Talk:Square and Compasses/Archive 1

Archive 1

Other Uses

We should probably add something about other groups who use or used the S&C such as the formewr United American Mechanics whose items are often seen on places like ebay mis-lableled as Masonic. I also once met a German tourist who was wearing a shirt with an S&C, a hammer and a saw. I inquired if he was a Mason. He informed me it was the logo of a German carpenters union. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.229.69 (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So is it proper for mechanices or machinist to wear this? I used to see alot of machinist wear the ring 20 years ago,but have not seen one since. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.155.86 (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Move?

I was corrected on this recently myself - it's not a "compass" but rather "compasses". Shall we change the title? MSJapan 16:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is true. How do we go about changing the title? Jokerst44 16:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll just move it, and everything will update accordingly. MSJapan 16:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that, as there's article space there already. I'll ask an admin to move it. MSJapan 16:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

As an Engineer with many hours as a (pre-CAD) Draftsman, I also choked on the use of the plural: Compasses vs. the singular: Compass for this singular instrument. It (like pair-of-pants?) seems strange and illogical to me. I've never heard the plural used as singular in years of practice. That said I'm simply questioning, (still researching) this odd and perhaps historic use. IF Freemasonry does use the plural for their symbol -- then it's use is appropriate in that article; but perhaps not here. Clarification anyone? HalFonts (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

OK... to clarify... HalFonts has it backwards.... the plural (compasses) is an archaic usage that is (in the modern world) unique to Freemasonry... however, since this article is about the Masonic symbol (and not about the actual tool in a non-masonic context), the plural form is actually correct in this article. We would use the singular (compass) in an article that is not related to Freemasonry... but should continue to use the plural here. Blueboar (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

OR?

The reference cited doesn't say anything like what's in the article. Can we get some better sources for this? There's a lot more stuff out there on the S&C, but we need non-anecdotal and cited sources. MSJapan 16:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll get some other sources. Jokerst44 16:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Material removed and added

I have cut a lot of the speculation on the meaning behind the S&C... it was unreferenced, and thus amounted to Original Research. I have replaced that material with a few lines taken from the main Freemasonry page. There is still a lot of work to be done on this article. Blueboar 17:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

G

what's the G in the middle? --CMG 14:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not mentioned because it should be in the main article, and technically, the Square and Compasses is separate from the G. I'll add it in here from the main article. MSJapan 14:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't find any mention of it in the main article either? =) (also curious)
– Apis (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No big secret. In lodges in English speaking countries, the G stands for "God". In non-english countries it can stand for "Geometry" (a science that was important for stone masons... and thus important in Freemasorny, which claims descent from the stone masons' guilds). While the Square and Compasses are often depicted with a G in the middle, it is actually a seperate emblem. Thus, it is not talked about in this article.

Perhaps we should find an image that does not contain the G, just to avoid confusion. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Try the Freemasons Victoria website in Australia. Andmark (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe one with the Blazing Star instead? --uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 13:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think one without the G would probably make more sense, or if one with the G is kept, add the above explanation? Or the blazing star? but then there should probably be an explanation of that instead? Well, thats just my opinion, I was merely curious. thanks for the clarification. =)
– Apis (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably better to have an image with no emblem in the center... just the S&C. Blueboar (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

All Australian constitutions have the S&C without the G in the middle. In a segment of Australian production "Freemasons: The Inside Story" aired on Channel SBS television in Australia (English speaking country), there was specific mention of the G as an emblem in the centre of the lodge room and on S&C images from overseas jurisdictions. The program was clear in stating that the G does NOT stand for "God", as that would suggest alignment only with one religion. It would be more appropriate to consider that the symbol might represent the Grand Geometrician or Great Architect of the Universe. These are non denominational and more inclusive considerations. Andmark (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is the link to the first episode of the series. The Grand Lodge librarian provides the explanation of the G in one of his segments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urGbwdkRlno Andmark (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

