Talk:Grand College of Rites

NPOV check, further wikify/rewrites

I added the NPOV check template to the article because large portions of it seem biased against the GCR, but I'm not at all knowledgable on the subject and so can't really rewrite it sufficiently to make it neutral. Also, the convoluted grammar errors (fragments, etc.) in the last large paragraph are too complex for me to resolve since I don't know exactly what the original author was trying to say, and I don't know what's important and what isn't. If you know more about Freemasonry and the Grand College of Rites, please give this article some much-needed attention. --Darkwind 01:21, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

The article seems to gain a pro-GCR slant. It would be great to hear the defense of the GCR's actions, but not if the editor is going to erase criticisms. Both points of view need to be equally represented, and simply stating that anyone who disagrees with the GCR is greedy or ambitious seems to me like oversimplification.

The last edit of this page is quite poor. Instead of providing more information in favor of the GCR to allow the reader to make up their own mind about the controversy surrounding the GCR's suppression of various rites, the editor merely removed information which might be unfavorable to the GCR. It is impossible to deny that part of the GCR's stated purpose is to suppress said Rites. It is a part of their constitutions, and they make new members agree to support this goal. Why not let the GCR's petition and constitutions speak for themselves? Why remove them from the article? This isn't making a better article by fleshing out both points of view. This is intellectual dishonesty. The GCR makes this fact as plain as day to everyone who visits their website or looks at their petition. Their goal of suppressing various rites is unambiguous. The simplistic nature in which the situation with the Rite of Memphis is explained, and the lack of acknowledgement that there are many masons who simply wish that the GCR would stop suppressing it and other rites, so that they could have them, rather than a desire for prestige, or money, is saddening. I would love to see the article improved, not by supporting one opinion or the other, and not by providing less information, but more, from both sides. -Pessina 04/15/2005

There are clearly 2 different tones and viewpoints conflicting here, and I doubt the viewpoints are going to come to agreement. I suggest something roughly like:

• Reworking the opinionated phrasing into more neutral language.
• Reworking the last 2 paragraphs into something like the following:
  • A description of the mission of GCR excluding the controversal 'protecting' role,
  • "Controversy sometimes arises when other groups attempt to revive...",
  • The GCR view of protecting rituals & legitimacy, etc.
  • Critics views of supression, etc.
  • "An example of this is the controversy over the Rites of Memphis...".
• Create a new 'Rites of Memphis' page (there isn't one now):
  • Move the Rites of Memphis description and details of the dispute there,
  • Structure the page similarly.

I'm not familar with the details so I can't add many facts, but I can restructure and rephrase the existing content accordingly. Hopefully this will make each viewpoint clear and reduce further editing/rewriting conflicts. Scott 11:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The new edit is inaccurate. There is NOT significant overlap of leadership within the AASR and the GCR.

NPOV

I've added the NPOV flag because this article as it stands makes definite claims about apparently disputed facts. Please bracket the dispute appropriately. Thank you. Kelly Martin 00:41, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

---

This article needed serious help when I found it. Whoever did the last edit seemed to have no understanding of masonic jurisprudence and continually threw around the words "regular" and "irregular" as if they were some kind of vague designation for rites that were "mainstream" and "alternative" rather than having a specific intent. The editor also displayed an egregious lack of knowledge regarding masonic history in the USA, not to mention a humorous use of language saying that the A&PR had caused a "ruckus" in the 19th century. The GCR's detractors who have edited this article haven't always been exactly accurate either, but for God's sake, I hope that we can do better than this in the future.

references and some fact checking needed

I have attempted to wikify and add some references. The bits claiming that the AASR was deemed spurious by the GM of the GL of the Three Globes at Berlin is not independently supportable by any sources. All the weblinks for this protocol trace back to RGLE linked sites. As several claims have been made by that group, and by supporters of that group on wikipedia, and not backed up by independently verifiable sources, their information should be treated skeptically, at best.--Vidkun 16:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the material about the legitimacy of Morins patent actually have a place in this article. There may be a case for discussing differences of opinion between GCR and AASR SJ (I get the impression that there are some) but that's it. The link to the RGLE page is specious but I have seen that content elsewhere.ALR 20:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen that content elsewhere except in pages linked to RGLE, specifically anything with Cabinda in the name. If you have other sources, could you please share them? What I think is that someone is trying to say that the GCR is spurious, because of its close ties to the AASR SJ (Art De Hoyos is one notable link between the two), and, by saying that, get support for their own group (be it RGLE, the New Rite of Memphis, the Rite of the Rose Cross of Gold, the United Grand Lodge of America . . .).--Vidkun 22:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand College of Rites. 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/20060615020029/http://grandcollegeofrites.org/index.php to http://www.grandcollegeofrites.org/index.php

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) 09:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)