonry2", with the comment "incorrect categorization". That suggests that you have knowledge about those matters. Why then, did you not supply a better category? – Leo Laursen –   20:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved from User talk:Leolaursen

I did look at it, actually (I've got it watchlisted and looked at it when the uncat template went in), and there simply is no cat on WP that the template fits into properly. What I can tell you, though, is that religion is not the right category for it, and from the tone of your question (unless it's sarcasm), you seem to imply you don't know anything about Freemasonry. Why would you try to categorize something that you don't know about? MSJapan (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have to fit properly, it just have to be useful/helpful. By reverting you deny an honest attempt to categorize and at the same time request categorization, so why not simply find the best one in your opinion. I didn't feel like using "Category:Social science and society navbox templates" or any of its subcategories, so I chose "Category:Religion and belief navbox templates"; not implying other than that's where I would look.
Constructively, how about creating "Category:Organization navbox templates" under "Category:Social science and society navbox templates", and use that? – Leo Laursen –   01:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
In answer to the first question, there simply isn't a "best one" - Freemasonry isn't just any one of those categories, and to overcat the template is just as bad. To create an organizational navbox cat under social science would also lump in a whole lot of professional organizations as well, which is also not what Freemasonry is. It simply doesn't fit well in any category, and to give it one of its own is sort of meaningless. MSJapan (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe you are putting too much importance in the categorization. The category should be general until there is a (foreseeable) need for more specialization. As the categorial tree grows, the categorization will become more and more specific. Please also remember that the template may be in more than one category; up to about four I'd say. Can we move further discussion to "Template talk:Freemasonry2#Categorization"? – Leo Laursen –   10:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As of October 3, 2007, the California Court of Appeals and U.S Appeals Court have classified Freemasonry as a religion. As the original creator of Template:Freemasonry2 I say it should be "Category:Religion and belief navbox templates" Zef (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, way to overgeneralize. Try reading the case document first. MSJapan (talk) 05:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean? I have read the document. Could you please elaborate and provide information on why Freemasonry is not categorized by the US Government MSJapan? We have provided some information showing that Freemasonry is indeed religious in nature and has been classified as such now you must provide information on why it should not be. Your argument so far has been personal attacks on other users and a "Cause I said so" type attitude. We appreciate your input and would like to see a mature and professional attitude from all involved. Thank you, Zef (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The case was in the Los Angeles District Court, first of all, and involved the Scottish Rite building there. It has no bearing on Freemasonry in California or anywhere else. It was a ruling disallowing the use of that one building for non-Masonic activities. From here:

"O’Brien denied the petition on the ground that Freemasonry is not a religion.

Perluss—whose wife is a rabbi—said O’Brien was wrong to the extent that RLUIPA protects religious exercise “whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief,” but that the writ was correctly denied because the use of the facility for non-Masonic purposes is not protected by RLUIPA.

Perluss explained:

“The broad sweep of this statutory mandate has been applied to activities as divergent as religiously affiliated schools...nonprofit hospitals...and faith-based crisis centers....At the same time, we share the Second Circuit’s misgivings about RLUIPA’s apparent reach insofar as it purports to favor all religiously oriented uses over identical secular uses: ‘RLUIPA occupies a treacherous narrow zone between the Free Exercise Clause, which seeks to assure that government does not interfere with the exercise of religion, and the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from becoming entwined with religion in a manner that would express preference for one religion over another, or religion over irreligion.’”

