This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Prince Hall Freemasonry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't think I'm convinced yet that this proposed merger would be useful; PH Freemasonry has a long history after the death of Prince Hall himself, and I'm worried that this article will never be expanded to cover that if it's subsumed into Prince Hall. It might make more sense to merge Prince Hall into this article, but Prince Hall seems like a weighty enough figure to sustain an article on his own, too... any thoughts? -- Dvyost 15:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
What would the beneifits be to merging
Prince Hall Freemasonry with
Prince Hall?
Grye 05:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The article twice says "Africian", when I think it means "African". I didn't change it myself, in case it was deliberate or historical. -- NoJoy 15:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The Prince Hall page has a lot more info than this page. Could we just put a main article link under history and have it point to the "A Freemason" section under Prince Hall? -- Anonymous 17:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.42.185.151 ( talk)
It is unclear from the first paragraph whether this is about an institution, a philosophy or an offshoot of free masonary. It simply needs an introductory sentence written in lay terms. Maustrauser 02:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Many State Grand Lodges do not consider Prince Hall Freemasonry regular in any way. I have removed this from the opening. I will do some research and post references if they are needed. I'm not an avid wikipedia user, but I am a Freemason, and the Grand Lodge in my State does not recognize Prince Hall Masonry to be regular or legitimate in any way. The State's Grand Lodge has supreme authority over Masonry in that state, in the U.S.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.49.141 ( talk) 16:45, 28 November 2006
The United Grand Lodge in England recognizes Prince Hall Freemasons. That is all that matters. I am a Past Worthy Matron and Past Grand officer, PHA. -- Avid reader 06:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
---The opening of this article states that Prince Hall Freemasonry has ALWAYS been "regular", and I really doubt that that's true. In fact, it seems out-right fraudulent and apologist. While PH Freemasonry may be fully recognized today, this does not mean that it has "always" been, and no source is provided to add credence to that claim. Exxoskeleton ( talk) 20:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to emphasize my point, the sentence that I mostly have a problem with is:
"Prince Hall Masonry has always been regular in all respects."
That's a very bold statement to make, not to mention way too generalized and simplistic. No source is used to back that statement up, and it also seems to contradict the "history" section of the article...So either add a source to back it up, or delete it. Exxoskeleton ( talk) 08:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
For a further quote, from a reliable source, regarding self determination of regularity - WHAT IS MEANT BY REGULAR? Every Grand Lodge considers itself to be regular. This is a self-justified precondition for existence. However, this belief in itself which every Grand Body possesses does not necessarily extend to others. Each Grand Lodge has a set of written criteria or principles upon which it will entertain recognition. These principles are similar for all regular Grand Lodges. The following are the 'Basic Principles for Grand Lodge Recognition' adopted by the United Grand Lodge of England. Those of the Irish and Scottish Grand Lodges closely resemble those of England. from kent Henderson's Masonic World Guide, Lewis Press, 1984.-- Vidkun ( talk) 14:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:PrinceHallMason.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Editors ought to start writing relevant material about racism in Freemasonry ; there would perhaps be no Prince Hall Lodges if Masons had not been against the admission of blacks. Thomas Jefferson, a noted sympathizer to Masonry, did own slaves, which did not prevent him from proclaiming the rights of man. Apart from this, there are notable allegations about cooperation between Masons and Ku Klux Klan. [1] ADM ( talk) 21:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
See section: The Grand Lodge of Ireland. Worshipful Master of Lodge No. 441, The Grand Lodge of Ireland, the military traveling lodge which was attached to the 38th Regiment of Foot with the British forces stationed in Boston was Serjeant John Batt. The Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry, Second Edition. Penguin, February 21, 2013. By Worshipful Brother S. Brent Morris, PhD, 33°. Google Books [2] Retrieved: June 19, 2015. References to W.M. Batt are also contained in most Prince Hall literature. Tjlynnjr ( talk) 02:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC).
Ín this edition the officer's name was
brady 174.251.65.82 ( talk) 03:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The following sentence is cumbersome and could be made more clear and simple:
"Since they were unable to attain integration, the blacks concentrated on recognition from white Masons that, because black Masonry descending from Prince Hall of Massachusetts had received its charter from the English Grand Lodge, it was legitimate and not "clandestine", and was entitled to all Masonic rights, such as intervisitation between black and white lodges, without prejudice."
Its seven clauses, in my humble opinion, ask far too much of this sentence to maintain coherency, especially for average readers. As the topic is not my area of expertise, I didn't want to accidentally change any meaning by attempting to edit it myself. I would suggest breaking the sentence into multiple sentences. Also, the word "it" (in "it was") should perhaps be removed as it does not properly connect back with "white Masons that" two clauses back. In other words, in essence, "the recognition was legitimate," is better than "the recognition it was legitimate." But that's minor in comparison with the general unwieldy clunkiness of this overburdened sentence. Madscribbler ( talk) 02:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Prince Hall Freemasonry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't think I'm convinced yet that this proposed merger would be useful; PH Freemasonry has a long history after the death of Prince Hall himself, and I'm worried that this article will never be expanded to cover that if it's subsumed into Prince Hall. It might make more sense to merge Prince Hall into this article, but Prince Hall seems like a weighty enough figure to sustain an article on his own, too... any thoughts? -- Dvyost 15:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
What would the beneifits be to merging
Prince Hall Freemasonry with
Prince Hall?
