Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 38

Continental = Liberal?
I seriously tried to reference this opinion, but I ended up using an example because running a couple of regular expressions through two search engines gives me a strong impression that the primary source is Wikipedia. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Essentially, yes... Continental = Liberal. When Anglo-US Masons talk about "Continental Freemasonry" they almost always do so in the context of discussing the GOF style "Liberal Freemasonry".
 * That said... Part of the problem is that we are comparing apples and oranges... while the French sources talk about there being three factions (Regular, Traditional, and Liberal), the Anglo-US sources tend to only discuss two of those three Factions (Regular and Continental)... it isn't that the Anglo-US sources include the "Traditional" faction under the banner of "Continental"... it's more that the Anglo-US sources completely ignore the very existence of the "Traditional" faction, and don't bother to mention it.  This is probably because the "Traditional" faction has very little presence outside of France (not saying it has no presence... just a very small presence).  Blueboar (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Essentially I agree with what you are saying, I'm just having trouble finding a Continental = Liberal reference that doesn't loop back to Wikipedia. I think Anglo-US lodges equate the two because of the invisibility of the traditional element outside of continental Europe, and because they are lumped together by UGLE and the other GLs because they are all masonically talking to each other. (GOdF is still regarded as mother, even if mum has gone a little dotty.) The older definition (by rite) seems safer. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the older (Mackey) definition of "Continental" is archaic. Note that Mackey wrote his encyclopedia in 1873 ... ie several years before GOdF decided to admit atheists (and thus before there was any split between the various factions in French Freemasonry). He couldn't have drawn a distinction between "Liberal" and "Traditional", because "Liberal" didn't exist at the time that he wrote.  That distinction emerged after Mackey.
 * In other words... in the years since Mackey wrote his encyclopedia, the term "Continental" has a narrower meaning. NOW it refers almost exclusively to the "Liberal" faction. Blueboar (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just found an early reference for the equation in a 1911 edition of The Tablet, in a very paranoid, anti-masonic article. I'm not happy that the change in terminology since Mackey appears to have come from anti-masonic propaganda, but my main concern is sorted. Next question, what do we call the gulf in ritual that separates British and (old def.) Continental lodges, and probably made schism inevitable? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that we can give it a name.
 * I would not say that differences in ritual made the schism inevitable... After all, there are significant differences between British and American rituals, and they didn't result in a schism. Blueboar (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Possibly the whole culture. Remember the French are using the ritual that the Moderns had to drop, and admit their error, before the Ancients would consider union. Add the cabinet de réflexion, the year of study between blue lodge degrees, there was a yawning gap between French and English masonry. Now add politics. Nobody this side of the channel trusts the French - it's in the rules. Masonically, we thought the French were wierd. They thought the UGLE were masonic lightweights, and said so. Sort of made American masonry look warm and cuddly. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. Differences in ritual do not necessarily result in schism... UGLE allows several different workings.  In the US, each State GL sets its own standard work... some Grand Lodges use ritual that descend from the Moderns, while others use ritual that descend from the Ancients (and others have devised ritual that combines bits from both).  The schism between Anglo-US style Freemasonry and Continental style Freemasonry is not about ritual... it is about more fundamental disagreements. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The different strands of English Blue Lodge ritual are at least mutually intelligible. The lodge layouts, officers and degree passwords are the same, and the general structure, and much of the wording of the ceremonies is common to all. The French have a different lodge layout, different officers, and the passwords in the first two degrees are reversed. Both sides were convinced that their Masonry was better than their neighbour's, and thus the acrimony was older than the supposed cause of the schism. For the UGLE, the change in the requirement for the volume of the sacred law, and belief in a supreme being, was just the last straw, and it took them until 1929 to work out why. The UGLE take on the issue is still fogged with half-truths, which are worse for their authors actually believing them. I'd love this to be about the fundamentals of Freemasonry, but it's more about why two Grand Lodges didn't like each other, and how one handed the other an excuse to stop talking. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Re: "The different strands of English Blue Lodge ritual are at least mutually intelligible. The lodge layouts, officers and degree passwords are the same, and the general structure, and much of the wording of the ceremonies is common to all. " Perhaps... if you only look at ENGLAND... But there is more to the Anglo-US bloc in Masonry than just England... For example, there are significant differences between UK practice and typical US Practice... and those differences are just as significant as those between UK and France (different lodge layouts, different officers, different signs, passwords, wording... etc.)  Then consider a jurisdiction such as the Grand Orient of the Netherlands (who's ritual is closer to "Traditional" French ritual than UK rital)... Yet is in perfect Amity with both the UK and US grand lodges.  No, the differences in ritual, lodge layout, officers, and even signs grips and words that exists between jurisdictions do not result in schism.  What caused the schism between the Anglo-US bloc and the Continental bloc are the more fundamental constitutional disagreements over a) who can and can not become a Mason, and b) Masonry's role in the world. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You did say UGLE allows several different workings. If we discount the Louisiana fracas, then the catalyst to the schism was the UGLE/GOdF argument in 1877/8. The schism between England and France was already inevitable for all the reasons above stated, and really, it's not Masonically correct for a jurisdiction to attempt to interfere in the governance of another. Atheism hadn't been an issue for the Moderns, Grand lodge was a hotbed of unbelief in the 1720s, with an evangelical atheist as assistant GM in 1725. An argument started (accidentally) and blew out of all proportion because the two governing bodies couldn't stand each other. The many reasons the US GL's followed UGLE may well be about membership and masonry's role, but the English story starts elsewhere. The 1870s was a period of French colonial expansion, and political tensions between the two nations were high. We can add that GOdF admitted their first atheist about 25 years ago, so for over a century the whole atheism argument was pure hyperbole. The causes of the UGLE/GOdF schism might look complex from this standpoint, but it really boils down to mutual distrust and antagonism. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow... I have so many disagreements with what you stated in that last paragraph, that it is hard to know where to begin. I don't think the schism between England and France was "inevitable" prior to 1877... I will give you that there were other issues of tension between UGLE and GOdF ... and it is possible that one of these might well have cause one to withdraw recognition from the other for a while... but that would have remained a localized disagreement between England and France (just as the rift between Louisiana and France was a localized thing), and would not have resulted in a broader irreparable schism.  It was the issue Atheists that split the bulk of Freemasonry into two opposing camps that refuse to even talk to each other.
 * As for the 1700s... the question of whether Atheists could or could not be Masons obviously was an issue for the Moderns in the 1720s... enough so that Anderson felt it necessary to clarify the rules, by adding the "A Mason will never be a stupid Atheist" line in his revised constitutions. Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, the inherent mysticism of French masonry makes it inherently unattractive to atheists. What was interpreted as atheism was largely the result of rabid anticlericalism.

