Talk:Odd Fellows
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Odd Fellows 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 |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
"Failed verification"
editThe article currently states "The Catholic Church in the 19th and early 20th centuries condemned secret societies such as the Freemasons, deemed "pseudo-religious", but also addressed other organisations, including expressing suspicions against the stated religious neutrality and independence of Oddfellows[33]", to which someone has added the tag [failed verification], with the comment "The source doesn't even mention 'Freemasons' or 'pseudo-religious'". This is only partially correct: the cited source says that Catholics are forbidden from joining societies that "plot against the Church", with the Masons being judged as such. The source also describes the Odd Fellows (and the Masons) as a "quasi-religious society" (not pseudo-religious). The source does not however give any dates for the forbidding of any of the societies mentioned, nor does it say that the reason for forbidding the Odd Fellows was "suspicions against the stated religious neutrality and independence". I could re-write this sentence to better match what the source does say, although it would be good if someone who knows more about the subject to find dates for the forbiddings, and preferably the the original, official condemnations. Iapetus (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
"International"?
editWas there really nothing to mention beyond the USA and UK? How about in Canada or Australia? Ireland or New Zealand? —DIV (49.195.30.200 (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC))
Support good-faith IP editors: insist that Wikipedia's administrators adhere to Wikipedia's own policies on keeping range-blocks as a last resort, with minimal breadth and duration, in order to reduce adverse collateral effects; support more precisely targeted restrictions such as protecting only articles themselves, not associated Talk pages, or presenting pages as semi-protected, or blocking only mobile edits when accessed from designated IP ranges.