Talk:History of Freemasonry in Belgium

Reference improvement needed
There's a great list of references (notes), and a long list of bibliographical entries. The problem is that, for the most part, the references do not list which pages from each cited book are used for the article.--Vidkun (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Confusion... women
The article contradicts itself... it declares unequivocally that the first women's lodges in Belgium were started in the 1900s. However, earlier in the the article is a list of five lodges of adoption (women) founded in the 1780s... presumably they had women members. OK... I supposed one could argue that Belgium was not yet called Belgium in the 1780s... but I think it a bit disingenuous to say that there were no women Masons in the country before 1900. Perhaps it would be more accurate to phrase the 1900s era foundations as a re-birth of mixed Freemasony? Blueboar (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No confusion. Lodges of adoption were linked to craft lodges, but were never allowed to use craft ritual, ergo cannot properly be called masonic lodges, and their members certainly would never be referred to as masons. BTW, the article seems to have been edited down from a translation from French Wikipedia, Franc-maçonnerie en Belgique which is as yet untagged. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)