The "Stupid Atheist" bit was in Anderson's original, the 1738 revision had the insertion of "Noachide". This means that Anderson's work was actually dedicated to an atheist. The French argument being that the 1720s atheists were members of the Royal Society, and therefore not stupid. (Unlike the UGLE, who they described as a pretentious dining club.) Now way off topic and entering realms of discussion. We can agree to differ on this. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Re: Noachide: "This mean Anderson's work was dedicated to an atheist"? How so.  "Noachide" does not equal "Atheist".
 * Re: Stupid Atheist: Anderson was a Presbyterian minister... that has to be remembered when interpreting his constitutions. He was not drawing a distinction between "stupid atheists" and "smart atheists"... he was calling all atheists "stupid".  It's sort of like Homer Simpson saying "Stupid Flanders"... in Homer's world view, there is no such thing as a smart Flanders... Flanders is "stupid" simply for being Flanders.  Simiarly, in Anderson's world view, there is no such thing as a "smart atheist"... even a well respected member of the Royal Society who was an atheist would be a "stupid atheist" according to Anderson (and thus not qualified to be made a Mason). Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just reporting a view - don't shoot the messenger. Anderson's work was dedicated to the GM at the time of writing, the Duke of Montagu - an atheist according to Stukeley. He was succeeded by Wharton, whose Hell-fire club had just been shut down by the goverment for atheism. Scanning ahead we have Richmond as GM, also cited for atheism by Stukeley, and the Assistant GM 1724-25 was Martin Folkes, vice-president of the Royal Society, whose Infidel's club had converted Montagu & Richmond. Against this background we have Anderson, with Rev Desaguliers looking over his shoulder, writing our stupid atheists out of Freemasonry in 1722. The French interpretation of the words preserves peace and harmony between Anderson and the unbelievers. For the record, I don't buy it either. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I do realize that you were merely reporting a view... my point is that we should be skeptical about that view and that we can not simply accept it at face value.
 * But, ultimately, all of this is irrelevant. For this article, it does not really matter which interpretation is "correct" and which is not ... what matters is that (regardless of what may or may not have happened in the 1720s) by the 1870s (when the schism occurred) it had become the accepted standard that Atheists should not be made Masons, and that knowingly admitting them was seen as being irregular (a reason to withdraw recognition).  Even the Grand Orient of France had (for a while) agreed with this standard.  It was the fact that GOF had a change of heart that resulted in Freemasonry being to split into two camps.  It does not really matter why GOF had a change of heart, or how they tried to justify their decision... what matters is the simple fact that the decision was made, and that it resulted in an irreparable schism.... and that subsequent decisions by GOF (such as admitting women, and speaking out on religious and political issues) have simply widened the gulf. Blueboar (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And, at full circle, we come back to my point that the schism with UGLE came after decades of bad blood. The most complete sources I have regard the UGLE's simplification down to one issue to be disingenuous at best. The option of removing religious references from lodge workings can be viewed as anything from the straw that broke the camel's back to a damn good excuse. It is certainly not the whole story. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying that UGLE and GOF were on the brink of a split prior to 1877 (and the Atheist question simply tipped them over the edge). OK... what were they arguing about prior to 1877? Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It was more abuse than argument. Each side thought the other was doing Masonry wrong. The English mistrusted the French mysticism, the French thought English Masonry was about three course dinners. They sneered at each other in print.
 * If we look at the Belgians, we see a jurisdiction that dropped the religious element in their constitutions five years before the French, yet the UGLE remained in amity with them until the 1920s. Trying to rationalise the disparity in terms other than mutual animosity between UGLE and GOdF is probably a pointless exercise. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Abuse? What abuse? Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Abuse, as in name-calling. There was no intelligent debate, just the English calling the French weird, and the French calling the English a bunch of lightweights, who don't take Freemasonry seriously enough. I paraphrase, of course.

Again, is there a logical legal or masonic reason that UGLE should treat the Belgians differently from the French? In fact, the United Grand Lodge of England entered into relations with the Grand Orient of Belgium three years after they removed the Great Architect from their constitutions and two years before the UGLE fell out with the French. The Belgians were not considered irregular until 1921, although nothing had changed since the 1870s. Is there another explanation for this disparity in treatment than GOdFrancophobia? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Calling someone lightweight or weird hardly counts as "abuse". But, I may be missing the context of the remarks. Could you point me to some sources that discuss all this "name-calling"... I would like to get a clearer picture of what you are referring to.  Who said what about who, and why they said it. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to be unaware of how easily offended the "Mother of all Grand Lodges" can be. This offering from Mr Prescott might interest you, particularly the first section on disagreements in the 1850s. ‘Ses travaux sont consacrés a quelques momeries, et surtout à la gourmandaise’ pretty much echoes Dermott's criticism of the Premier Grand Lodge, and we know how well that was received. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are reading more into what Prescott was saying than was intended. That line you quote was essentially a brief side remark.  Prescott's main thesis is that English Freemasonry has always been split between those who wanted it to be tied more directly to religion (and explicitly to Christianity), and those who did not.  He barely mentions the French. Blueboar (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And the Belgians? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Quibbles?
I left this alone for a bit, and hopefully came back to it with a clear head and did a bit of a tidy. I think it's ready for a GA nomination, but in the interests of stability, can we beat out any outstanding issues first? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Having written the above, I had to make some adjustments to Anti-Masonry. I referenced what I could, but some bits were chopped because I couldn't find a reference. Feel free to re-add, with citations. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit to Islam and Freemasonry section
User:Anas hashmi recently edited the Islam and Freemasonry sub-section (see this diff]). I reverted, and he has un-reverted with the request that I explain my revert,

