Talk:Orange Order

This is an all-male organization, right?
While it should be obvious, is it correct to say that the Orange Order is an all-male organization? Considering that the article emphasizes that all members must be Protestants, I would think that a mention that they must also be male should be included as well. (Or if women are admitted, that should be mentioned somewhere as well.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * There is a separate sister organisation for females who also wish to participate 2A02:C7C:40A7:900:92D:1877:C796:8144 (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Response: It states throughout the article that it is a fraternal society. DiverseSynergy (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * in canada there is the Ladies Orange Benevolent Association. still standing here and there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.116.197 (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

"Supremacist" claims.
I appreciate that (sadly) Wikipedia is becoming increasingly left-wing in both its ideology and terminology, but do we really have to keep having accusations of "supremacism" levelled at every single right-leaning Western insitution?

I see nothing in their ideology that they are particularly supremacist in outlook, and I strongly suggest the article should be edited by somebody who can apply a bit more objectivity.

The fact that opponents might attempt to label the movement as "supremacist" is not sufficient reason to cite it in an Encyclopedia entry, unless sufficient proof can be provided to back up this claim.

Note that I have a policy of not altering articles myself, so I will not be editing this myself. I simply make suggestions for improvements on talk pages to make Wikipedia more objective and accurate. DiverseSynergy (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Funny, my great-grandfather was an Orangeman. I myself am Catholic and married to a woman of non-European racial makeup, so what would he, and the present day order, make of me? Hmmm? They're very much unabashed with their anti-Catholicism and anti-miscegenation views. --SinoDevonian (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think refusing to admit non Protestants is evidence enough, do you disagree? 38.42.46.6 (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily agree that exclusive membership makes an organization "supremacist". The Ancient Order of Hibernians does not admit non-Catholics as members.  Would you call them "supremacist"?  The organization of Jewish War Veterans does not admit non-Jews as members.  Are they "supremacist"? Eastcote (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * that is factually there are many non protestant memyers. 2A02:C7C:40A7:900:92D:1877:C796:8144 (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Dr Martyn Cowan addressing the Cross of Saint Patrick Loyal Orange Lodge - reduced size and cropped.gif

"Played an important role in the history of Canada"
This claim is made in the article but is not substantiated. Please describe how it is true. 216.126.200.242 (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

"sectarian" claims
I have been advised this may be a topic best for the talk page.

The Orange Order is described in it's lead line as a "sectarian" organisation. Somebody who presumably disagreed with this characterisation removed it.

I think this discription is objective and completely fair. The Order is widely described in this language by media, civic leaders, academics, local news, and parliamentary reports

At risk of asking can we get a consensus on if the sky is blue, can we get a consensus on this description of the Order as accurate? 2A00:23C7:9045:2001:8CE6:11A8:C851:85C2 (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Herein lies the problem - the quoted statement is simply not true. It was not so described until the 12th July, when an IPv6 editor with the same initial four groups of digits as yours (was it you?) added it. It has since been removed by five different editors. You are familiar with WP policies, so you should be well aware of WP:CONSENSUS. Get it, rather than edit war even as you open a talk page section. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Three reasons I can think of why "sectarian" does not need to be in this article: (1) The Orange Order, as a Protestant organization, specifically excludes Catholics from membership.  The similar (though smaller in Ulster) Ancient Order of Hibernians is a Catholic organization which specifically excludes Protestants from membership.  Nowhere on the Wikipedia page for the AOH could I find where the AOH was specifically described as "sectarian".  The two similar organizations should be treated similarly.  And I would argue that neither needs to be described as "sectarian" because... (2) The word "sectarian" is defined as "of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect".  With both the OO and AOH, religion defines the "sect" they belong to.  The article already states that the Orange Order is exclusively Protestant, so saying the Order is "sectarian" is simply redundant and unnecessary.  (3) The Order may indeed be sectarian, because it relates to a particular sect, but "sectarian" is a loaded word, carrying with it a lot of political baggage, and Wikipedia's guidance on NPOV specifically says to avoided loaded words. Eastcote (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems from multiple sources cited in the article that the Orange Order itself already carries far more political baggage than merely the term sectarian. 2001:BB6:F90:C358:4C1:3BD9:BC51:DD8D (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV certainly doesn't prevent us from reporting that reliable sources call the organisation sectarian - in fact, it specifies that articles should represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Cordless Larry (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * No problem at all with that, once it's attributed and not a "declaration" in Wikivoice. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It is attributed already, albeit not to specific authors: "whilst critics accuse it of being sectarian". Cordless Larry (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Who wrote this poorly researched rubbish. Half the information is wrong
What a load of rubbish this is 2A02:C7C:40A7:900:92D:1877:C796:8144 (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Active in Queensland from 1867
The Order does not seem to be mentioned in this article as having been active in Australia?

I'm assisting in a project to index the membership registers of the Loyal Orange Institution of Queensland from 1867 to 2000 on behalf of the Queensland Family History Society. Currently there are 4,804 entries online. These are linked to images of the original register pages. We anticipate that there will be over 20,000 entries when the project has completed. You can read more about it here https://www.qfhs.org.au/online-access/dataset-support/about-loiq/

Note that access to the data is currently behind a login for QFHS members. Johnperryn (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)