Talk:Ye Antient Order of Noble Corks

Original research

This is only the start of the article, and wikification is left to others. Note that this starting point is not original research. Try looking up with Google, etc. Generic Character 14:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not the job of the readers to do the research for sources, it's the job of the person who adds information to the article, to include references. Or to be more specific: No information should be added to a Wikipedia article, unless its source is also included. Further, the references should be to credible sources, not to personal websites or to the organization's own website. I'm not saying that this organization is non-notable -- I am saying that the article as currently written, does not provide any credible sources. So, the {{originalresearch}} tag is appropriate, as it encourages other readers to help and provide those sources. Please do not remove the tag until the article has been properly referenced. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. --NovaSTL 22:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

“You can add sources even for material you didn't write if you use a source to verify that material. Adding citations to an article is an excellent way to contribute to Wikipedia.” [1] Generic Character 12:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

In good faith, make a positive contribution, or go away. There is no original research here on my part, and to assert that there is shows bad faith. The logical conclusion to adding citations or references to everything is to create a cut 'n' past article, that is also against wiki policy. Generic Character 11:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I am genuinely attempting to give this article the benefit of the doubt and to engage in a good faith discussion on the talk page (rather than just nominating the article for deletion). So please try to be civil. Getting back to the main subject though: Currently the only references on this article are personal websites dealing with Freemasonry. These do not provide sufficient proof of notability, per WP:CORP. If you genuinely believe that this subject is "famous" enough for its own Wikipedia article, then please provide proof of this fame, by including references to third-party credible sources which prove that the subject is famous to others than just Freemasons. You may also wish to review WP:CRUFT. As soon as there are credible sources verifying notability on this article, which meet the standards of Wikipedia policy on Verifiability, I'll remove it from my watchlist. --NovaSTL 22:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You certainly seem to have a chip on your shoulder on this subject NovaSTL. What do mean by "I am genuinely attempting to give this article the benefit of the doubt" - you seem to have a rather inflated sence of your importance. The references are were I got the information, including a non-web reference. as I am not a member of this particular society. If you are genuine, then ask at the main page on Freemasonry, as they, at the Freemasonry Project asked for the article to be written. I will not be driven by you in my contibution to Wiki. Also you stated that this was not an issue of notability, but now you have made a 180 degree turn - which indicates bad faith, I think. Please try to applycivil yourself by not jumping on editors who respond to requests by starting articles. Works in progress are not likely to comply with all the variouse rules from the off, and you tone is abrasive from the outset. Generic Character 14:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm by no means an expert on this subject, but it does appear in the Masonic appendant bodies article, which in my opinion helps this piece. It does however need to be correctly referenced - I've added the proper formatting, and started this off, but those with more expert knowledge will need to add to this. Escaper7 15:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added a citation in reguards to the Corks being part of the Allied Masonic Degrees in the US. Hopefully this will help. 38.112.47.92 17:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the references, but what this article needs, is not proof that the entity exists and is known within the circle of Freemasonry, but that it has independent notability to non-Masons. If such notability cannot be proven, then the article should be either deleted, or merged into another article (such as the one on Masonic appendant bodies). Has the organization been the subject of any independent research? Is there a book about it? Has it been written up in the New York Times or USA Today or CNN or any other news source? --NovaSTL 19:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, there are many organizations which are not notable to anyone outside their membership (professional societies like the IEEE come to mind here). I don't feel, therefore, that that alone is an accurate indicator of notability. As long as there are enough relevant hits for corks, and enough material is available to create a decent article, I think this should stay. Another rationale is this: even if it is "only" AMD that knows about it, AMD covers multiple states in the US, and most Masons in the US know of or have heard of AMD. The Order also exists in the UK, as was mentioned, so it should be worthy of a stub at this point, and it may become part of a larger AMD article one of these days. MSJapan 01:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, IEEE has considerable independent notability. A simple Google search on the term shows over 100 million hits [2], and the term is frequently in the news [3], which easily satisfies the requirement of "Notability." The Corks organization, on the other hand, gets fewer than 100 Google hits [4]. In other words, it's just not a famous entity, so if it's not famous, why should it have a Wikipedia article? I think it's sufficient to mention it on the Freemasonry page, rather than trying to force an entire article on a subject that just plain isn't notable. --NovaSTL 08:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Several editors have added references, tidied this article up, and worked on layout, format and style. If this debate continues, it will simply discourage editors from further adding to it, and that will be counter-productive. It couldn't possibly be merged with Masonic appendant bodies as there are scores of other masonic organisations listed on this page. No one wants to spend time (or waste it!) working on an article that will be deleted. This article was created five days ago; please give other editors time to come to it and add to the article and discussion surrounding it. Escaper7 10:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think one of the main issues is that most of the referrences to this will come from off network sources, which really don't satisfy those who don't realise that a whole wide world exists away from the screen, something we're very familiiar with in other articles. also most of these references are probably best described as unpublished, newsletters etc. I can think of a couple of references in a national cancer research newsletter for example as Cork lodges have donated significant amounts of money to various childrens hospices (my own donated about $3k recently after one meeting).

