Comments[edit]

There were several erroneous statemens made, that I corrected. Freemasonry originally existed in Scotland, not England, for example. Also, originally there was only one degree to Freemasonry. By 1717, two degrees were in use, and sometime before 1725 the third degree was added. This is well established. Another thing, in NO jurisdiction is the blue lodge part of the Scottish Rite. The Scottish Rite is a totally separate organization. You said you are a Mason; so am I. Where do you hail from?

Justin 08:24, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In some jurisdictions, there are lodges which are part of the Scottish Rite. This is well known.
kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 00:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some changes, and proposal to relocate some info[edit]

I'm still rather confused by the information on this page. Mainly I just don't know whether things don't seem "right" to me because they're inaccurate, or if it's because other parts of the world do things differently. I cleaned up as best I could, but I may have inadvertently removed or changed information relating to U.K. or other non-U.S. practice; if so, my apologies.

It seems to me that a great deal of the information on this page would be better-suited to other pages anyway. Grand Lodge already contains information on the processes of governance and recognition. The three degrees and the landmarks are really about Freemasonry as a whole and there isn't a good reason to tuck them away under "Lodge" in particular, is there? If they're not already discussed on Freemasonry, they should either be moved there or should have their own articles.

I think ideally this particular article would be very short (a definition of what a Lodge is, its function, its place in the hierarchy of governance, relevant vocabulary) and most of the substantive content about Freemasonry would be elsewhere (wikilinked from here, of course). Would anyone object if I pursued this approach? —Bsktcase 17:34, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Bsktcase. In addition, I would include the distinction that is made between the word "Lodge" and the Lodge Building or Temple that starts the Freemasonry page. Blueboar 19:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grye 04:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TBH, not sure why this is here....[edit]

There's nothing in here that we don't have in the main article or can't add. Is there a reason to keep this article? MSJapan 14:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that having this article is useful, it can be used to go into a little more depth on how an individual lodge is organised which is inappropriate in the main article. Could probably afford to slim down the Lodge section of the main article. This one probably needs more detail on officers and could lose the appendant bodies section.ALR 14:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think it has a purpose, other than to be an alternate platform for alternative opinions. nearly everything here is redundant, when looking at Freemasonry. Plus, I'm not at all a fan of these alternate Masonic articles, as they are ill-watched. Grye 09:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative opinions? The main article is already pretty dense, and as has been identified elsewhere over the recommended length. I'd move towards more sub-articles rather than less. Agree there is some duplication though.ALR 09:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with sub-articles is, the main article is closely watched; sub-articles can appear & stay fairly unwatched for a while. Edit & rv wars can wage on & on, where they'd be but a moment's notice on the main article. I've experienced this issue first-hand, & have had hours upon hours taken out of my life by it. I'd rather like to see any sub-articles sunstantially & directly linked from the main article, is all. Otherwise, I agree, it is recognized that this article is large & could use sub-division. Either replicated info should be taken out of the main article, or this article merged with the main. Grye 09:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add to what Grye said here. I think the main article is a little long (it's 19 pages printed) and could probably do with some delegating. I understand the concerns about the watch issues - I just think that might be the price we pay to make it more readable and understandable. Just my $0.02. Bdevoe 18:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Officers[edit]

We need to get a hold on this. What's in the article now is by no means a definitive explaination of a Lodge officer structure. For example, in the Grand Lodge of Idaho the progressive elected officers in order of importance are: Worshipful Master, Senior Warden, Junior Warden, Senior Deacon, Junior Deacon, Senior Steward and Junior Steward. By custom, a brother who is elected Junior Steward may reasonably expect to be Worshipful Master six terms later by serving one term in each the other offices in order.

The Secretary and Treasurer are not considered officers in the line. Because of the nature of those jobs a brother may - and probably will - hold one of these offices for years at a time (having a new Secretary and Treasurer every year would result in total chaos in most Lodges I know of). Tyler is not considered a line office, either; it's more of an emeritus officer position than anything else.