Grye 05:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The article twice says "Africian", when I think it means "African". I didn't change it myself, in case it was deliberate or historical. -- NoJoy 15:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The Prince Hall page has a lot more info than this page. Could we just put a main article link under history and have it point to the "A Freemason" section under Prince Hall? -- Anonymous 17:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.42.185.151 ( talk)
It is unclear from the first paragraph whether this is about an institution, a philosophy or an offshoot of free masonary. It simply needs an introductory sentence written in lay terms. Maustrauser 02:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Many State Grand Lodges do not consider Prince Hall Freemasonry regular in any way. I have removed this from the opening. I will do some research and post references if they are needed. I'm not an avid wikipedia user, but I am a Freemason, and the Grand Lodge in my State does not recognize Prince Hall Masonry to be regular or legitimate in any way. The State's Grand Lodge has supreme authority over Masonry in that state, in the U.S.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.49.141 ( talk) 16:45, 28 November 2006
The United Grand Lodge in England recognizes Prince Hall Freemasons. That is all that matters. I am a Past Worthy Matron and Past Grand officer, PHA. -- Avid reader 06:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
---The opening of this article states that Prince Hall Freemasonry has ALWAYS been "regular", and I really doubt that that's true. In fact, it seems out-right fraudulent and apologist. While PH Freemasonry may be fully recognized today, this does not mean that it has "always" been, and no source is provided to add credence to that claim. Exxoskeleton ( talk) 20:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to emphasize my point, the sentence that I mostly have a problem with is:
"Prince Hall Masonry has always been regular in all respects."
That's a very bold statement to make, not to mention way too generalized and simplistic. No source is used to back that statement up, and it also seems to contradict the "history" section of the article...So either add a source to back it up, or delete it. Exxoskeleton ( talk) 08:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
For a further quote, from a reliable source, regarding self determination of regularity - WHAT IS MEANT BY REGULAR? Every Grand Lodge considers itself to be regular. This is a self-justified precondition for existence. However, this belief in itself which every Grand Body possesses does not necessarily extend to others. Each Grand Lodge has a set of written criteria or principles upon which it will entertain recognition. These principles are similar for all regular Grand Lodges. The following are the 'Basic Principles for Grand Lodge Recognition' adopted by the United Grand Lodge of England. Those of the Irish and Scottish Grand Lodges closely resemble those of England. from kent Henderson's Masonic World Guide, Lewis Press, 1984.-- Vidkun ( talk) 14:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:PrinceHallMason.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Editors ought to start writing relevant material about racism in Freemasonry ; there would perhaps be no Prince Hall Lodges if Masons had not been against the admission of blacks. Thomas Jefferson, a noted sympathizer to Masonry, did own slaves, which did not prevent him from proclaiming the rights of man. Apart from this, there are notable allegations about cooperation between Masons and Ku Klux Klan. [1] ADM ( talk) 21:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
See section: The Grand Lodge of Ireland. Worshipful Master of Lodge No. 441, The Grand Lodge of Ireland, the military traveling lodge which was attached to the 38th Regiment of Foot with the British forces stationed in Boston was Serjeant John Batt. The Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry, Second Edition. Penguin, February 21, 2013. By Worshipful Brother S. Brent Morris, PhD, 33°. Google Books [2] Retrieved: June 19, 2015. References to W.M. Batt are also contained in most Prince Hall literature. Tjlynnjr ( talk) 02:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC).
Ín this edition the officer's name was
brady 174.251.65.82 ( talk) 03:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The following sentence is cumbersome and could be made more clear and simple:
"Since they were unable to attain integration, the blacks concentrated on recognition from white Masons that, because black Masonry descending from Prince Hall of Massachusetts had received its charter from the English Grand Lodge, it was legitimate and not "clandestine", and was entitled to all Masonic rights, such as intervisitation between black and white lodges, without prejudice."
Its seven clauses, in my humble opinion, ask far too much of this sentence to maintain coherency, especially for average readers. As the topic is not my area of expertise, I didn't want to accidentally change any meaning by attempting to edit it myself. I would suggest breaking the sentence into multiple sentences. Also, the word "it" (in "it was") should perhaps be removed as it does not properly connect back with "white Masons that" two clauses back. In other words, in essence, "the recognition was legitimate," is better than "the recognition it was legitimate." But that's minor in comparison with the general unwieldy clunkiness of this overburdened sentence. Madscribbler ( talk) 02:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)