Talk:Prince Hall Freemasonry
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prince Hall Freemasonry 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brady
editÍn this edition the officer's name was
brady 174.251.65.82 (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- 174.251.65.82 (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- He's been working 174.251.65.82 (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Cumbersome Sentence
editThe following sentence is cumbersome and could be made more clear and simple:
"Since they were unable to attain integration, the blacks concentrated on recognition from white Masons that, because black Masonry descending from Prince Hall of Massachusetts had received its charter from the English Grand Lodge, it was legitimate and not "clandestine", and was entitled to all Masonic rights, such as intervisitation between black and white lodges, without prejudice."
Its seven clauses, in my humble opinion, ask far too much of this sentence to maintain coherency, especially for average readers. As the topic is not my area of expertise, I didn't want to accidentally change any meaning by attempting to edit it myself. I would suggest breaking the sentence into multiple sentences. Also, the word "it" (in "it was") should perhaps be removed as it does not properly connect back with "white Masons that" two clauses back. In other words, in essence, "the recognition was legitimate," is better than "the recognition it was legitimate." But that's minor in comparison with the general unwieldy clunkiness of this overburdened sentence. Madscribbler (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)