I do believe that his edit was made in good faith... in an attempt to avoid what he perceived as bias. Unfortunately his edit ended up actually adding bias. His edit starts with: "Under Islamic interpretation, Freemasonry and masonic rituals are closely linked to the coming of Masih ad-Dajjal (Messiah of Falsehood), also known as the Anti-Christ"... Not quite... This is actually a relatively fringe Anti-Masonic view among Muslims. While it is appropriate to mention this Anti-Masonic view in our Opposition section, it is important that we not present fringe views as if they were accepted by the mainstream. We need to hedge our language so that the reader understands that this interpretation actually is an Anti-Masonic fringe view.

I will note that this article just underwent a Good Article review... and if the previous language of the section had been biased, that would have been noted by the reviewers, and marked for correction. It wasn't. I am therefor reverting the edit, and returning the language to its previous language (as approved by the GA review). Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The correction by Blueboar was also necessary for the text to agree with its source references. Folklore1 (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Norman Davies et al
I removed this section because I was concerned that the references do not meet good article standards. The book of essays does not have an indication of the relevant section, and the Jacobs reference does not list page numbers, which leaves Davies, an opinion in an overview from a specialist in Polish History. Can we re-insert and improve? And can we balance the Freemasonry/enlightenment equation with at least a mention that this is a minority view held by a lot of masons and very few historians? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2014
I am writing to point out an error in a paragraph. It may be called an oversimplification type of error, but it's disputable to be sure. Here is the paragraph:

"Conspiracy theorists have long associated Freemasonry with the New World Order and the Illuminati, and state that Freemasonry as an organisation is either bent on world domination or already secretly in control of world politics. Historically, Freemasonry has attracted criticism—and suppression—from both the politically extreme right (e.g., Nazi Germany)[110][111] and the extreme left (e.g. the former Communist states in Eastern Europe).[112]"

It is quite disputed whether Nazi Germany can be deemed "extreme right." Some simplify a nuanced reality to deem it "right" or "left." However, Nazi Germany clearly had political elements of both right and left.

Please replace that parenthetical with a more accurate one (note: Facism is not a good replacement).

X1920299Y (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Per Wikipedia's article on NSDAP, who were the ruling party in Nazi Germany: "Political position: Far-right" As such, I see no reason to replace what is currently in this article. WegianWarrior (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There are all kinds of debates about where to place the Nazis on the political spectrum. This article isn't the place for such debates.  The point this article is making is valid... there have been anti-masonic regimes on all political sides. Blueboar (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Free and Accepted Mason
Is "Free and Accepted Mason" a synonym for "Mason". I see it after some people's names in obituaries. Or is it a subset of the larger Masons? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's somewhere between a subset and a synonym. Some jurisdictions call themselves "Free and Accepted", others call themselves "Ancient Free and Accepted". It goes back to a schism in the 1700s that's pretty much healed -- I'm not aware of any ritual difference between the two at this point.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Puting the whole "ancient" thing to one side... the short answer is yes... "Free and Accepted Mason" is a synonym for "Freemason" (both of which are often shortened to just: "Mason"). However, just to make things more confusing, the word "mason" can also refer to a stone mason or a brick mason (also known as a bricklayer). Note the subtle difference in capitalization... usually if you read: "He was a Mason" it means he belonged to the Freemasons. If you read "He was a mason", it means he built walls and such.
 * Finally... the adjectival word "Masonic" is rarely used outside of the context of Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The critical word here is "accepted", which distinguishes Freemasons from real, or "operative" masons. "Free" has several derivations, which may all be partially true, but this probably isn't the place to discuss them. "Free and Accepted" is universally used by Freemasons to describe themselves, and has been since Anderson's constitutions of 1723 where it occurs repeatedly in the Apprentice's song, which is presumably older. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The number of Freemasons killed during the Second World War
The article currently states that:

While the number is not accurately known, it is estimated that between 80,000 and 200,000 Freemasons were killed under the Nazi regime.

This is a highly dubious claim considering that there only were around 80 000 Freemasons in Germany at the time and not more than 200 000 in all of Central Europe. German scholarly sources estimate that about 62 Freemasons were murdered by the Nazis, most of them not because they were Freemasons but rather as Socialists and Communists (in all about 20 000 Socialists and Communists were murdered for political reasons). Indeed some long-serving cabinet members of Hitler himself were Freemasons, Hjalmar Schacht being one.

The only source given for the current claim is a part of the infamous For Dummies series and as such very non-scholar, it seems likely that someone at some point confused the total number of Freemasons with the number of those killed. Thus it would be important to back the claim by more credible sources or remove it altogether. -89.67.22.30 (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, Christopher L. Hodapp, the author of Freemasons for Dummies, is highly regarded as a Masonic scholar. Yes, the "For Dummies" books are written for a general public audience... but the author in this case is highly reliable.
 * That said, scholars can disagree... and if you have a reliable source that gives a different number, we can note the disagreement and contrast the various estimates, attributing them to the scholars that give them. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not know Mr. Hodapp at all so I do not wish to comment on his positions or personal credibility, I just would wish to ask why is he and his For Dummies book what appears to be the ONLY source that claims that up to 200 000 Freemasons were murdered while for example the factual extermination of around 500 000 Sinti and Roma is very well documented as well as that of about 20 000 Socialists and Communists? This really needs more sources than just that ONE individual claims it did happen (or then it should at least be stated that Mr. Hodapp claims so). Now it's just that someone presented a very radical claim, gave one questionable source and posted it across Wikipedia creating a fait accompli. However if his claims indeed represent scientific consensus there must be dozens of other scholarly authors and researchers that agree with Mr. Hodapp (for the murder of up to 200 000 people is one of the largest genocides in modern history) just like there is concerning the Sinti and Roma. So far I have been able to find none at all. -89.67.22.30 (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You're severely downplaying the numbers. There were 5,930,000 Jews, 2,000,000 Soviets, and 1,800,000 to 2,000,000 Poles murdered during the Holocaust.  Leaving that out and comparing only the figures for the Roma to make the Masonic total (which is about 1-2%) seem disproportionate is at best a huge mistake, if not worrisome.
 * Also, you provide no evidence that Schacht remained a mason while working for Hitler, and neglected to mention that he spoke against policies and worked with the German resistance. Hardly best buds, and not any sort of sign of Masonic involvement.  Given that Hitler and his lackies were big fans of the conspiracy theories that claimed the Masons worked for the Jews, any masons among the ranks of the SS should be understood to be an anomaly, not the norm.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As for why Hodapp is the "only" source cited... Wikipedia is a work in progress... Hodapp was the only reliable source that we have found (so far) to actually give an estimate. As I said above... if some other reliable source gives a different estimate, please let us know... and we will happily amend the article to include it.  Blueboar (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

