Talk:National Grand Lodge

Just as a general note

Just to be clear, I have added nb's so that the RWPHGLs of NGL are not confused with the MWPHGLs of PH, and not to belittle their status. As far as I'm concerned, everyone is entitled to edit as they see fit within policy boundaries. However, especially in relation to GLs with lineage from African #459, the distinction was confusing to me at first, and I'm more familiar with the topic than the average Masonically-informed reader, and certainly more so than the non-informed general reader.

To the partisan folks: This is Wikipedia, not a battleground. The subject meets the general notability requirements for an article. It is to be portrayed accurately and neutrally. Just because it is or isn't your branch of Freemasonry doesn't mean you can puff it up or knock it down. If your edits are not sourced, they can be removed, so do your homework beforehand. We are bound by Wikipedia's policies, end of story.

Wikipedia is not a Lodge; there is nothing "official" about Wikipedia - we are here for information only, not recruitment. I am well aware of Phylaxis' stance on this and other similar organizations, and it's not relevant here other than to explain that the viewpoint exists. Ideally, we should be presenting both viewpoints in order to maintain neutrality. Internet anonymity allows a lot of things. However, Masonic principles in all branches of Freemasonry, whatever they may be called, do not when it comes to how we act. Therefore, do not act here in a manner in which you would not face-to-face.

Our Masonic editors are here to help you, even though we might not be PH, PHA, or what-have-you. Many of us have been here working on Masonic articles for a decade. Ask questions, but assume that we know what we're talking about if we see a problem, which we will do our best to explain. MSJapan (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge was established by warrant of the National Grand Lodge. Their Grand Lodge acknowledges this. Bsidepro (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Can we have a reference for that? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

MSJapan, can you let me know if there is a way to allow me to upload files and documents to this talk page? I want to make sure that I can provide the evidence for whatever statements I make. Fiddlersmouth, The MW Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts of which African Lodge #459 became by Declaration of Independence in 1826, was not chartered by the National Grand Lodge. Up until that time and date, June 8, 1827, the MW PHGL of Massachusetts went under the name of African Lodge #459. On the date of the Declaration, they designated themselves African Grand Lodge. There was no National Grand Lodge in existence until 20 years later. It was this same Grand Lodge, the MWPHGL of Massachusetts, who called for the Convention in Boston (1847), where three Grand Lodges and delegates from Boyer Lodge in New York (all of which were existing Independent of the National Grand Lodge) formed the National Compact (Agreement), which gave life to the National Grand Lodge, June of 1847

So, what we can see from documentation, is that the MWPHGL of Massachusetts was not formed by the National Grand Lodge, but was one of three that actually formed the National Grand Lodge.

MSJapan, do you have a personal email? or a place to receive documents?Quill&Sword (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

References

This is the key!

"These facts supported by the literature on the subject are one of contention among debate circles." - this is exactly what we need to zero in on, and we need to present both sides of the argument. I'm seeing a pro-only bias, which is against WP:NPOV. So let's start there and discuss how to address that. MSJapan (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we've just seen an example of how vindictive the "antis" can get. It's pro because the reliable stuff was written by a member - we need to thank him for that. The only way to introduce balance is for somebody else to research the history and start writing. That won't be me in the near future (I edit less now because my mother's dementia gives me less time), so we need a volunteer. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Editing...

Please do not drop out sourced notes. Wikipedia is always changing, so if something is not correct in your view, please bring it here and explain why before making major edits. I do not care what anyone's motivation or point-of-view is, because people are entitled to them. However, we are going to work together, and if not, I have no problem requesting blocks, topic bans, or anything else that will prevent this article from becoming a battleground. Wikipedia is also not an official history site or promotional venue for anyone. I say this because the point here is not to legitimize or illegitimize any organization. We provide sourced information, and where there are contentious areas, we present both sides. My sole interest is to see an under-served area of Freemasonry brought to light for a general readership, because as I've been digging, there's so much more to it than what's generally known outside of Prince Hall circles. That should be everyone's primary focus here. MSJapan (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Some points about Wikipedia

Given this edit, we need to have a bit of a discussion. I'm going to outline a few points here about how Wikipedia works:

• Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. That means we are not here to make a point.
• Wikipedia is neutral. That means we present all the views of an article topic via reliably sourced information.