In the Grand Lodge of Idaho, Organist is only an officer at the Grand Lodge level. There is no Inner Guard (the Junior Deacon fulfills that role) or Director of Ceremonies, assistant or otherwise. There is, however, a Chaplain and a Marshal, neither of which are currently mentioned.

The point is we could probably have 10 different editors in 10 different jurisdictions write 10 different accounts of officer structure. --Faustus37 21:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see this until after I'd been doing some tinkering with the section. This mornings was a quick flash whilst I was thinking about the subject, I think I've squared it away a little better now. I've tried to explain progressive offices, which are pretty standard, and made clear the continuity offices. It should be straightforward enough to add a comment at the office where there are differences. Agree it could get a bit lengthy, in Mother Kilwinning we have 20 progressive offices so it takes a brother some 20 or so years to get to the chair. I didn't include all of them!ALR 21:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few caveats I addressed:
[Sorry - don't you mean, Inner Guard?Nuttyskin 03:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)][reply]

I think we can agree that most Blue Lodges have similar offices when it comes to Worshipful Master, Senior and Junior Wardens, and Senior and Junior Deacons. Beyond that it gets messy. --Faustus37 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of them fall under a heading of A number of other offices do not exist in all jurisdictions, which looks pretty clear to me that there are going to be some jurisdictions they don't exist in. Given that there are lots of GLs, there are bound to be a lot of differences. And since I am both ADC and Charity Steward in my Mother Lodge, and Tyler in another....ALR 22:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the "Junior Past Master" to the officers section. It's a very common title used in Colorado - don't know if it's shared outside of that, but as people may run into a Mason who is a "Junior Past Master", I thought it might be a good addition. Bdevoe 18:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the Inner Guard, is that being associated with the officer assigned to inform the Tyler/Tiler that the WM has opened/closed lodge (i.e., the guard the lodge side of the door)? Or is that the door to the preparation room (our SD handles that role). Just curious. :) Bdevoe 18:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Inner guard is inside the closed door of the lodge. The preparation is carried out by the Tyler. It may be a layout thing, in all three of my English Craft Lodges we only have one door, no distinct adjacent, in Scotland the Temple has two doors, one double for entry and exit and one to the side used when we're Tyled for latecomers, visitors and the candidate. The IG deals with that from inside the temple.ALR 19:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In our lodge we have two sets of doors - both double - one to the right of the JD where (outside) the Tyler/Tiler is stationed and the other to the left of the SW where we receive candidates and initiates. The SD is responsible for alarms "at the door to the preparation room" (where the candidates and initiates come) and the JD guards the main door from the inside. We generally use main set of doors for everything (late-arriving brethren, visitors, etc.). I've not been in many other lodges, but they've all had similar layouts. I'll have to visit on in Britain while I'm there in a couple of weeks. :) Bdevoe 19:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of visiting, have you asked your Grand Sec to communicate with ours? You'll have difficulty just appearing, at least in England, since most lodges have to book beforehand. If you know where you'll be then there are a couple of places to ask about meetings.ALR 19:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike in the US, where generally one can show up at the door of any lodge with a dues card (to verify that you are in good standing) and be admitted... in other jurisdictions one needs to do more to visit. First you should apply to you Grand Lodge for a "Masonic Passport" (a fancy piece of paper certifying that you are a brother in good standing), and ask them to contact the Grand Lodge of the Jurisdiction where you are visiting. That Grand Lodge will then give you contact info for lodges that meet in the area you are visiting (and will assist you in contacting the lodge). You then need to contact the lodge and ask if you can attend. Actually, even in the US it is often a good idea (not to mention common courtesy) to contact the local lodge and ask if you can visit. (Don't be turned off if the answer is no... they may be planning to conduct some piece of personal lodge business that would be awkward to do if a visitor were in attendance) Also, by calling ahead the lodge can account for you in their catering numbers, and can inform you of things like dress code. Forwarning often saves everyone from potential embarassment. Blueboar 22:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, in the US if you are travelling outside your GL's Jurisdiction, and wish to visit, you need to contact your home GL, have them contact the foreign GL, who then contacts a lodge local to where you will be travelling, and notifies them you may visit.--Vidkun 22:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate all of the info. I was thinking more of an a "touristy" mode than actually attending a regular meeting. I'm traveling with family, so it would be a bit uncouth to just jet out one evening for a good time with brothers. :) That being said, this is all excellent advice. I have done so previously in my lodge visits (Alexandria Lodge in Virginia, for instance). Any brother should work through their secretaries to arrange meetings like this (at least get contact info). Many lodges have websites that can be used to contact another lodge, but there may issues of "regularity" which should be avoided if possible. Again - thanks for the advice. :)
Ah, if you're in London there are regular tours round Grand Lodge, or indeed you could wander around the museum and library.Well worth the visit. If you're in Scotland similarly Grand Lodge is worth visiting. Feel free to drop me an email through the link o my user page for more information if you want.ALR 21:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section to develop[edit]