62 Freemasons were killed in Germany in the immediate aftermath of the destuction of all the lodges and the confiscation of their property in 1935. They were already banned from the Nazi party, so the idea that Hitler would knowingly have a Freemason on his staff is laughable revisionist drivel. (Schacht, having tried to reason with Hitler about Freemasonry, gave up and resigned from the lodge. Ex-masons who were VERY useful occasionally got away with it.) It gets foggy after this because some of the Freemasons killed were Jews. However, known Freemasons in occupied countries were either killed or sent to the camps. In France, a system of informants identified over 6000 masons, some of whom were duplicates, some identified out of malice. The rest were rounded up and shot. Personally, I'm not entirely comfortable with Hodapp's estimate, but it's the best reference we have at present. The 62 in Germany is almost certainly the thin end of the wedge. The three Prussian Grand Lodges who professed their loyalty to the regime were severely abused, and the members of the "Humanitarian" lodges that admitted Jews were definitely persona non grata. Obviously some survived until 1945, but not a significant proportion of the 80,000 in 1932. In the occupied countries, there was no mercy, hence the high upper estimate. Could probably do better, but Hodapp's ballpark figure is the best we've got. If it helps, I am actively looking for a better one. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Freemasonry in North America: Important Canadian lodges overlooked
The section on Freemasonry in North America focuses entirely on the United States of America. As a country that remained a British colony much longer than the US, and thus retained much closer ties, the Canadian history of FM is important and should not be overlooked.

How would people respond to inclusions of some information on this point from any of the following sources: http://www.masonicdictionary.com/chistory.html http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/textfiles/history.html

http://www.masonicworld.com/education/files/artjul02/history_and_development_of_freem.htm http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/encyclopedia/FreeMasonsinCanada.htm
 * Feel free to add stuff on Canada (note that we already cite the BC&Y website a lot). However... a caution... this article is supposed to be a very broad brush introduction to Freemasonry ... we want to avoid getting bogged down with presenting trivial differences of custom and tradition.  And check out our sub-article on Freemasonry in Canada... a lot of what you want to put in here may already be covered there. Blueboar (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

See also (Illuminati)
Shouldn't we put Illuminati on the "See also" section? I did and someone reverted my edit. I believe the Illuminati are so often mentioned next to the Freemasons that they should be in the list, if not mentioned in the article. Antonio World Sex Cup Martin Aja! 08;32, 25 June, 2014 (UTC)
 * There is already a lot of confusion about the relationship between the Illuminati and Freemasonry, most of it started maliciously. The Iluminati were parasitic on, rather than springing from Freemasonry, and Weishaupt and Knigge's attempts at a reverse takeover were frustrated at Wilhelmsbad. (We probably need more on the Wilhelmsbad convention, but not in a general article.) I think a "see also" would reinforce the a fallacious relationship, and attract yet more dodgy edits from conspiracy nuts. That's only my opinion, though. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * While Freemasonry was/is relevant to the Illuminati, the Illuminati wasn't/isn't relevant to Freemasonry. Also +1 to what Fiddlersmouth said, in particular on the conspiracy theorists. WegianWarrior (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the OP, people do view Illuminati and Freemasonry in conjunction. Including a link to another wiki article on the relevant topic in "See Also" is more then acceptable, but rather encouraged to make the research easier. As per WP:ALSO, "the purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." Illuminati and Freemasonry are tangentially related.--Truther2012 (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As per WP:ALSO, "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body". There's also a bit about common sense. Every article in the project is tangentially related to the main article. Some are more tangential than others. The link is there, in the relevant section. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Put it this way... almost every fraternal society (Elks, Knights of Columbus, the Greek letter frats, etc) has some tie to Freemasonry (either direct or indirect). Most were founded by Freemasons, and had rituals modeled on those of Freemasonry.  Does this mean we should include them all in the "See Also" section?  No.  The Illuminati were just another (failed) organization that was modeled on Freemasonry and has an overlap of membership. Blueboar (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Grand Lodge of the Ancients (1751–1813) v. Wigan Grand Lodge (1823–1866)
Reviewing the article titled "Antient Grand Lodge of England," I noticed that the first sentence reads, "The Ancient Grand Lodge of England, as it is known today, or The Grand Lodge of the Most Ancient and Honourable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons (according to the Old Constitutions granted by His Royal Highness Prince Edwin, at York, Anno Domini nine hundred and twenty six, and in the year of Masonry four thousand nine hundred and twenty six) as they described themselves on their warrants,[1] was a rival Grand Lodge to the Grand Lodge of England." I would like to three things about this sentence to your attention.

First, the endnote refers to a book titled Masonry in Wigan, by an author named J. Brown. This indicates that it refers to what was commonly known as "The Wigan Grand Lodge," which existed at the town of Wigan, in Greater Manchester, northwest England, from 1823 to 1866, and not to the grand lodge of the Ancients, which existed from 1751 to 1813, when it merged with the grand lodge of 1717 (the Moderns).

