Category talk:Freemasons

BLP note

 * - Hi, please - note - additions to this category are required to comply with WP:BLPCAT - Youreallycan (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Problematic category
How did this get recreated... it was deleted and salted (see Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 10)?

Ah, found the discussion where it was recreated... see: Deletion review/Log/2012 January 3...

I think this needs to be examined again. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It needs to be repopulated again, if anything. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 04:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree. The discussion (referenced above) shows an overwhelming consensus to keep this category, and also demonstrates that the 2007 decision to delete the category was fundamentally flawed. We need to repopulate the list. If there are issues that people feel make the category "problematic" then they should be discussed here, and resolved.  Timothy Titus  Talk To TT  04:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's just do it and see what comes of it... Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject Religion
I've removed the project template, as no justification was offered for its inclusion, and it stands in direct contradiction of Freemasonry's own claims that it is not in any sense a religion. The "Basic Definition on Freemasonry and religion" of the world's oldest Grand Lodge (the UGLE) states: "Freemasonry is not a religion, nor is it a substitute for religion. It demands of its members a belief in a Supreme Being but provides no system of faith of its own. Freemasonry is open to men (and women) of all religious faiths. The discussion of religion at its meetings is forbidden."  Timothy Titus  Talk To TT  04:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Categorisation by Tradition \ Grand Lodge
Instead of categorising by nationality, would a better way to be to populate it by Tradition \ Grand Lodge \ Lodge?

The reason I put Lodge in is not because I expect lots of people to fall into the lodges, but that it would be a good way of saying that x Grand Lodge could be in a certain tradition and that x Lodge will fall into that Grand Lodge if there are disputes. There may be an issue about Grand Lodges (or some Lodges) that go from one tradition to another (the Grande Oriente do Brasil and the Grande Oriente d'Italia may have gone through this shift), but it would be a far more meaningful classification than by nationality - as for example someone who is a Freemason from an anti-clerical perspective will have a different outlook from someone who is from a conservative Anglo-American perspective.

I see some issues - how do we name the traditions? Some are non-controversial - such as Prince Hall - some have a reasonably settled conncensus - such as Continental Freemasonry - while others - Anglo-American Freemasonry or the Crowley stuff - are going to have some arguments. I suggest we should not use the term regular or irregular. We may also have an issue deciding just where P2 sits, clandestine probably doesn't cut it.

We could also tie this to the Lodges, Grand Lodges, buildings and incidents. So for exmaple the Grand Orient de France could have its own category in the Continental category, with a couple of lodges listed (perhaps under the Lodges in the GoDF banner) with a category for Freemasons belonging to the GodF and for incidents that solely belong to them such as the Affaire Des Fiches. It could also apply to those bits of ritual that are unique to one section.

It would also have the beneficial side effect of showing some of the people where Freemasonry was incidental as they may tend to stay in the Freemasons category and the question would suggest itself - if its not clear what tradition this person belongs to what are they doing marked as a Freemason?

JASpencer (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sub-categorizing more clearly by Jurisdiction (ie Grand Lodge/Grand Orient) makes some sense... it would resolve the current confusion of (for example) not knowing how to categorize someone who became a Mason in a lodge in England but was Scottish in heritage (at the moment we are unclear as to whether he should be placed in Category:Scottish Freemasons or Category:English Freemasons)... a switch to jurisdiction would mean he would clearly be categorized under: Category:Freemasons (United Grand Lodge of England), and his national/ethnic heritage would not matter.
 * I would not categorize by "Tradition" (ie Continental/Anglo) ... It does not really work for older historical figures... For example, while we can say with some certainty that a Mason who was a member of the Grand Orient of France in 1900 would fall within the "Continental" branch of Freemasonry, we can not say the same about someone who was member the Grand Orient of France in 1760. While there were differences between French and English Freemasonry as early as the 1760, those differences were not yet of the type that resulted in the schism between the "Continental" branch and the "Anglo/American" branch that we know today.  That dates to a later era. Blueboar (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)