Hey i live in a masonic Lodge (The building) and there a a few mysteries that i was hoping this article would solve. e.g: Why are there 4 red lights in the floor and why is there a coffin shaped box at the front of the temple? Could we have a section called "Common Features of a Masonic Lodge"? or is there an article on the structure of masonic lodges?Paige Master 02:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the veracity of the claim, and in any case, you'd be better off asking somebody there. There are very few constants in Lodges, which is why there is no section on them. MSJapan 18:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, i live in the building(ex-lodge) so who am i going to ask, myself? And yeah there are lights in the floor and a sunken in coffin at the front of the temple room. I would think that some of these features would be shared with other places, as in 4 red dots or, 4 torches on the walls ect.Paige Master 06:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then you don't live in an active Lodge, which is not what your original statement led me to believe, and as for what's in it, I've got no idea what you're talking about, so no, they aren't shared. MSJapan 12:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To a large extent it would depend on what orders worked in the temple, for example my craft lodge shares a temple with about 6 other orders. I can imagine contexts for a coffin but the four lights don't ring a bell. In any case, as MSJ says, there is little commonality so it would have the potential to become one of those interminable lists of exceptions.ALR 14:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he lives in a formar Odd Fellows lodge building- I am not familiar with the ritual but I know a coffin plays an important part in the initiation. The Independent Order of Odd Fellows is often supposed to be a part of Freemasonry.Saxophobia 21:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. But it's a reasonable assessment, it may be a former Oddfellows building.ALR 23:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for info[edit]

I recently started the Wikipedia article Royal Masonic School and I collect RMIG Steward medals/badges. I am however unclear as to who these jewels would have origionally been given to. From reading this article I believe they were given to Charity Stewards - Responsible for managing and co-ordinating the collection of charity monies from within the membership of the lodge. Does this sound right and does anyone know approx how many would have been given each year. Thanks Agnellous 12:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RMS article is interesting, thanks for starting that. The Jewels are classed as Charity Jewels and would be purchased by Masons who had donated a required sum to one of the Festival Appeals for the RMIG, and the various other charities. A Charity Steward would normally co-ordinate and track the amount donated and advise the brother in question that he was entitled to purchase the Jewel, the purchase sum also going into the charity. Some will have bars which were subsequently awarded for reaching certain trigger points.
Jewels of the Craft, here, is a good source of info on these kind of things, as is Quatuor Coronati Correspondence Circle, based in Grand Lodge. I'm making the assumption that you are a former pupil of the School, so they'd be pretty receptive to any questions and have access to past issues of the transactions which will have articles on the subject.
Hope that helps a bit.
ALR 21:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Lodges[edit]