The Wigan grand lodge is often confused with the grand lodge of the Ancients due to the fact that both included the term "according to the Old Institutions" in their names. However, they were two entirely different grand lodges, which were headquartered in two different locations (London and Wigan), and in two different time periods. The endnote to this first sentence in the article referenced above indicates that the information came from a book about the grand lodge at Wigan.

The phrase, "according to the Old Institutions," was commonly used by many 19th-century Masonic historians like Gould and Mackey, because the phrase was included in the name of the Ancients' grand lodge in the documents of the Union of 1813, but I have never found where the phrase was included in any name formally adopted by the grand lodge of the Ancients. Rather, it appears to have been used in correspondence and resolutions to distinguish it from the grand lodge of the Moderns. In the Articles of Union, dated Nov. 25, 1813, the Duke of Kent, Grand Master of the Ancients, was titled "Grand Master of Free and Accepted Masons of England, according to the Old Institutions," and his grand lodge was styled the "Grand Lodge of Freemasons of England according to the Old Institutions." (Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia; 1961, New York, Macoy Publ. Co.; p. 235)

The second error appearing in the article referenced is the use of the word "Constitutions" instead of the correct word "Institutions." According to several other sources, which I will cite, the grand lodge of the Ancients (1751–1813) is variously called "The Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of the Old Institution" [sic] (Bernard E. Jones, Freemasons' Guide and Compendium; 1956 rev. ed., London, Harrap Ltd.; p. 197), or the "Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons According to the Old Institutions" (with "Institutions" plural). (Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia; p. 232)

Harry Carr, past master of Quatuor Coronati Lodge, who also served as secretary of that premier lodge of research, gave the name of this grand lodge as "The Most Ancient and Honourable Society of Free and Accepted Masons according to the Old Institutions." (Harry Carr, The Freemason at Work; 1981 rev. ed., Shepperton UK, A. Lewis Masonic Publ. Ltd; p. 16)

In all these examples, above, these variations on the name of the Ancient's grand lodge all incorporate the term "according to the Old Institutions," and not "Constitutions."

The third item I would comment on is the use of the term "Grand Lodge of England" to refer to the grand lodge of the Moderns, founded in 1717. As a Masonic researcher and writer, I know that readers are confused by this term for three reasons.

First, the grand lodge of the Moderns, when created in 1717, did not perceive itself to be a geographic grand lodge with a territorial jurisdiction. Rather, it was a grand lodge with authority over only those lodges that chose to accept warrants from it. If it felt that it had any territorial authority, it was only over certain lodges in London and Westminster. Further, as evidenced by the many warrants that it issued to lodges outside of London, on the continent of Europe, in the Far East, the Caribbean and in the Americas, it did not perceive its jurisdiction to be limited to London, or England, or even the British Isles. (Coil, p. 226)

Second, as a matter of historical accuracy, no one has ever produced evidence that the grand lodge of the Moderns ever referred to itself by the term "Grand Lodge of England. The sole exception did not appear until the year 1810, when that term appeared for the first time, and then only on certificates that the grand lodge issued for three years up to the Union of 1813. (Coil, p. 234)

Third, during the 18th century, there were two or more grand lodges in England that could be referred to as "the grand lodge of England." For example, if, in the late 18th century, one were to refer to "the Grand Lodge of England" when addressing a gathering of Masons in, say, Pennsylvania, they would assume you were talking about the grand lodge of the Ancients, and not the grand lodge of the Moderns. (Coil, p. 231 ff.)

I hope that the active editors of articles relating to the subject of Freemasonry will take these comments as constructive, and will make the corrections that they find to be necessary. PGNormand (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think all this is overly detailed and nit-picky for what is supposed to be a broad overview of the subject. Yes, what we say may be a "simplistic" way to outline what occurred, but "simplistic" is appropriate in this case. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I should have given less detail. My main point was that the elongated name given in the first sentence of the article appears to be that of a different grand lodge, being that of the Wigan grand lodge. (See endnote 1 in the article.) My second point was that the name of the Ancients (Antients) grand lodge included the word "Institutions," and not "Constitutions." If you feel that accuracy is important, you may want to correct it. 72.47.189.248 (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * First, an apology. I may be a bit slow replying to comments here due to extensive periods away from a computer. I'll try to explain the reasoning behind the wording in what was, and still is, a "patch-up" re-write of the article done almost two years ago, and maybe we can move towards some sort of consensus.
 * The Wigan Revival. I'm unrepentant about this. The rebels were all unreconstructed Ancient masons, who mistrusted the new Grand Lodge, and saw the 5 members rule and the whole Royal Arch thing (not allowing one chapter per lodge) as a creeping return of the hated Modern's ritual, which the Moderns had themselves binned as a condition of the Union. After good old Sussex had refused to discuss masonry with men in flat caps who probably kept whippets, they self-consciously adopted the title and seal of their old Grand Lodge. If that isn't an attempt at revival, I'm at a loss.
 * Constitutions/Institutions. Yes, good point, but probably needs a long explanation. My reasoning was as follows - Material nobbled from QC Antigrapha clearly showed Constitutions in warrants and certificates and Institutions on their wonky seal. Wonky, because the Hebrew clearly states "Masons, not Jews", a schoolboy error which they didn't pick up for about five years, when laa finally got corrected to l~, giving Masons of Judah. They clearly gave more thought to the written material. I have no idea which they preferred, but the nomenclature during the Union clearly needs mentioning.
 * Grand Lodge of England. Wasn't sure what to call it, to be frank. It referred to itself as "the Grand Lodge", which isn't terribly helpful in an article like this. Unless anybody has any better ideas, I'll amend it to "Premier Grand Lodge of England". Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding my edits
(Brought up on talk page to avoid edit war)

Regarding the minor edits that I have made, I fail to see how it constitutes as "drivel". The article previously says in the hidden text that -ize is an appropriate suffix (i.e. Oxford spelling), and so even though I think that the -ise should stay uniform throughout the article (as it is the most commonly used now), the hidden text was inaccurate and contradicted the previous hidden text in the article, hence why I removed it. Secondly, I removed "world-wide" as a description preceding "international," as they are virtually synonyms.

