Category talk:Freemasonry
 | Freemasonry Category‑class | |||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
Do we want to list every Mason?
I notice that the Freemasonry category has been added to a couple of articles about people who happen to have been Freemasons (usually with only one line indicating the connection by saying something like "he was an active Freemason"). Is this really something we want? If so, we should put it on our Project to do list. If not, let's remove them. Blueboar 14:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if it's a claim, it needs proof. Sometimes it doesn't matter much, but it depends on the individual. MSJapan 16:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Name Umbrage
Maybe I'm the only one, but I take offense at the term "Freemason" as the broad categorization of masonic activities. Generally, that term is used to implicate us in absurd conspiracy theories etc. Why not rename the project and categories the more correct "Free and Accepted Masons?" CigarBandit 09:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC) C.G.
- Fair question. It's important to remember that we are not writing for Masons, but for the general public, whose accepted general term is "Freemason" (and we use the term as well). Historically, the designation "Free and Accepted" (F&AM) is not the same as "Ancient Free and Accepted" (AF&AM), and the usage varies on the jurisdiction (which means F&AM is not always correct). The end result is adding a level of unneeded obfuscation that really means nothing to anyone, as whether it's F or AF, one is still a Mason. MSJapan 01:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Fair Response :). I can certainly see the logic of that, and the argument for said side had entered my mind, but I still hold the possibly naive view that the truest of terms is the best way to better educate people and disseminate a more cohesive and complete document. Anyway, I was curious and you responded to my curiosity, so thank you and keep up the good work here at Wikipedia, gentlemen (and ladies). CigarBandit 09:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC) C.G.
Freemasonry POV
I have a question concerning the POV of articles on freemasonry. There is a tendency to bias the POV of articles on freemasonry towards the POV of "regular" freemasonry by changing the content or re-categorizing articles. It seems to be very hard to adher to a NPOV on freemasonry as it is a controversial topic which invites POV and even vandalism. How to deal with this in a constructive and open way to lead the work on Wikipedia towards NPOV? I only ask this for the benefit of the content on Wikipedia, not from any POV towards "regular" or "irregular" freemasonry. Pvosta 07:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)