We recently had a "Masonic Education" section at our regular meeting and the topic turned to "why are lodges called 'Blue Lodges'". After some interesting theories (stonemasons used a blue flag to identify themselves when they traveled to avoid confrontations, etc.), the issue came up that Scottish Rite has 'Red Lodges', which are not the traditional (York Rite) Blue Lodges. Are Red Lodges common anywhere other than the US? I think they're mostly located in the Southern US (but claim no extraordinary knowledge on the subject). Thoughts as to whether we should discuss this in the article? Bdevoe 18:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue lodge appears to be an Americanism, elsewhere it's Craft. I have heard of the Royal Arch being called a Red Lodge although my main recollection is from a book of Masonic inspired literature and humour written in the 30s, and published as part of a fundraising effort for the Temple in Dundee.
Notwithstanding that, in the 18th degree of A&AR there are three chambers one of which is known as the Red Chamber.
Given the absence of any sensible information I'd be cautious about discussing it. The various editors have been quite careful about conflating A&AR and craft in the various articles that we have, mainly because the SJ view isn't common elsewhere and the Craft and SR are distinct..
ALR 20:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, one has to be careful about making sweaping statements... My lodge (The Holland Lodge, No. 8 in NY) has a dispensation to use orange bordered aprons and regalia, as it was founded by dutch speaking New Yorkers, (the orange color is in honor of the House of Orange) and one should be careful NOT to call it an "Orange Lodge" (which has very different connotations). We are a blue lodge that simply uses a "unique shade of blue".
I can understand the distinction :)
Most Scots Lodges have their own regalia, anything from tartan through red, blue, purple and various others. My Lodge in Scotland wears green, the same colour as that used by Provincial Grand Lodges and Grand Lodge. My fathers Lodge, in Glasgow, wore a blue apron a similar shade to that used by Provincial GLs in England. No linkage though.
Mind you, in Scotland we don't wear our dress aprons, we all use a plain white apron for most meetings, because we're all equal in the craft. We do wear them for visiting though or the installation meeting. I thought that most US lodges didn't use the dress apron at all between receiving it at ones raising and on being elevated to the Grand Lodge Above?
ALR 21:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Plain aprons are provided at the meeting, though most Lodges have a distinctive set of officers' aprons and collars, which is what I think BB is talking about. If not, I might have to wander over there just so I can tell people that ornage is blue. MSJapan 23:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Colorado, almost everyone uses plain white aprons (due to the EA discussion) - Past Masters can wear ones with a gold square and compasses on a circular blue field. Our GL has specially embroidered ones. When we receive visitors at the annual GL meetings it's always interesting to see the different aprons (we occasionally get visitors from Canada and Europe).
What I was getting at with the "red lodge" was that we mention "blue lodge" in reference to the craft lodges in the US, but I do know that some lodges (particularly in the south) aren't Blue - they're called "red lodges" to differentiate them from the York Rite "blue lodges". Readers in some of the Southern Jurisdiction areas may not know what a blue lodge is. I don't know if anyone who's currently contributing is from that area of the US and can speak definitively on the topic. Bdevoe 18:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MSJ... you would definitely find a visit to Holland very colorful... all brethren of the lodge are provided with orange bordered aprons (Officer aprons are the same, but with added frills and some gold trim... PMs are given a fancier version of the officer's apron, with a Master's square embroydered on it). Add in the fact that one of the other Lodges in the district uses red, and the GL types use purple... and it can be a bit of an eye strain! :>) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 21:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Do descendants of William, Prince of Orange get to wear completely orange aprons? (Just kidding!)
kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 11:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are SOME (oh noes, weasel word!!!) Craft Lodges in Louisiana, under the Grand Lodge of Louisiana, that use a form of the Scottish Rite Craft degrees. One needs to remember: outside of the US, Scottish Rite isn't the same sort of organisation - it is a type of Masonic Rite that DOES have rituals for 1-3 degrees ... as well as 4-33. Lodges in the US which use that Rite's Craft degrees are called Red Lodges, although I do not, at this time, have a citation. Additionally, according to this page [1] Red Lodge is the term used in Prince Hall Affiliated York Rite Royal Arch Chapters: in the Red Lodge, or the Chapter of Royal Arch Masons. They then go on to call the Council of Royal and Select Masters, or Cryptic Rite, the Purple Lodge. --Vidkun 19:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so now I am really confused. I was told by a Mason that the York Rite IS the Red Lodge. Are Red Lodges within the Scottish Rite or is it another name for the York Rite? LAWinans (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither, and both - which means you're going to stay confused. Within some groups (from my memory, specifically Prince Hall Affiliation) the Chapter Degrees (to Royal Arch) are considered the "Red Degrees" or "Red House", but it's an idiomatic usage. Also, within some groups, Red Lodge is used to denote those Craft Lodges working the Scottish Rite (or French Rite, or Rectified Scottish Rite) 1-3 degrees, as opposed to "Blue Lodges" which work the so-called "York" degrees which are really a modified Preston-Webb ritual.--Vidkun (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Images[edit]