If there's any reason as to why any editor objects to what I've done, I'd appreciate hearing why. I'm sorry to be pedantic, but my edits were reverted for (what I feel to be) no logical reason whatsoever. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * We've been there, done that in the past. If this isn't stated we'll get a multitude of users who are going to 'fix' this again... and while '-ize' may be acceptable, '-ise' is more common. WegianWarrior (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. But isn't the sentence There is no international, world-wide Grand Lodge that supervises all of Freemasonry [emphasis added] redundant? Either international or world-wide, but there's no need to have them both in there, surely? – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, but it requires some knowledge to realize that, because it's addressing conspiracy theory. Some Grand Lodges are "international", because they have subordinate Lodges they have chartered in other countries, but they don't claim any sort of exclusive rights in the other country.  There is also no single umbrella Grand Lodge that controls all of the others in the world.  Both of those are claims made separately by conspiracy theorists.  There might be a better way to phrase it, but coming in and deleting stuff on a controversial topics article is not conducive to a collegial atmosphere.  So, if you feel that strongly about it, let's work it out here, but please do not touch the comment text; it's there for a reason. MSJapan (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, I understand now. Thanks for the clarification. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Severe lack of information
This article gives readers absolutely zero idea what freemasonry is about. There's no need to reveal any secrets, but some basic explanation of the type of work involved in the Craft is sorely missing. This article doesn't even provide a vague suggestion of it, let alone a decent encyclopedic explanation. With all the work people put into this, I'm really shocked that the very topic that this article purports to be about is not really covered at all. This article isn't named "Lodges in freemasonry". It is named "Freemasonry". Yet, it discusses the former at length and the latter not really at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.202.34 (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it says it in the very first sentence... "Freemasonry is a fraternal organization". That's what it is about... fraternity. Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you give us a more specific idea of what you think is missing? (...and there's no need to shout) Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is not enough information. After reading this article I still have very little understanding of what freemasonry is. "Freemasonry is a fraternal organization" is a very abstract description that is entirely unhelpful to anyone trying to understand what they do. Liam987   talk  20:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it says Freemasonry is a Fraternal organisation, linking to an explanatory article. Again, what is missing? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) That is what it is. Being a fraternal group is its function. I mean, would you wonder what Phi Beta Kappa "does" or what Rotary International "does"? Probably not, because they don't "do" anything - they function as organizations, and organizations are guided by the members. I think it's pretty clear that there are degrees conferred, so I think it's a matter of either perception or preconceived notion not being satisfied. So, what do you think it "does" that we aren't telling you as a reader? MSJapan (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Freemasonry in the United States of America
The absence of this article seems like a serious omission. We have History of Masonic Grand Lodges in North America, which is poorly maintained and almost invisible unless you know it exists. Being on the wrong side of the Atlantic, I am underqualified to fill the gap, but I don't mind helping. Any takers? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Not an omission... we don't have an article for the same reason we don't have a single Freemasonry in Europe article. The topic is too complex for a single article. Each State (plus DC) has multiple Grand Lodges - and each GL is independent of the others - sometimes they are in amity with those in the other States - sometimes they are not. There is no common ritual. Each GL has its own separate rules and regulations, its own internal structure, its own history, traditions, etc. etc. etc.  Blueboar (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding proposed refurbishment
By reason of the revision of - any comments on that? Thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Fiddler's revert... to start with the first change you made: Freemasonry isn't a fraternal "movement" but a fraternal organization. Blueboar (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The material I reverted was a jumble of good and bad, no references. Any material in the lead section should be referenced in the main article. Discussing the amendments point by point seems reasonable. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose the intent of the leading section is to be a scramble to the subject, with our without references - however, importangly at least with references in the different following sections, supporting the initial concluding statements. Are there no information in the proposed refurbishment that qualified as permanent? Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * First check out Manual of Style. Bearing in mind that we have only recently got this article back to Good Article rating, which parts of your contributions do you think are important enough to be included in the lead, and if they have content not included in the article, can you provide references? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Further Reading?
Hi, I have a book (actually 4 volumes) called 10,000 Famous Freemasons by William R Delaney from 1957. It is a fascinating read about who were members. Anyway, just wondering if the article could have a Further reading section listing some of the books involved with Freemasonry? It may be helpful for readers. thanks Coolabahapple (talk) 04:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There are far too many books out there on different subtopics to make it reasonable to do so. Most Grand Lodges have entire libraries full of nothing but Masonic books of one sort or another. MSJapan (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks.Coolabahapple (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2015
81.205.153.37 (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Graag informatie over de vader van mijn oma Wilhelmina Adolphina Pielat geboren 30-7-1895 in Modjokerto en overleden op2-4-1993 in Den Haag.De Vraag is ?hebt u informatie en gegevens over Victor Pielat die de vrijmetselarij naar Java bracht.Hoogachtend B.M.Endert.Leest 28-5641nd -Eindhoven.Mail-endertbert@live.nl
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Non-english content. this is en.wiki. Also, from Google Translate this appears to be a weird request to send someone information

