Talk:Loyal Order of Moose

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleLoyal Order of Moose was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 15, 2014Good article nomineeListed
September 30, 2018Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Religious Objections[edit]

Why in the world do Lutherans not like the Moose? This needs explaining. 2A00:23C3:E284:900:6976:E4A:B105:6F61 (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Dr. Wilson?[edit]

I think the History section is linking to the wrong article regarding the founder. The linked "John Henry Wilson" was a Canadian politician whose entire career appears to have taken place in Canada. He was reelected to Parliament the year before he supposedly started a men's social club in Kentucky. I'm guessing this is a case of mistaken ID? But I happened across this page and don't know enough about this organization to refute. 2601:14A:4500:C970:2D19:A0E5:B3F0:E7B8 (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

I'm looking for a sample survey of lodge members to determine what like, want or need to become a better lodge.----

I think that Wikipedia is the wrong place. My gut instinct is to tell you to attend a district meeting or association convention, but the best thing would be to talk to members of your own lodge. Seek out the ones with kids, and plan family activities that don't involve the bar. Help your women start a WOTM chapter. To bring this back onto a article improvement track, Moose is considering becomed unified man-woman organization. If and when it happens, the article should be updated to reflect this change. 47.137.181.252 (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

suggest a copyedit[edit]

I don't have time for a full review, but the incoherent first sentence to this article--"The Loyal Order of Moose is a fraternal and service organization founded in 1888, consisting of the , with nearly 1 million men in roughly 2,400 Lodges, in all 50 U.S. states and four Canadian provinces plus Bermuda; along with its female auxiliary, Women of the Moose with more than 400,000 members in roughly 1,600 Chapters in the same areas and the Loyal Order of Moose in Britain these organizations make up the Moose International."--makes me think it's probably not ready for GA. I'd suggest a thorough copyedit before a formal review starts. Thanks for your efforts on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Loyal Order of Moose/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 16:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting a review of this article North8000 (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review discussion[edit]

In one place it says: "had 558, 57 members". I think that it is a missing digit, but it could be a mis-placed comma. The reference is off-line or I would have fixed. Can you fix? North8000 (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has " worship Him as they conscience dictates" in a quote. "They" looks like a grammatical error but might be an accurate quote. Could you check? North8000 (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you please specify were in the article these items are mentioned? I cannot seem to find them. Also, I have recently ordered a hard copy of the Preuss book (the one I used previously is at a library I do not have access to at the moment) so I should be able to verify the offline references within a week or two.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This first one is now fixed so we're all set there. Resolved. North8000 (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second one is a few sentences into the "Rituals" section. North8000 (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It mentions the 1925 lawsuit but not the result. Would you be able to add this info? North8000 (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry, but did you plan to put this in? North8000 (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No hurry, but did you plan to put this in? North8000 (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it appears to be in Schmidt, no Preuss. I'll have to get to that.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.com/books?id=P2ViDnNezq4C&pg=PA76&dq=Independent,+Benevolent+and+Protective+Order+of+Moose&hl=en&sa=X&ei=B5z-UvySHMr02QX-1YCgDQ&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Independent%2C%20Benevolent%20and%20Protective%20Order%20of%20Moose&f=false Has some information on the subject.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this link states that it was a female organization.

Cool. Resolved. North8000 (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The images are photos of the outside of two local lodges. Knowing how hard the gauntlet is to get relevant images into Wikipedia, I'm inclined to consider that enough to pass the "illustrated by images" criteria. But would it be feasible to add any that apply in general. E.G. of their national facilities, their log etc.? North8000 (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images are probably the most painful area of Wikipedia to deal with. There is a group who has sort of leveraged the spectre of the 20% of cases which might have actual legal issues a license to run amok against the other 80%. So I'm not overly tough in that area....so again, the images that you have would be enough to pass that. That said, the two "possible" routes to using the logo:
  1. Get the owner of the logo to write to Wikipedia and eternally release it for unlimited use for free by anybody in the world for any purpose. Any permission short of that doesn't count. And unless the head of the Moose gets brain damage, that ain't going to happen:
  2. Put it in under "fair use". This means that it needs to comply with the legal "fair use" requirements plus a bunch of made-up-others that, if enforced 100% would prohibit all uses. But to give it a try do what they did for the Elks one. Upload a low res image, and put an article-specific use rationale for the use in this article.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In any even this is the only copy of the logo on their site, and its not very good quality.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I put in as having passed this criteria. More / more diverse images would be a nice future addition but not required for GA. Resolved. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lodge activities[edit]