In Irish Freemasonry, the G is spoke of as having a different meaning which is only disclosed to a Master entering the chair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.250.189.37 (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

angle

Please provide the angle of the compass, does the angle have any importance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.122.95.211 (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The angle of the compasses does not have any significance or importance. Blueboar (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This link: Value of the Angle of the Compasses, on the BC and Yukon grand lodge website may be useful to this discussion. These angles are often proscribed, but it appears to me to be more a matter of trademark accuracy than some deeper meaning. Jax MN (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Jax... I Get a "404 - File not found" error for that link. Blueboar (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I tried adding a www to the link, buy that didn't work either yet, searching the BBY site for "angle" shows either, page fine. Odd. Jax MN (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah... I think I found the problem... you added a down slash ("|") between "html" and "Symbolic". here is the link without it. Blueboar (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

(I just double checked and my link does work) Blueboar (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Star of David

Do the Square and Compasses have anything in common with the Star of David and the related Israeli flag ? If you look at it, it is really two triangles standing on each other that form two opposite, occult pyramids. ADM (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The Star of David consists of two equal triangles - the S&C don't.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

First, the S&C do not form triangles. They form two intertwined open angles. Oh, I suppose you could pretend that they form triangles, if you squint your eyes and imagine a non-existant imaginary hypotenuse connecting the open space between the vertices. And if you do that, then it is possible to see a superficial similarity between what is formed and the Star of David (ie both emblems would consist of two overlaping "tiangles")... however, even if you perform such flights of imagination, basic geometry tells you that they are not the same. By definition, a Square consists of a right angle (90°). There isn't an "official" angle to the compasses. They just have to be open (but less than about 15° or more than about 75° just looks wrong). At best, you might form two right "triangles". The Star of David, on the other hand, always consists of two identical equilateral triangles (ie all the angles are 60° and all sides of equal length).

Second, neither the Star of David, nor the S&C form "occult pyramids". For one thing, the symbols are two dimentional while a pyramid is three dimentional. Also, while the seal of solomon (which occultists do believe has a "mystical" or "occult" meaning) incorporates the Star of David, the Star of David by itself is not occult. Three is nothing occult about the Square and Compasses. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar again using dissembling language - of coures there are similarities between the two symbols. One just draws a line between the two extreme points of the square ruler and dividers to see that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyGosling (talk • contribs) 15:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The hardcover version (at least) of John J. Robinson's book, Born in Blood, has a graphical representation of the Square and Compasses morphing into a Star of David. This quirk of symbology is not addressed in the book. While the concept of overlapping triangles in relation to the S&C may not be original to the jacket designer, by virtue of the popularity of that book it may have become widely known from that usage. From my experience too, this shows the power of infographics - clearly rendered and easy-to-digest concepts like this are quickly latched on to by non-Masonic conspiracy types, allowing an "ah-ha!" moment just as they have found in the purported linkage between Freemasonry and the unfinished pyramid on the US Dollar bill. -But there is no direct linkage. So, while visually interesting, to those of us who have extensive experience within the Craft, they are minor things, and their tendency to misdirect and fuel nonsense conspiracy thinking is an annoyance. Jax MN (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Square & Compass were tools of Jesus the Carpenter

A few days ago, I 'accidentally' came across a Youtube video about Rastafari & Freemasonry that stated something about the Masons' square & compass that I hadn't heard before. Last night I confronted a 32 Degree Mason friend of mine at work with, "I read on an Internet post that the Masonic logo of the square & compass is so important to Masons because these were the tools of Jesus the Carpenter. Is that true?" "Of course! Why else would they be so obsessed with those tools? Because they were the tools of a carpenter - because they were Jesus' tools." Confirmation. - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.121.70 (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think you should seek a second opinion. Youtube is hardly a reliable source, and I am not sure if the fellow you talked to was being serious? (Most 32nd degree Masons would say "we" not "they" if they were being serious, and they would not use words like "obsessed"). Also... a 32nd degree Mason would know that the S&C are stonemasons' tools... not carpenters tools. Blueboar (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, you're right about "youtube is hardly a reliable source", that is why I sought out a 32 Degree Mason for his very informed opinion. I made that clear, yet you missed that! I AM sure the 32 Degree Mason I talked to "was being serious". My quote of his was paraphrased, but the exact wording is not the issue. Everyone knows that "the square & compass are stonemasons' tools". Would a carpenter use them too? A good carpenter would. Even though the popular concept is that "Jesus was a carpenter", I personally agree with some scholars who believe the Greek word was mistranslated to "carpenter" and should be "teacher". Jesus was clearly a 'rabbi' which is Hebrew for 'teacher'. - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