"Please send information about the father of my grandmother Wilhelmina Adolphina Pielat born 30-7-1895 in Mojokerto and deceased op2-4-1993 Haag.De in The Question Is ? You have information and data on which Victor Pielat Freemasonry to Java bracht.Hoogachtend BMEndert.Leest 28-5641nd -Eindhoven.Mail-endertbert@live.nl" Cannolis (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Draconic revert
Regarding this edit. What are your objections, seemingly to the whole of it? Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I made a "draconic revert" in response to a "draconic" edit. You significantly changed the lede paragraphs, and a change of that magnitude (especially in an article that has been relatively stable for a while, and has earned "good article" status) needs some discussion before it is made (or at least before it is accepted).
 * Now for some specifics... I respect Stevenson as a source, but his "Freemasonry originated in Scotland" theory is not totally accepted. Giving primacy to St. Mary's Lodge as the earliest recorded lodge is disputed... I don't mind discussing it (as long as counter-claims are also discussed), but that is the sort of thing that belongs further down in the article (and not in the lede).
 * More importantly, I have serious issues with the sentence "Purposes usually include personal development of its members, Masons, by elaborate, occult systems of ethics, expressed through rituals and symbolism."... The primary "purpose" of freemasonry is simply to be a "Fraternity"... to spread the cement of brotherly love and affection among its members.  All the esoteric stuff is extra icing on the cake. Yes, it's there... but it isn't the main "purpose". I also have issues with using the word "occult"... which while technically correct (if you know what the word actually means) can easily be misunderstood by the average reader (who associate that word with devil worship and the like... something that Freemasonry definitely is NOT)
 * Then there is your other paragraph, where you wrote: "Historically, vowed secrecy paired with prominent revolutionary and/or anti-clerical tendencies among early Freemasonry during the 18th and 19th centuries, rendered opposition and even provoked widespread conspiracy theories. Today, religious affiliations vary between monotheism, deism, Christianity or atheism, while other bodies state religious and/or political independence."
 * No... NO... most definitely not. While a SOME early Freemasons may have had revolutionary or anti-clerical tendencies, the vast majority did NOT.  Suggest you read Jasper Ridley's The Freemasons, which goes into exhaustive detail on this... explaining about how, no matter what the political or religious issue, you found (and continue to find) Freemasons on all sides (as well as Freemasons caught in the middle).  For every revolutionary, there was a monarchist, for every anti-cleric, there was a cleric.
 * I respect that this may be your view of what Freemasonry is all about... but it isn't the majority viewpoint. Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback. I have attempted a new edit, taking your points into account. Hope you may find this recent edit fit for your eventual further detailed edits, rather than subject to complete revert. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @Chicbyaccident AGAIN, we went to a lot of trouble to sort out the lead section in this article. We've been through this before, especially inserting material that isn't cited in the article (in this instance because it's uncitable). You're not helping. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just intended to try to improve. I'm impressed by your motivation on rather keeping the previous verrsion. Of course my recent propsal could use some improvements, but why don't you build on that instead of on the old, poorer overview? No new information was really added in the lead section, It's just an attempt of a neutral introduction. Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Misinformation is never neutral. Freemasonry (a singular noun) was established a century before the first Grand Lodge. Your dating is out. You hopelessly confuse Continental and "Regular" Freemasonry, neither of which has a religious affiliation. Continental Freemasonry theoretically accepts atheists, but the inherent mysticism of the rite means that since 1878 only two have joined the Grand Orient de France, with other Continental branches doing worse. "No new information"? Read the article. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a hard time seeing your detailed objections as a motive of a complete revert. However, trying to take your comments into account, I have attempted to present an updated version. Hopefully this one will be considered suitable enough as a whole as to improve rather than revert. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * One thing to remember... the Freemasonry that existed a century before the first Grand Lodge was very different from the Freemasonry that existed at the time of the first Grand Lodge... and the Freemasonry that existed at the time of the first Grand Lodge was very different from the Freemasonry that exists today. That's something that many people (including most Freemasons) don't really understand... they (we) assume that Freemasonry has remained static and unchanging through the ages... they don't realize how much Freemasonry has changed over time.  Within the history of a single lodge, you can see changes (In one era the focus of the lodge may have been on holding convivial feasts and sharing the bonds of brotherhood... in another era it may have been on self-improvement, promoting moral/ethical behavior... in yet another era the focus of the lodge might have been on charitable giving and community outreach).  More importantly, Freemasonry has not changed uniformly... it has changed in different ways in different places, as it addapted to local conditions and influences.
 * What this lack of uniformity means is that almost all generalities about "what Freemasonry is" (today, in the modern era) are going to be at least somewhat flawed. The Freemasonry that exists "here in this lodge" can be very different from the Freemasonry that exists "over there in that other lodge" (so much so that "this lodge over here" may decide that "that lodge over there" is not practicing a legitimate form of Freemasonry at all).
 * This makes writing any "definition" of Freemasonry very difficult... especially in a short overview article. Of necessity, we have to focus on generalities (even though they are flawed)... we have to omit outliers (views of what Freemasonry is all about that are held by only a few) and focus on the more mainstream views.
 * We also can not use certain bits of jargon (such as the term "occult") because such terms are likely to be misinterpreted by our audience (the general public)... and to avoid that misinterpretation we would have to go into exhaustive explanations as to what the jargony term means in a Masonic framework (add in the fact that Freemasons themselves often disagree over what the terms mean, and the task becomes impossible).
 * All of this factors into why the editors who have worked on this article over the years are so resistant to bold re-writes. We have not always agreed on what the article should (and should not) say... and how to word it. We have worked long and hard to reach consensus on almost  every sentence.  Now... We are willing to continue these discussions... we are willing to make changes that might improve the article.  But those who want changes need to understand that any changes are going to require a lot of additional discussion and consensus building.  Instead of making changes in the article (and then waiting for us to revert them)... I would suggest posting a draft proposal here on the talk page... and working with us here on the talk page to iron out issues and build consensus.  Then, once we reach a consensus (assuming we can) we can update the article.  Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Working towards a consensus draft
Rather than making bold changes and reverting... let's discuss the changes here on the talk page first (sentence by sentence if necessary) and reach a consensus version we are all happy with.

