Talk:Independent Order of Odd Fellows

Philosophy

The section beginning "Fellowship in the IOOF entails:" reads like an ad. Is this appropriate for this article?

75.77.35.236 (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International order

There appears to be something on the Internet called the "International Order of Odd Fellows". Is this just a common misnaming, or is it something different? I am going to create a redirect page until I can figure this out. Laconic 20:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"International" in this context is a misinterpretation of IOOF. Originally "I" means Independent as the order in USA became independent of the English Manchester Unity. On the other hand the order is International, i.e. world-wide, if meant in such a way. MKH, 2 Aug 2005

Hi, I live in the Netherlands, and tonight I was reading or local council booklet on what is in and around our area in terms of social clubs and sports etc. when I came across an advert for the IOOF and the words "Independent Order Of Odd Fellows" so although they are "International", they are still named "Independent". Not sure if ths info is helpful, but I hope soNorthern Light 19:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The correct name is "Independent"; I have manually changed all links that were to "International" to now link to "Independent".

(i.e. If you go to the actual International Order of Odd Fellows page, and click on What Links Here

it SHOULD tell you "No pages link to International Order of Odd Fellows".)

Pdfpdf (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

this article does not state exactly what the organization is, could someone add a /stub tag or /cleanup tag?

Well said, exactly what does the IOOF do, what are its policies, etc.? -98.221.133.96 (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article and look at some of the websites!

It's an altruistic fraternity, though these days, it has female members too.

Look at Category:Odd Fellows

Also, look at Odd Fellows and Oddfellows.

Then, having done all that, write something useful on this page.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of purpose, I.R.S. and Canadian tax code references, definitions of words and phrases etc. can be found in the "General code of laws of the I.O.O.F." Additionally the I.R.S. definition of a 501 (c) (8) can also give factual insight here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.173.45.173 (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How much of that is relevant to the international organisation? i.e. I.R.S. definitions are unlikely to be of relevance to the European or Australasian Lodges. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This code covers statement of purpose wherein lies the difference between Masons and Odd Fellows. They are not "equivalent" to one another especially at their core. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.173.45.173 (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are alluding to. Which "This code" covers which statement of which purposes? Which "They" are not equivalent, and to what equivalence(s) are you referring? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those of you who seem to be “in the know” about the purpose of the organization, why can you not add a blurb to the article outlining such? Surely it would take you no more time that it has taken you to write your comments here on the talk page. Unless the claim to know how and what the organization does is a bluff … SpikeToronto (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a PHILOSOPHY & PURPOSE section briefly outlining what the IOOF does. SpikeToronto (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"why can you not add a blurb" - Well, I don't know about others, but here are my reasons: There are several questions. (e.g. "does not state exactly what the organization is", "exactly what does the IOOF do", "what are its policies") I've answered the first one (i.e. "It's an altruistic fraternity, though these days, it has female members too.")

However, what that means varies from country to country. (i.e. I.R.S. definition of a 501 (c) (8) is a completely different piece of legislation to the Australian "Friendly Societies Act" - IRS definitions are unlikely to be of any relevance outside the USA; I expect that the concept of a "Friendly Society" means nothing in the USA.)

As it happens, I think your choice of "Philosophy & purpose" was an excellent choice, because it is probably one of very few areas which actually are "universal", and hence the section is a very useful addition. (Thank you.)

However, I have my reservations about how much that actually tells you about what the IOOF "is" and/or what it "does". And as for "what are its policies", I suspect that might vary regionally also ...

So, in summary, I don't believe there is a single definitive answer to those three questions, and although it is very useful to give a description of the intent of the organisation, I don't think the Philosophy & purpose section actually answers those three questions.

Well. You asked a question; I have provided an answer. So what? I'm not sure! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Regarding the cleanup of external links, WP:EL is very clear about not linking to specific sites from a general topic. ~~Futher explanation can be found at User talk:Pdfpdf.~~ Deiz talk 20:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

similarities

Will write something later. Meanwhile, once you have been reverted, the accepted practice is to discuss it on the talk page, not re-revert - that's how edit-wars start. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FOOTNOTE #1

Why not take the text from footnote #1 and place it in the article proper? I think the information contained therein might better serve the reader if it were in the main body of the article rather than being located in a footnote. Thoughts? SpikeToronto (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Why not ... article proper?" - In which part of the article proper?

"I think ... " - Perhaps. Again I would comment: In which part of the article proper?

(To me) It looks like the sort of stuff that would go in the History section; doesn't the History section already cover that ground?

I think I must be missing your point. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the History section already covers that ground, then the footnote is redundant and should be reduced to a mere reference. If the History section does not contain the information currently in the footnote, then it should be edited into the History section. That was my point. Sorry I was not clearer. I’ll re-read the History section and the footnote, figure something out, make changes accordingly, and then leave it the Wiki community to judge … er, further revise. Thanks for the question Pdfpdf! It made me clarify my thoughts on the matter! SpikeToronto (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(To me) That sounds like a good plan. (And thanks for the clarification.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]