"I was told by a 32nd Degree Mason" isn't a reliable source either. Please read Wikipedia's policies... start with WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. They will tell you the type of sourcing that is needed. Blueboar (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The unity of God and the study of science

I added the following... Thus, Freemasonry combines the belief in the unity of God and the study of science. (ref: Secrets of Founding Fathers, History Channel, [2009?]) - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Which might be appropriate in the main article on Freemasonry, but really has little to do with the S&C. Blueboar (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Morals and Dogma by Albert Pike

There is a dispute about this book being a reliable source of information for this article. A key factor in this dispute is a phrase in the preface of the book:

"Every one is entirely free to reject and dissent from whatsoever herein may seem to him to be untrue or unsound. It is only required of him that he shall weigh what is taught, and give it fair hearing and unprejudiced judgment."

The dispute arrose over interpretations of these statements This book was and is published by the Supreme Council, Thirty Third Degree, of the Scottish Rite, Southern Jurisdiction of the United States. In 2011, the book underwent revision by Arturo de Hoyos, 33°, G∴C∴, the Scottish Rite’s Grand Archivist and Grand Historian. The only changes were the addition of annotations. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, the dispute is whether M&D is a reliable source for these statements. I hold that it is not, because M&D is a book of philosophy, dealing with Pike's beliefs as to the underpinnings of Masonic symbolism and ritual. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Are these beliefs at odds with that of the rest of the Supreme Council? Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There are two relevant policy/guideline concepts involved in this dispute... assessing Reliability and assessing Due Weight. I'll address reliability first: Pike is most definitely not the ultimate authority on Freemasonry. Pike is a respected masonic author, but that respect is primarily due to his role in the development of the Scottish Rite (as practiced in only part of the US) and not due to his scholarship. As a scholar of symbolism and comparative religion, he was distinctly an amateur. A lot of other Masonic authors can and do disagree with what he says. Due to this disagreement, his writings should be seen as being reliable for attributed statements as to his personal opinion, but not for a statement of unattributed fact.

The question then becomes... how much weight should we give Pike's opinions within the context of this article? I have to answer "little to none". When it comes to explaining the symbolism of the first three degrees, I would give William Preston's "Illustrations of Masonry" or Thomas Smith Webb's "Freemason’s Monitor or Illustrations of Masonry" far more weight than anything Pike wrote... as these sources formed the basis for most of the Masonic rituals used around the world (or at least in English speaking jurisdictions). Blueboar (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Do they disagree with the above information? Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not so much that they disagree with it, as that it never comes up in Masonic ritual. It's kind of hard to prove a negative...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Why should we care what the Supreme Council agrees or disagrees with? Blueboar (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That too. After all, there's nothing higher than the 3rd degree in Masonry, just things additional to it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Are they (SC) not a body of experts on freemason principles? Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say that Supreme Council, Thirty Third Degree, of the Scottish Rite, Southern Jurisdiction of the United States probably can be considered quite well informed as to what goes on within the Scottish Rite, Southern Jurisdiction of the United States - but can not be seen as an authority of what goes on in other rites and jurisdictions (ie; the rest of the world). I know that the explanation I got of the square and compass differs significantly with what Pike wrote all those years ago - and makes a lot more sense within the context of the Swedish Rite. WegianWarrior (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I would go further and respond with a flat "No." They're experts on their rite, which expands on Freemasonry, but that doesn't necessarily confer any deeper understanding of Masonic principles. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What of this quote taken from Wikipedia: "The Scottish Rite is one of the appendant bodies of Freemasonry that a Master Mason may join for further exposure to the principles of Freemasonry." Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What of it? That's true, but it in no wise creates the Scottish Rite as an organization or any of its membership as "experts". Plainly and simply put, Pike's work is Pike's, and the SJ hasn't used it in over 50 years. The issue is still one of taking one man's clear opinion, and positing it instead as a universal fact. Cherry-picking quotes won't change that. MSJapan (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Who can show that the information is wrong? Do you know of another 33 degree mason with a conflicting ideology? Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is an educated opinion; it is not one man's opinion, but an entire rite's opinion, a peer reviewed opinion. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

