Talk:Henry P. H. Bromwell

Henry P. H. Bromwell

I have been doing some extensive revisions to the Henry P. H. Bromwell page and would like to add the freemasonry category to this page. I understand that community consensus is against this, but I feel that his work with Masonic Geometry may merit an exception.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I would personally say No, the category is not appropriate. The entire concept of Masonic Geometry is debatable, and certainly not something that is part of mainstream Freemasonry. It isn't quite "fringe", but it comes close. As for the article itself... it is one thing to discuss Bromwell's ideas as being his opinion, it is another to state them as fact. A lot of statements need to be "hedged" with attributive prefixes: "According to Bromwell...", "Bromwell believed that...", "Bromwell wrote..." etc. Blueboar (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

no worries, a lot of what was written in that article comes from secondary sources as per Wikipedia guidelines, the fact is that outside the book itself I haven't been able to access anything primary from Bromwell, and the only thing I used from the book are the forwards and introductions.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

actually I have re-read the Bromwell piece and I am unclear on where you believe statements need to be hedged? I am going to copy this conversation to the Bromwell talk page so that we can continue this discussion in the appropriate space.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Over reliance on primary sources?

I am concerned by how much this article relies on primary sources to hype Bromwell's notability (and the importance of his book). Per WP:Notability, we should be relying more on reliable secondary sources... and (perhaps more importantly) on secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The Grand Lodge of Colorado is iffy as to independence... as it was instrumental in getting his book (and the recent re-printing) published.

I also think there is some degree of misrepresentation as to the importance of Bromwell's work... The reality is that few Masons outside of Colorado have even heard of Bromwell, or his book. Modern Masonic scholars certainly do not pay it much attention. The problem is that we won't find sources that veryify this ... because sources do not bother to mention things they ignore. It isn't quite WP:FRINGE... but it's close. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

actually you are mistaking, the re-printing is independent of the Grand lodge of Colorado, while part of the introduction was written by the sitting Grand Master he and the Grand Lodge didn't have anything to do with the reprinting. I am a little surprised at the statement that few have heard of the book, while that is true of the mainstream mason, few mainstream masons even know where their library's are in the lodge. I have been horrified to find fine books on Masonry locked in dusty glass cabinets for display only. Here is the book review by the Scottish Rite, here is a lodge in Virginia recommending the work beside Pike and Macky, there are numerous research lodge submissions which quote Bromwell as the source for masonic Geometry. This isn't even close to fringe in the realm of esoteric masonry, it is quite mainstream. The sources you are questioning are the Grand Lodge proceedings when they debated on wither to sponsor the publication of the book, encyclopedia references to the book, and one introduction to the book. The dissonant opinion is represented in the article but I could only find one source, Coil, who was disparaging of the work. All the others harp on the importance of the book.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Henry P. H. Bromwell. 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/20120203233504/http://www.kevintownley.com/products/books/restoration-of-masonic-geometry-and-symbolry/ to http://www.kevintownley.com/products/books/restoration-of-masonic-geometry-and-symbolry/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120203233504/http://www.kevintownley.com/products/books/restoration-of-masonic-geometry-and-symbolry/ to http://www.kevintownley.com/products/books/restoration-of-masonic-geometry-and-symbolry/

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) 12:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)