O'Brien was the one responsible for the decision, not Perluss, and therefore his ruling is the one that stands. Therefore, Freemasonry was *not* recognized as a religion, as Zef claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of Judge O'Brien, not the comments of Judge Perluss (which is why I said you had not read the case). The decision was based on the fact that the RLUIPA did not apply to a secular organization with religious leanings, and that the SR was trying to stretch the law. Therefore, no statement regarding Freemasonry being a religion was either affirmed or stated as part of the legal ruling. MSJapan (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, neither the California Court of Appeals nor US Appeals Court has "classified" Freemasonry as a religion. The case in question was about the mis-application of zoning laws... and Judge Perluss made a short comment, in a footnote, to the effect that he thought that Freemasonry might be a religion... but if you look at the context, it is clear that this is his personal opinion... and not a ruling of the court.
Secondly, it does not really matter what a court said... what is important here on Wikipedia is that Freemasonry has officially and publically stated that it is NOT a religion, and we have long held self-identification as the deciding factor in categorization. If Freemasonry states that it is a religion, we should not categorize it as such.
As to what navbox to place this template in... I have looked through the choices and Freemasonry really does not fit in any of them. It was this problem that caused us to create a seperate Freemasonry Category in the first place. I don't see any rush to force the template into existing categories. Why not simply leave it as uncategorized (which can be seen as being a category of its own... a catch all for things that don't fit anywhere else) until something more appropiate is created? Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Using the very general category "Religion and belief navbox templates" does not imply that freemasonry is a religion. Simply that it is closely related to belief of some kind. The notion of a "Supreme Beeing" qualifies for this in my opinion.
Categories are not labels that mark their members, it is simply a tool to locate templates or articles by subject. When the number of members defeats that purpose subcategories are created. Leaving it as uncategorized indefinitely is not really an option. – Leo Laursen –   16:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is leaving it uncategorized such a big deal? Blueboar (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of the template {{uncategorized template}} is to categorize the template as a job for WP:UNCAT, i.e. a request for a category. As long as it is uncategorized somebody will come by an try to correct the situation. So (1) it is annoying to the people doing this task and (2) it is not a stable solution. – Leo Laursen –   08:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... I did not realize that it was seen as a "request for categorization"... in other words, until we categorize it, we will continue to have people popping over and trying to categorize it, (and potentially miscategorizing it). I can see how that would be a problem at our end as well as a problem at your end.
OK, since none of the existing categories fit ... we have to create an appropriate category. Perhaps: Category:Fraternal organizations navbox templates? I can think of a lot of other fraternal orders that could be added... groups like the Knights of Columbus, Lions, Odd Fellows, etc. I suppose even the collegiate fraternities would fit (as a sub-category). Would that solve the problem? Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Alternatively, it could go in the general Category:WikiProject templates. Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. Let's move on. MSJapan (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah well, at least you have peace until somebody decides that it is not really a WikiProject template. But i'll leave it to the discretion of WP:FM to reach consensus. – Leo Laursen –   17:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Support For Freemasonry[edit]

All, The articles that are against Freemasonry are interesting and informative, but I wonder why this whole family of Freemasonry articles is so skewed to the negative side. In fact, there are many Christians who support Freemasonry and their affiliated bodies. Shouldn't there be articles noting this? I'd write it myself, except that I am not a Mason (I am female), however my entire family is involved with the Masonic bodies. I am also studying to be a pastor and have found that the Masonic teachings have enforced, rather than contradict, my Christian beliefs. For example, because of Eastern Star, I feel closer to and understand more about the heroines of the Bible that many churches seem to overlook or downplay their involvement in the Jewish/Christian story. I'm sure that there are some brothers out there who can back me up on this.

Hediru (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Hediru

National Heritage Museum[edit]

This link has been re-added twice to the template by the person who created the article. We do not have Masonic museums and libraries linked as part of the "People and Places" in Freemasonry, because that section is for more universal items, as is readily apparent. I would therefore like to get a consensus as to what to do, keeping in mind that the article on the MONH is likely going to go the way of other ones, and become a subsection in another article. MSJapan (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, we could probably justify an article/list hybrid (ie a list article with expanded entries) on Masonic libraries and museums in general (to which the core of the current NHM article could be merged)... and that article would probably merit listing on the template. Blueboar (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
@:MSJapan. This link has been re-added twice to the template by the person who created the article. 1st, I'm the creater of this article not this shlum Jnaaman. 2nd, I couldn't care what you do to this article any more because everytime I try and help it's you two that are leaving me with a feeling of I'm in school again getting bullied by other kids. MSJapan, you should be ashamed at how you treat people. Blueboar, you should stop deffending him. You seem like a nice guy. Leave the interwebs and go out. At the end what will your epitaph read, All my edit got undid. Zef (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Because almost every time you do something, you do something along the way that you shouldn't - you have done things as serious as ignoring consensus, to adding things that don't belong, or you make mistakes that have no reason to be made (such as not bothering to fact check enough to know the correct name of the National Heritage Museum, for example). This is an encyclopedia, not "a list of stuff I think is correct but didn't really check", and if you're not going to keep that in mind when you edit, then of course there's going to be a problem. MSJapan (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
@:MSJapan. That is true. I suck at Wiki. To many rules to follow. That's why I stopped. You should still be ashamed. You're a very negative person who hurls insults at others and take's Wiki way to serious. You should consider taking classes in Conflict Resolution and Anger Managment. This is apparent after trolling through you talk page. I feel sorry for you and all who have to intract with you. Cheers. Zef (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
There is an old legal adage: "If the facts are against you, argue the Law... and if the Law is against you, attack the lawyer." Seems to apply here as well. Blueboar (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I just reread your post and have an issue with one statement...

such as not bothering to fact check enough to know the correct name of the National Heritage Museum, for example

And again, fact check yourself. IT WAS NOT ME THAT ADDED THE MUSEUM LINK. Remove it from the list. I don't care. I don't think it belongs there either. Reading the Wiki page on this Museum, it sucks. There no good information regarding the masons. Who cares. It's not notable. You get an idea stuck in your mind that you believe to be true and never back down. That's why I suggested Conflict Resolution classes. Being able to listen to all sides of an issue and come to a resolusion is a great skill to have.