This is a very large organization, but where it appears that a large portion of what happens happens at the local lodges. What do you think about the idea of covering a bit more about what happens there (meetings, events etc.) Do you think that this is a good and do-able idea? North8000 (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not exactly sure how to do that. All that Schmidt et al. have given us is a very basic summary of the initiation ritual. There might be a secondary or primary source out there that details what goes on at the lodges.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you can get an idea by browsing through their magazine.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going by this page, none of the local or state units have websites, though some idea of their activities may be gained by the categorization - some locals have RV Hookups, Camping Facilities or "met requirements, in facility and breadth of program, for designation as a Moose Family Center".--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there's little/nothing in sources, the my thought isn't viable and certain not a requirements. (I actually know what goes on the lodges, at least circa some decades ago, as as a kid I spend hundreds of hours in local lodges. Each is basically a social and place to go/ hang out.) Resolved. North8000 (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are association websites, and members could talk about what happens, but both might constitute primary sources and original research. I can see a history or sociology professor at some university organizing a class to study the history and/or activities of their local Moose Lodge for a semester project. Then, the university press could publish the research and Wikipedia would have a secondary source to draw upon. The Moose does great charitable work, puts on family functions, and is probably the best kept secret waiting to be discovered in your town. Ideally, the Moose should be the heart of the community it is in, but all this is origina research, so we have to hope that some professor reads my post and follows up. 47.137.181.252 (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria final checklist[edit]

Well-written

  • Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable

  • Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

  • Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

  • Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

  • Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

  • Meets this criteria. Has 2 images, neither is non-free so no article-specific use rationales are required. Per review discussion above, more images / more diverse images would be a nice future addition. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result[edit]

Been a month since anything of note has happened. Are we just waiting on the book or are there other issues? Wizardman 18:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was basically looking for signs of life before doing the rest of the review. North8000 (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, this has passed as a Wikipedia good article. Suggestions for future development is additional coverage at what happens routinely at the local lodges. Also a few more images of national facilities, logo etc. would be a nice addition. Nice work! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC) Reviewer[reply]

Reference for incident date[edit]

I added the date July 24, 1913 for the Gustin-Kenny incident and I would like to add the reference "Southern Reporter vol. 80, p. 86" but I can't get the Wikipedia reference feature to work without error. Bhami (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help....I added it in. If there is any more info that you can add (author of the article, name of publisher etc.) that would be good. I think that you attempt was a blend of two different methods. The method that I used was "only level up" from the most basic, where we assign a reference name in order to use it again. I think that your attempt was a blend of that and the simplest form. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, this has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article[edit]

(This is "repeated" here for when the review is no longer transcluded. Congratulations, this has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article. Nice work! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC) GA Reviewer[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Loyal Order of Moose. 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:

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) 21:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Loyal Order of Moose. 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:

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) 18:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable members[edit]

I have added the Template:Refimprove section to the "Notable Moose members" section.  Every person except Albert MacDade included is included on the basis of a website run by the Loyal Order of Moose.  I am sure the LOoM makes a good-faith attempt to have an accurate list of famous members, but there is little incentive for them to get it right, and historical research is a distraction from their main mission.

While the website may very well be accurate, it edges on WP:ABOUTSELF territory.  Because the website seems of questionable reliability, I would like to see additional sources added to the section. Thanks, 96.227.134.54 (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Community reassessment[edit]

Loyal Order of Moose[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist Nuetrality concerns. Not so sure that the tag bombing is necessary, but they also need to be addressed before renomination AIRcorn (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not give sufficient weight to the Moose Lodge's history of racial and gender discrimination. A search of Google scholar and Newspapers.com shows that reliable sources give great weight to the discrimination issue, but this is barely reflected in the article. Until the discrimation section is substantially expanded, the article fails the WP:NPOV requirements in WP:GACR#4 — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

‘Sex discrimination’ is not an issue here. This is a men’s club. What needs expanding is the info on their racial policies. The intro states that they gave up segregation in the 1980’s but there is no citing of any source for this. The last mention of race issues is the Supreme Court upholding their right to do it. More needed. 2A00:23C3:E284:900:6976:E4A:B105:6F61 (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I was the GA reviewer. The relevant GA criteria is "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each." This criteria is about bias, not that the article is 100% complete in covering all appropriate areas. Similar to my comment in the review...another area for expansion would be coverage of what happens at their facilities and activities. But again, did not see areas that could use expansion as a reason to deny GA. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article heavily relies on connected sources. Until we can remove the {{thirdparty}} cleanup tag, we should remove good article status. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 21:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue with the article is the inclusion of a long list of notable members. This should be deleted or spun off into List of Loyal Order of Moose members. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 06:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree that the article needs to discuss the organization's history of racial discrimination in more detail. The google scholar search throws up a number of results, enough that WP:DUE requires more than a discussion of one incident. This isn't a concern so much about length, as about substance; what's already in the article could be pruned. Neutrality is a core policy, and a failure to meet it is a criterion to remove GA status; but such a removal need not be immediate. If the nominator, or anyone else, is willing to address this concern while the reassessment remains open, there's no reason to assume that the article needs to be delisted. Vanamonde (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search and didn't find much. It appears that they just followed the evolution of US society.....discrimination that faded out as the civil rights act took hold. One notable instance of an exclusion in 1972 that was covered in the article and another instance in 1994 where they made no claim to exclude or be able to exclude based on race, but where such was suspected. North8000 (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination[edit]

The Moose Organization is open to every person regardless of race, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or gender. Moose Organizations do not discriminate against anyone who is of good character. Applicants must have a sponsor. 2600:1702:4870:7CD0:823C:C7BA:746F:6505 (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changes needed here (and possibly relate pages) for change to Unified Moose[edit]

Please see https://www.mooseintl.org/one-moose-a-reality/ and related pages. Naraht (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Loyal_Order_of_Moose&oldid=1208606245"