I will start with the opening sentence. I am somewhat sympathetic to Chic's pluralization. Freemasonry isn't a single fraternal organisation... it consists of multiple independent (and often conflicting) fraternal organisations... so what about saying exactly that: Would that be acceptable as a start? Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Freemasonry consists of multiple, independent (and thus sometimes conflicting) fraternal organisations that developed over time from a common historical root.
 * Better than currently, but doesn't sound very encyclopedical to me. I would argue that we shoud keep the reader's perspective in mind before making detailed distinctions in the first sentence of a leading section. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem... the goal here is to get it "right"... not to get it "right now". There is no rush. We can keep making suggestions until we find a configuration of language that we all like. With that goal in mind, can you express what it was about my initial proposal that struck you as being not very "encyclopedical"? Or can you propose an alternative? Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "The reader's perspective" is basically that they don't know a thing about it. Do you really think setting the article up as "multiple, independent, and conflicting groups" is really going to add to that clarity?  As far as the average person knows, Freemasonry is one group, there aren't any such things as appendant bodies, and that's about it.  The problem is that Chic is assuming the reader has *his* perspective, and he's already made a number of problematic unilateral edits on fraternal articles as it is.  His changes do not in any way, shape, or form, work at the level of the general reader.  An encyclopedia is not a detailed compendium of information - it is a starting point.  That is why we were not allowed to use encyclopedias to write papers in school, and also why we need to not overload the reader with unnecessary detail which does enhance their understanding. MSJapan (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "As far as the average person knows, Freemasonry is one group"... I think it is our job (as an encyclopedia) to tell them that it isn't one group. Half of the misconceptions about Freemasonry stem from the fact that people assume that Freemasonry is one group.... the same everywhere. Shouldn't we correct that misconception?
 * Sure. Hence the attempt "are fraternities and fraternal orders organised in lodges". Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My main concern with our current opening sentence is simply that perpetuates a factually inaccuracy... Freemasonry isn't one orgainsation... it is many organisations. The problem is that "Freemasonry" as a word is grammatically a singular noun.  Thus, saying "Freemasonry are" is grammatically incorrect.
 * This is why I suggested that we shift from "is/are" to "consists of". Besides, we probably will never reach consensus on what Freemasonry "is" (given that Freemasons themselves can't agree on that - even Freemasons within the same Lodge can disagree on "what is Freemasonry?").  However, I am hoping that we might be able to agree on what it consists of. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, go for "consists of". Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

And lets not sneak in a pile of BS at the same time. Applicates isn't even a word. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed... the idea is to discuss and reach a consensus for any change before we make it made. If we have consensus on shifting from "is" to "consists of"... let's move on to the next issue:
 * Chic, you appear to have an problem with the hidden text note telling people that the article uses British English (I say this because you keep changing it). Can you could explain what your problem with that note actually is?  Blueboar (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I think it is very well that the note is present. I just tried to make it a little bit more polite. Anyway, as for the lead section, I'm still suprised you guys think that the present version is better, and that the proposed refurbishment was over all so bad that it couldn't be improved on. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * When was bad English and unreferenced, unprovable drivel good? It sort of makes sense to do a bit of reading round a subject before amending an article, particularly the lead paragraph of a Good Article. Your other work on Wikipedia goes some way to convincing me that these edits are simply misinformed, but if you really want to help, try and read some real masonic history. Reading the article wouldn't be a bad start. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Fiddler... Chic we are always willing to discuss ways to improve this article... but, unfortunately a lot of what you wanted to add was either inaccurate or confusingly written. In other words it was not really an improvement.  That's why I thought going sentence by sentence through your changes would help... it was the best way I saw to correct the inaccuracies, and clarify the confusions.  Blueboar (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer starting with something more like "Freemasonry is a system of teachings that evolved from medieval stonemasons' guilds". I don't want to know what it consists of, I want to know what it is. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say that suggestion makes far more sense. PeRshGo (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There are several problems with saying that Freemasonry is "a system of teachings". First... which system are we referring to? Different branches of Freemasonry have different systems.  Second... while the various types of Freemasonry contain various systems of teachings, I don't think Freemasonry "is" the systems of teachings themselves.
 * I suppose the real problem is that it is impossible to explain what Freemasonry "is" in one simple opening sentence. This is because Freemasonry is different things to different Masons.  One Mason may describe it as being "a system of teachings"... another will describe it as "a fraternal social club"...  Yet another will say it is "a charitable organization"...  etc. etc.  None of these descriptions are really wrong... they are all part of what Freemasonry "is"... but Freemasonry is much more than any one of them.
 * Perhaps we might describe Freemasonry as a broad family of fraternal societies and orders (without going into the fact that it is a rather dysfunctional family ... with branches of the family that don't talk to each other - and "black sheep" children that have disowned - etc). Blueboar (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. What about continuing the evaluation of the latest proposal of update, ? Chicbyaccident (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is what we are doing. We still trying to reach consensus on the opening sentence. Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm following you. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, how about "a family of fraternal societies that evolved from medieval stonemasons' guilds"? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure - if you have a fair source for that. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Very good point there. How about https://books.google.com/books?id=3DgKXpyVh-0C&pg=PT50&lpg=PT50&dq=freemason+medieval+stonemasons? - SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe not. I can't think of a reference to any Freemason mentioning Templars in connection to the craft before the 1740s in France, and the whole thesis about moving round the country is rubbish. The second "degree" in most crafts was "Journeyman" - for a reason. Master masons wanted to settle down and set up shop, and needed to become "free men" of the borough to do so. Otherwise they were often indentured to work on government projects miles away. Not a good reference, but we should not have references in the lead section. The suggested first sentence is supported by references in the body of the article, although I would suggest "group" for "family", because Joe Normal doesn't understand what a dysfunctional family Freemasonry has become. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Explaining what a dysfunctional family it is should be one of the topics of the article. Blueboar (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but not in the lead section. I think it goes a long way to explaining the biggest split in Freemasonry, but I really can't think of the mot juste for our dysfunctional tribes. Family is too suggestive of unity, group maybe too unlinked. Anything in between? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The lead is now taking a very different focus, and I'm not sure it is an adequate summary (it seems to have turned into an introduction), but it looks like it might be heading in an interesting direction. As to the semantic question, "related organizations" are exactly that, and that might address that minor detail. MSJapan (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Goals and objectives of freemasonry? (2)
(continuation): just checking, I hope my recent changes to the lead section is ok with everyone after these discussions Grandia01 (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * dear blueboar, I agree with your proposed edits. can you enter them in the article please? thanks again Grandia01 (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not yet... at the moment only three editors have commented on it... not enough to say there is consensus for or against. If more editors express support, then I will.  Remember... the goal is to get it "right", not to get it "right now". Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you for correcting me. I will await their comments. Grandia01 (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)