There is the balance between influence and notability, clearly there are some organisations which have significant influence, Freemasonry in general in the UK is the largest national donator to non-masonic charities, but whose google profile might be quite low. Over-reliance on google is an issue across WP anyway.ALR 10:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair points - but it's a new article, several other editors on masonic articles talk about discussing changes, and allowing other editors time to contribute - this article has had a shelf life of five days... yes published references should be included, but editors need time to go away and do their research 'offline' so I don't see any harm in letting this run, that will allow more editors to contribute. Escaper7 10:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, per Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability, information should never be added to Wikipedia in the first place, unless it's linked to a reliable source. Online or offline doesn't matter, but all information must be verifiable, even if it requires a trip to the local library to do it. "References" that are only to Freemason websites or newsletters aren't sufficient though. Are there any other hardcopy books or articles in credible magazines which refer to this organization? --NovaSTL 10:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the issue of newsletters probably needs more careful thinking about, there is a world of difference between a locally printed newsletter with distribution measuring in tens and a national charity newsletter with distribution of a couple of million. Both constitute unpublished, in Harvard referencing terms, but would imply different levels of notability. Unfortunately in this case I remember seeing the entries, but tend to recycle that kind of thing rather than hang onto it. I know there is some interesting debate going on at the moment related to suitability of various sources, which may be pertinent.ALR 11:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I understand NovaSTL's point (above), but it's my view that editors should be given time to add to or re-write the article with the correct independent sources. No one has ever written a perfect article straight off, so let's have a breather then decide if the article should be merged or deleted - but a negative discussion would certainly steer me away from adding to an article if I thought my efforts would come to nothing. Escaper7 11:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Per NovaSTL's last comment. With the citations that have now been added, I think this article does meet the requirements on WP:V. I would disagree that Freemasonic websites and newsletters are not sufficient. There are over a million Freemasons in the US alone. Even if the Corks are only known to these Freemasons, that is a large enough awairness to be Notable.

As for notability outside of Freemasonry, and the issue of google hits... A lack of online presence does not mean that people outside of Masonry are not aware of an orgainzation. It simply means that no one has created a web page about it. This means that the majority of source material will be in print form rather than online. And it takes time to track down print sources. I agree with Escaper7 ... more time is needed before we delete the article for lack of sources. Blueboar 14:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikify

I've made a minor edit to the opening of this article to Wikify it a touch more. This should help your case (as per above) but I know nothing about this order so I'm not really qualified to contribute to the above. Escaper7 15:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations and thanks to those who have improved this article thus far. :-) Generic Character 12:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've tidied up some of the references, but I'm not sure how to do multiple refs from the same article/website creating: a,b,c etc; can someone assist with this as I'm out of time today? Escaper7 17:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I was on to it Escaper7, when you were also editing. I've tried to update on-the-fly as you posted! :-) I've now mined-out all the references that I can find, (as a non-member). :-) Generic Character 18:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Origins

If you would but reading the Wikipedia entry Line-crossing ceremony, I think you would be struck by the similarity, both formal and in terms of content, between the Cork Degree and maritime initation ceremonies such as "Crossing the Line". The only obvious omission is Neptune, but I suggest the pagan Classical elements were Biblicized to integrate it into the more general Old Testament flavour of mainstream Masonic ritual, such as Royal Ark Mariners. Nuttyskin (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no similarity of content at all between the Line Crossing Ceremony and the Cork degree as practiced in England. Different characters, different practices, different setting, different ritual. The only similarity is that both are initiatory-type ceremonies of a light-hearted nature, but they have that in common with many others too. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 19:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I was expressing an opinion chiefly upon the Cork Degree as practised in *Scotland*, having no experience of how it may be practised in England. I assure you, the resemblance is very great indeed. One of the Scottish Cork Lodges mentioned, Eastmuir (my own, so to speak, Mother Cork Lodge) has recently had to discontinue the Cork at its own Temple and relocate elsewhere, as the copious gallons of water were warping its floorboards! The English version must be a very tepid affair in comparison. Nuttyskin (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Related to a different matter, that of membership, I have pinpointed another difference between Scottish practice and that of other Jurisdictions: membership is open to all Initiated Brethren (i.e., from Entered Apprentice), which may in part account for its numerical popularity. Nuttyskin (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)