For what it's worth, here is another image which can eventually be used in the article. Fred Hsu 03:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masonic Memorial Temple at Nob Hill, San Francisco











Lodge Officers Again - new article[edit]

I'm aware that this is a big change - but if nobody likes it, we can always agree to revert! The officers section of this article has always been a bit piecemeal, and in need of sorting out, despite several good efforts. For a while I've felt that a new main article was required for Lodge Officers, and a couple of days ago MSJapan encouraged me to finish the article - on which I started work just after Christmas. I've studied all the articles and sections of articles which address lodge officer roles, and I've tried to include everyone's ideas. If I've missed yours, SORRY, but you can always start editing the new article! I've included a table which may help clarify the overview, and that categorises the offices in the subsection write-ups below. I hope people like it - but if not, please tell me! Timothy Titus 20:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lodges vs. Halls[edit]

If a Masonic Lodge is a group of people rather than a building, why are all the photos in this article of buildings? Perhaps we need a separate Masonic hall article to cover the buildings specifically. Kaldari (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a "Lodge" and a "Lodge building". Furthermore, considering that every building is different in some respect, that article is an unnecessary impossibility. MSJapan (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about Masonic buildings or something similar? As it stands now, however, having an article about groups of people that is only illustrated with pictures of buildings is confusing. Kaldari (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opening statement[edit]

"...but is subject to its direction only in enforcing the published Constitution of the jurisdiction." This statement may be true somewhere but is definitely not true in the U.S. where lodges are definitely subject to the direction, rules, laws, etc., of their grand lodge.
kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 11:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for A-Class status[edit]

Perhaps this is just an exercise for the group, but we need to be more pro-active. I therefore propose this article be elevated to A-Class status per the standards discussed at WP:WikiProject_Freemasonry/Assessment. RiverStyx23{talkemail} 22:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 November 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request. Not a proper noun; the generic name; Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Masonic Lodge → Masonic lodge – Following on from the consensus at Talk:Research lodge, I think this article should also be decapitalised per WP:NCCAPS as it is a generic term. Jenks24 (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
No, I am not arguing that Freemasonry is a special case... but fraternities that use the word "Lodge" may be... in fraternalism, capitalization often is used to distinguish what exactly you are referring to. For example, an "Elk" is a member of the Fraternal order while an "elk" is an animal... a Mason is a member a fraternity while a mason builds a wall. (the last example goes for adjectival forms as well... the capitalized "Masonic" refers to things related to Freemasonry, while the non-capitalized "masonic" refers to things related to stone or brick masonry).
In the case of "Lodge" and "lodge"... capitalization is used to distinguish the entity (both its members and its meetings) from the building in which they meet. So... for example, if you say "I think we need to clean up the lodge", you are saying that the building is messy and needs cleaning. If, on the other hand, you say, "I think we need to clean up the Lodge" you are saying that there is something wrong with the membership (perhaps we are letting in people that shouldn't be Masons).
The topic of this article is not about Masonic buildings (for that topic, see our Masonic Temple article, which uses an alternative name)... it is about the entities. So... the capitalized word "Lodge" should be used. In this context the entire phrase "Masonic Lodge" is used a proper name (as would "Elks Lodge" or "Oddfellows Lodge"). Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The same is true for other fraternal orders (see: here and here)... so this is not unique to Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the premise of this (old) post-RM discussion is false. The RM discussion was actually notifified to the project at the outset. See WT:WikiProject Freemasonry/Archive 7#Masonic Lodge listed at Requested moves. Dicklyon (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shift of focus?[edit]