"an entire rite's opinion" -- ABSOLUTELY NOT. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The SC is the rite's representative, not their members. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No... an SC does not speak for the entire Scottish Rite... at best, an SC speaks for one jurisdiction within the broader Scottish Rite (The SC of the Southern Jurisdiction, for example, does not and can not speak for the Scottish Rite in the 15 US States that are covered the Northern Jurisdiction... or in other parts of the world that are under other Scottish Rite Jurisdictions). And even then, an SC only speaks on matters of governance, it does not speak on how each member should interpret Masonic symbolism. Blueboar (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Fine then, because I'm tired of argueing my case: at least grant me permission to add the information to the article of the book. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

So far everyone here have been telling you that it's not representative of Masonry and simply represents the view of one man. So why would you add it? It would be a clear case of undue weight to put Pike's view in the article and not the view of every other (influential or not) Mason. WegianWarrior (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear: do you know that I'm currently speaking about adding to the book's article? Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. I naturally assumed you were talking about adding to this article - additions to the article on the book should be discussed at the relevant talk-page, not here. Also, I need to finish my morning coffee before replying... WegianWarrior (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

WegianWarrior has it right... additions to the Morals and Dogma article should be discussed on that article's talk page. However, you can expect resistance there as well (albeit for slightly different reasons). Blueboar (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Divide and Rule?

User:TonyGosling seems instant on edit warring to keep the following line: "Some sceptics suggest the dividers above the square ruler symbolise Divide and Rule" citing this and this. In my opinion, both are unreliable conspiracy oriented fringe websites and mentioning what they say gives them WP:UNDUE weight. Tony... instead of edit warring, please discuss. Blueboar (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The references I have made both here and on the page itself are perfectly reasonable - first I cite a conversation with a freemason I personally had and second I show - in figurative terms - that someone on-line has actually corroborated that conversation and depicted the symbol about which the entry is based - A DIVIDER and a RULER in those same exact terms. Blueboar seems to be suggesting that the ideas of non masons or even anti masons are not accepted on Wikipedia? May I dare to suggest that it is in fact this anonymous user Blue Boar - who is simply reverting my additions with no proper explanation, citing quite in error that my edit is spurious and untreliable, thus creating an 'edit war' as he/she so puts it? Moreover in the existing entry the concept of the masonic symbolism is explained as not having a fixed definition. Openly inviting other explanations and this is by far more logical and reasonable that the explanation given in the entry to which Blueboar has reverted the page to. A clear breach of the rules here by Blueboar. Leave the rational, illustrated, edit be and perhaps - argue why several definitions including mine might or might not be true citing masonic and non masonic sources.

No explanation?... I have repeatedly given you an explanation (see both above and below). I have repeatedly pointed you to the policies and guidelines that are relevant here. These are not my rules... they are Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Never the less, let me lay it out for you again:

• RE: the conversation you say you had with a Freemason... One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that all information must be verifiable... by others. There is no way for me (or any other editor) to verify what was said to you in a personal conversation... or even that the conversation took place. We do not take anyone's word for it. We need verifiablity (see WP:Verifiability).
• Regarding the websites you cite... Blogs and fringe conspiracy websites are not considered reliable sources (see WP:Identifying reliable sources. Wikipedia requires that information be supported by reliable sources. What you are citing is not reliable.
• Even if it were reliable... what you are citing does not actually support the statement you are trying to add. The website shows a picture of the square and compasses, with the words "Divide and Rule". That's it. It does not contain any explanation as to why those words are there. There is no text to say: this is what the symbol stands for. For all we know, it is a call for anti-Masons to Join Freemasonry so they can subvert it from the inside... a call to "Divide and Rule" Freemasonry. OK... I admit that this probably isn't what the artist had in mind, but the point is: without accompanying text we don't know what the artist had in mind. We can guess... but it is just a guess. And we are not allowed to add information based on our own guesswork (see WP:No original research)
• As to the complaint that I am not allowing "alternative explanations"... While Wikipedia does require us to present all significant views on any topic (see WP:Neutral point of view)... it also says we should not give fringe views UNDUE weight (see WP:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. And this often means we don't give them any weight at all (ie we don't mention what fringe theorists say, because so few people agree with what they say that it isn't worth mentioning it.)