Again I repeat... ready for it... here it come... I DID NOT EDIT THE &%$#ING PAGE AND ADD THE &%$#ING MUSEUM. I live in Canada. Why should I give a %*$! about some museum in Lexington, MA. Go attack someone else for a change. &%$# Zef (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I am confused... Zef, you said above that you are the creator of the article, now you say you never edited it... what am I missing? Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, Zef somehow must have decided that when I said "was added here by the creator of that article" that I was pointing at him, rather than Jnaaman, who added the link to the museum article into this template and in fact created the museum article. Therefore, when Zef then said he created the article (which he didn't, he was referring to creating this template, which had nothing to do with the discussion), I assumed he knew what he was talking about and maybe I just didn't go far enough back into the history, so I therefore noted the egregious errors as his, because he claimed he made the article when he didn't (Jnaaman didn't either, AFAICT; it was split out from elsewhere). Fundamentally, there was a total misunderstanding on Zef's part, and frankly, that's too bad, because there was no reason for his outburst. MSJapan (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah... he created this template... not the article on the museum... got it. Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Display problems[edit]

This infobox is huge. It is pushing images and "Edit" links into weird places on the articles in which it's used. For instance, see:

You'll see that the "Edit" link which is usually on the right side of the page gets shoved way down to the bottom or some other strange place. Is there anything that can be done to this template to fix this problem? SnottyWong talk 23:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 65.113.107.33, 20 June 2011[edit]

After recieving the warrant in 1787 al459 was organized in 1787 not 1781 65.113.107.33 (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done - the requested edit seems to relate to some article other than this template Blueboar (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
African Lodge #459 MWPHGLMA, I think. MSJapan (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm... well, according to our article on Prince Hall Freemasonry (and the BC&Y website, which I trust), African Lodge was chartered by GLE in 1784. A quick internet search backs this up... I don't find a 1787 date anywhere. Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Freemasonry2[edit]

What does {{Freemasonry2}} do, other than force the non-collapsible infobox? Can I go and replace gobally all {{Freemasonry2}}'s with {{Freemasonry}}?

Yes, I see nothing wrong with that. - Camyoung54 talk 14:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Freemasonry seem to prefer the non-collapsed infobox... I suggest you raise the issue there, and gain consensus before doing a global change on your own accord. Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 March 2013[edit]

The most relevant of all information falling under the subject of Islam and Freemasonry seems to be missing, which is that there is ijma or scholarly consensus that affirming certain values required by Freemason membership is considered disbelief. Paramount of these beliefs is that they validate other forms of religious worship of God (Allah), and it is the widely known belief of all Muslim scholars that Islam abrogated all religion which preceded it. It should also also be mentioned that the Islamic world's oldest and most prestigious institution of higher learning, Al-Azhar University has ruled that membership it such organizations is considered disbelief. http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=4326 Zwest1 (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

First, we would not change the template to discuss this.
As for the comment... I am confused... The only religious requirement that Freemasonry has is that its members hold a belief in God... a requirement which is in absolute accord with Islam. Freemasonry remains silent on all other religious questions and issues. So that raises a question ... if the only religious requirement is in accord with Islam, just what "values required by Freemason membership" are considered disbelief by Muslim scholars? Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggest we add list of grand lodges[edit]

While the Template used for the Freemasonry topic has many helpful links, I find it odd that it is missing the link to List of Masonic Grand Lodges, which would be a useful and often-used reference for those browsing this topic. Any reason why not to add it? Jax MN (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that list needs extensive discussion and clean up before we highlight it by placing it in the template.... as it stands, the list has some serious Verifiability and POV issues. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Blueboar. Thank you for your extensive work on the Freemasonry section. Clearly, the List of Grand Lodges needs work. Nevertheless, I believe it would be useful and of core interest, and that it should be added. It appears to me to be less-trafficked than the pages on the Template, as I review its edit history and see gaps in detail. Hence, I wondered if we should enlist the aid of the Template's general readership by placement in the Template now. Is there a better way to solicit this kind of upgrade prior to linking the List into the Template? I can certainly edit for detail and have a strong background in Masonic recognition issues. However, my Wikipedia editor skills aren't as extensive as others and therefore I would hope someone could suggest a better list template or stylesheet. For example, the notes stating a grand lodge has association with COGMNA, or CLIPSAS, and various other groups are a bit obtuse. Also, I agree further with you that Lodge counts and member counts have (and will continue to have) wide verifiability issues, especially among the small, schismatic groups. Jax MN (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The place to generate some support for fixing the list would probably be Wikipedia:WikiProject Freemasonry. I will post a note. I have no objection to the list eventually being put in the template... I agree that it is the type of thing that should go in... but, I do object to the list going in in its current state. Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)