I note that a lot of the information presented in this article is already covered by our article on Freemasonry (which I think is appropriate) ... this strikes me as being unnecessarily duplicative.

I also note that our article on Grand Lodge treats the topic generically ... discussing "Grand Lodges" as a concept in fraternalism... something that is common to many fraternal orders (although, looking at the article, it does focus heavily on Freemasonry... perhaps overly so). In any case, I am wondering if we shouldn't do the same with "Lodges"? Shift the focus away from Masonic Lodges in specific, and discuss the topic of fraternal "Lodges" generically ... perhaps re-naming the article Lodge (fraternal order) or something similar. thoughts?

I see your point, it's a bit of a non-article at the moment. I think the route you are proposing ought to start with writing a general article, then starting a merge discussion. I would much rather retain the current article with a view to expanding it into a discussion of the various forms of masonic lodge, and its importance in early catechisms. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Various forms? importance in early catechims? what ever are you on about? Blueboar (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the historical sense as explained in early rituals, I think. MSJapan (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As in: "The form of a Lodge is an oblong..."? Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As in the long, thin, early continental lodges v the more regular rectangles of the "regulars", the Egyptian lodges, in and outside Memphis-Misraim, and the origins of the three traditions. The early catechisms have interesting questions about the lodge ("where is the key of the lodge" etc) and some, enigmatically, give its ideal location as well away from other human habitation when we know they met in towns and cities. We haven't scratched the surface. If anything, I'd favour a merge with Masonic Lodge Officers, dealing with the whole lot in a big, decent article rather than two scraps. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Original research? Or are there really enough reliable secondary sources that go into depth about what you are thinking about? In any case... I like your idea of starting a Lodge (fraternal societies) article first, and then merging. Blueboar (talk) 13:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Description of lodges isn't a sin. Still looking for a comparison to include. Early catechisms are extensively discussed by both Stevenson and Cooper, so not a problem. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an awfully obscure topic to me... I would have to see a draft to know if what you had in mind is really notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia (or not)... however, assuming it is, I am not sure such an article would be appropriately entitled "Masonic lodge". It seems to be too narrow in focus for that. Suggest you draft the article, and then we can see if the title fits (or if there is a better title). Blueboar (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In broad brush terms we're talking about the development of the Masonic lodge in the 17th and 18th centuries. I'd say that was pretty essential stuff, and properly belongs in this article. I'll work up a preliminary paragraph or two when the festivities have subsided. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would put that in the History of Freemasonry article... which I would love to see expanded and broken up into sub-articles. In any case... have a happy festivities. Blueboar (talk) 05:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think one of the sub-articles would have to be the history of the lodge. I can only agree that History of Freemasonry is too long already, and the detail needs spread to other articles. A cool Yule to you too bro, and best wishes for the coming year.
Obviously, we can't determine where the material would best go until we see it... so, suggest you write up an initial draft in your user space, and we can discuss further. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation[edit]

The lead paragraph of this article is stolen from The Esoteric Codex: Freemasonry by Adam Prinkleton, chapter 36. I don't yet know how much of the rest of the material is suspect, but it clearly needs addressed. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other way around, actually. The book is dated October 2015 and claims it collects curated articles. MSJapan (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In other words... Prinkleton copied Wikipedia, not the other way around? In which case, there is no copyright violation... just a case poor scholarship on the part of Mr. Prinkleton. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, although if the attribution is missing, Prinkleton has committed the violation. MSJapan (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Masonic lodge. 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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categories