The edit is as follows: There are contrasting reports as to the severance of of Lodges under the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, which was a fore runner of the MW Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania. According to the previous note, the editor references the "Lux et Veritas" source (p. 32). This information is in contrast of the Joshua Woodlin National Grand Lodge report which was published a year earlier (Woodlin pages 37-39). Another account appears on the website of the MW African Harmony Grand Lodge on the account of the Scism of Pennsylvania which supports the Woodlin perspective (see [1])

Formatting issues aside, this is not what an NB is for, so that's problem number one. Secondly, there will be no critiquing of editors. There seems to be no issue with the existence or reliability of the source, so the fact that "the editor" added it is irrelevant. In fact, "the editor" was right. If contrasting statements are to be presented, that is to be done in the main body of the article. NBs are for points of clarity only.

I'm not sure whether the statement made is original research or synthesis, but neither are permitted. Unless another writer has published information claiming one way or the other that a source is or is not correct, we cannot make that claim here (and in fact, it would go in a different "critical" section. As far as I see it, Lux says one thing, Woodlin says another, and that is precisely what we are going to say. There will be no "contrast and compare" to drive the reader to a desired conclusion.

Wikipedia is not a research ground. It is also not a place to host a "definitive history." Our job here is to compile information, because that is what an encyclopedia does. We are here to show what has been said on a topic, because that is what an encyclopedia does. We are not here to draw a conclusion for a reader or to push a viewpoint on a reader. This means that if Lux says one thing, and Woodlin says another, that is what we say, and that is all we say. Writing an encyclopedia is very different from doing research, and if the necessary adjustments cannot be made to methodologies to enable this, then we're just not going to be able to have an article.

Also, this is the third time I'm posting about things with no responses. If I do not get any engagement on these issues on this talk page, I'm simply going to have the article edit-protected, and then no one will be able to edit it. MSJapan (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@MSJapan - Completely agree up to the last paragraph, where you seem to lose sight of Assume good faith. We have two editors who clearly love their own Grand Lodges, at loggerheads over their shared history. They are not particularly WP savvy - what do you expect them to say? The article is surely important enough to exercise a bit of patience. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Only because I've attempted dialogue a few times, and I'm not getting the engagement, but I'm seeing the reversions. MSJapan (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Good point, well presented, and about where I came in. I've watched a little war between Bsidepro and Aceumus for a while, until Aceumus made an inventive series of moves that got him barred. Quill&Sword picked up exactly where he left off, although the editor insists he is not a sockpuppet. Neither seem to have any idea about NPOV, and to be fair, sources on National Grand Lodge are almost all hopelessly POV one way or another. This doesn't make it a lost cause (note the almost) and freezing the article instead of going through the usual routes of warning, then (if necessary) disciplining the reverting editors seems counter-productive. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, Fiddlersmouth, I am having to encourage you to do some background on who I am. I have personally contacted MSJapan and have given him my documentation and interpretation of certain statements and their affects on the real history of Prince Hall Freemasonry. Your continued attempt to make me someone you have an obvious problem with is becoming juvenile. My real name is John L. Hairston, go look me up, and satisfy yourself that whoever Aceumus is, I am not him. I heard about this page in a Masonic debate group, where the Bsidepro was taken to task concerning what was originally written. Understanding that this is an open concept, I came to correct the initial errors of the article, PERIOD! Are you even a Mason? what is your stake, besides maintaining the Wikipedia environment? Are you a Mason where certain falsities could cast a bad light on your organization? If you cannot show where I am Aceumus, then respect me as who I am. I gave you links to mu prior writings, forwarded my credentials and now my real name, do your due diligence please sir, thanks in advanceQuill&Sword (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, Quill&Sword, whoever you are, you have to follow the same rules as the rest of us. Wikipedia, and WP Freemasonry, have reason to be wary of "don't you know who I am?" editors. BTW, am I still a feminist? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Fiddlersmouth, I think I have followed the rules and will continue to. But please stop with the childish and juvenile games of trying to play I-Spy, it doesn't become you. Again, if you have nothing positive to say to me or about me, please miss me with what I will now deem your character flaws, thanks Quill&Sword (talk) 02:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Grand 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303223554/http://www.princehall.org/History/Ray%20Colemans%20History.pdf to http://www.princehall.org/History/Ray%20Colemans%20History.pdf

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)