So... to sum all this up... I have been removing your addition not because I dislike it... but because it has problems with several of Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines. It has problems with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV.

If you can resolve these problems (which I doubt) then you can add the stuff you want to add... but until then... no. Sorry if you don't like it... but those are Wikipedia's rules. Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

allegation of 'Edit War'

Not sure how many links I have to present to explain this is a perfectly legitimate view which ACCURATELY links in with the ACTUAL SYMBOLS and I'm rather irritated that you consider me as instituting an edit war because it was anonymous user Blueboar and another that began to instantly revert my addition without discussion on talk pages or the article page itself. I am new here but I recognise immediately that I am being accused of doing something which someone else began. not sure how to embed this so you can see it - perhaps you can help? http://streetdemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/divide-rule.jpg The rules are to discuss then revert unless the addition is malicious or inaccurate. Bear in mind also that critiques by non masons are relatively fringe elements in society as the craft is virtually taboo My entry was based on a real conversation with a real freemason and, frankly, is a more common-sense interpretation of the divide and square rulers symbols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyGosling (talk • contribs) 21:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Tony... looking at your edit history, you are hardly new. But let me explain it to you anyway:

looking at my edit history you will see that yes in fact I am - and so that allegation is another inaccuracy:

it seems obvious to me that, making allegations of my beginning an edit war which you started and not being a new user that you are loading the argument and discussion and therefore not to be trusted to make decisions about the future of this page:

are you yourself have any vested interest in freemasonry and presenting a sanitised view of the craft to the public?:

would you please prove what you say in your answer by showing us some of your work - or writings on freemasonry so we can all see that you are impartial please?: — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyGosling (talk • contribs) 16:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

When someone reverts an addition you make, the correct action is to go to the talk page and ask why the edit was reverted... returning your text without engaging in discussion (as you did) is not the correct action.

When multiple editors revert your edit, and still you refuse to ask why you are being reverted (as you did) that is known as edit warring (see our policy on Wikipedia:Edit warring for a more detailed explanation).

And, if you continue to edit war to keep text that others have stated an objection to, you will eventually be blocked from further editing. (By the way... you are now technically over the 3 revert limit which normally would result in a block if reported. I will be nice and give you a break... since you "claim" to be new... but my patience is limited.)

Now... I explained why I reverted your text in the section above... your reply does not address my concerns... you now say "I based this on a real conversation with a real freemason"... sorry, but that does not cut it. First, I seriously doubt that any real freemason would say that... but more importantly, a conversation is not a verifiable published source... and we require verifiability here on Wikipedia.

The WP:BURDEN of evidence is on those who wish to add information. It is up to you to provide a reliable published source to support what you wish to add. If you do not, it can and will be removed. That is a fundamental truism about editing on Wikipedia. WP:Verifiability is one of our core policies. So far you have not met that BURDEN. Blueboar (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Tony did bring this to my talk page, and I replied there as well, but Blueboar seems to have touched on all my major points there in his statement above. However, I'm sure it's verifiable someplace, so I would lean more towards reliability of sources than verfiability. I do not think that mere existence of information, correct or not, is grounds for inclusion, and frankly, if it's somebody else's interpretation, and they have no connection to or knowledge of the Masonic usage, I'm really not sure what that interpretation is based upon in the first place other than that person's individual opinion. I could always claim that throwing a tomato at someone is equivalent to an intent to murder because tomato juice is red like blood and the act of throwing is an attack, but nobody is seriously going to lend any credence to that when the general interpretation of that is audience displeasure at a poor performance with no personal malice towards the performer. MSJapan (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources

OK... I will give Tony some credit... he has at least tried to give us a source (his latest was this), and I thank him for trying. Unfortunately what he comes up with does not qualify as reliable. Tony... If you have not already done so, please read our guideline on Identifying reliable sources. It explains what type of sources are acceptable on Wikipedia, and what to avoid. You may also want to read our policy on Undue weight... we don't include fringe opinions if doing so would give them undue weight. Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yea, I gotta agree with Blueboar on this one. the citation Tony listed is not reliable. Additionally, the point you are trying to add to the article is not neutral. Eric Cable  |  Talk  17:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The Globalresearch link also has several factual errors on what is really basic information. MSJapan (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The Global Research link doesn't mention compasses or dividers, the other reference is a graphic on a blog with a recipe for an emetic. Am I missing something? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Outside Masonry

Blueboar recently reverted an unreferenced edit mentioning Nüwa. We have some splendid images on file showing Nüwa and Fuxi with their lower bodies as serpent tails entwined, Nüwa holding compasses and Fuxi the square. Elsewhere, John of Gaunt's will (1399) mentions a bedspread embroidered with compasses. Is it worthwhile adding such material, or is there a critical mass that makes a new section viable? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the question is this: What is the subject of this article... what is the article supposed to be about? As I see it, this article is about the "Square and Compasses"... which in the Masonic context is presented as a single emblem. Or perhaps a better way to describe it would be that it is presented a single conjoined emblem - made up of two emblematic tools joined together. I don't think anyone other than the Masons conjoins the two emblems... but I could be wrong.

If we limit the the context to a single conjoined emblem... then discussing non-Masonic use of squares or non-Masonic use of compasses would be somewhat outside the scope of the article... unless they were presented conjoined as a single emblem.

That said... If there are sources to support non-masonic use of these symbols, I could see having two related articles that are broader in scope... (working titles: Steel square in symbology and Compass in symbology)... these articles would include discussion of any and all symbolic uses of the topic emblem, Masonic or otherwise. Blueboar (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The title of this article does not specify masonic or conjoined use. There should be some understanding of the use of these symbols before their marriage, as these images were undoubtedly in the heads of the first people to put them together. If Mackey is right about Mencius, then mention of the juxtaposition of square and compass in Chinese philosophy would add depth to the article. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Note the first sentence of the article... "The Square and Compasses (or, more correctly, a square and a set of compasses joined together) is the single most identifiable symbol of Freemasonry." That clearly defines the article's scope as being about the Masonic use... and defines the emblem as "joined".

As for the article title... it's "Square and Compasses" ... note the capitalization, which (I think) also indicates that the topic of the article is the single conjoined emblem used by the Masons. As far as I know, no one else capitalizes the emblem this way. If the article had a broader scope, I would expect it to be entitled Squares and compasses (using the standard "Sentence case" capitalization) or perhaps: Squares and compasses in symbology.

Let me give an analogy that might explain why I am reluctant to include non-Masonic uses of these emblems in this article. Consider our article on the Great Seal of the United States... Now, the Great Seal contains many emblems and symbols... for example it contains a symbolic pyramid. Now, suppose someone wanted to add a section to the article on the Great Seal, explaining the historic symbolism of pyramids and its use through the ages. Such a paragraph might be interesting to read... but I would question whether our article on the Great Seal is really the right place for it. The paragraph would be off topic. I would tell the editor to write his section as a separate article on Pyramids in symbolism (or something like that)... and then link to it in the Great Seal article. It isn't that Wikipeida should not discuss pyramids in symbology... it's just that the Great Seal of the United States article is not the place for that discussion.

That's essentially how I view what you are proposing. Yes, squares and compasses have been used in other contexts and have non-Masonic symbolic meanings... but those other contexts and other meanings are not what this article is about. Discussing them would be off-topic. They would be better discussed in another (linked) article. Blueboar (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Can I point out that the section on Symbology in the Great Seal of the United States is longer than this article - and there it is reasonably cut and dried since the designer said what everything symbolised. Other articles on the square and compasses discuss meaning with reference to sources inside and outside Freemasonry, and parallels in other cultures (hence Mackey's reference to Mencius). People like that sort of thing. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Not quite... the Great Seal article notes what everything symbolizes in the context of the Great Seal. It doesn't go into non-Great Seal symbolism. This article does the same... it states what everything symbolizes in the context of Freemasonry and does not go into non-Masonic symbolism. I don't mind expanding on the Masonic symbolism in this article... I simply don't think this is the right article in which to expand on non-Masonic symbolism. Blueboar (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)