Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry/Archive 4

Relevance question at Grand Lodge of Idaho re: mentioning NRHP listed buildings
Non-involved editors are requested to comment at the Grand Lodge of Idaho talk page, to resolve a disagreement between two editors. See: Talk:Grand Lodge of Idaho and subsequent threads. The main question is whether certain information is relevant within the scope of the article. Blueboar (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Indirectly related is an article on Hailey Masonic Lodge (in Hailey, Idaho) which i've just expanded, and would be DYK eligible, and it has a nice pic. A DYK nom, or any suggestion for a DYK hook, or further development of that article, would be appreciated! -- do  ncr  am  15:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To say what? There's nothing there to hook, and very little room for development. MSJapan (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Doncram's brief mention of Hailey Lodge in the article about the Hailey lodge building is fine... one would expect to find a brief statement about the people who built a building in an article about the building. I agree that there isn't much to hook for a DYK. Blueboar (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Italian Masonic author... notable or not?
Does anyone know anything about an author named Michele Moramarco... the stub article was brought over (translated) from the Italian Wikipedia, and there is a question as to whether the subject is really notable. He is apparently an author on Masonic ritual and history, but I can not find any reviews of his work. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like a vanity page, even in Italian - the "Bastogi" publisher also just happens to be the name of the subject's record label, and all GHits are to personal sites, so I would imagine that it's all personally related. MSJapan (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Masonic historians
I am a researcher and reviewer of many Masonic works and I would like to propose a more developed section on Masonic historians; Academic historians such as Margaret Jacob, Andrew Prescott and David Harrison, and Victorian historians such as Gould. There seems to be a number of profiles on the likes of Robert Lomas, Michael Baigent and Christopher Knight, but a balanced presentation would be welcomed. Please let me know your ideas, I may do profile in the near the future on one of the above and your ideas, alterations and suggestions will be welcomed. --Masonreview (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonreview (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If there are sources to support such articles, please feel free to write them. I suspect that the hard part will be to find the sources. Make sure you read our policy on WP:No original research. Blueboar (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Will do, I'll look forward to the feedback when I've posted one up.--Masonreview (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Prince Hall pictures
This Wikiproject may be interested in the discussion at Talk:Prince Hall Mystic Cemetery about the best image(s) to add to that page. Incidentally, the Arlington Historical Society has a bunch of information on the history of the cemetery and I hope to see what is reliably sourced and suitable for addition. Matchups 02:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Expanded parameters?
Any objection to implementing expanded quality assessment parameters for the talk page banner? If not, I'll set them up. It would provide better visibility into the maintenance and navigation pages of the project.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 10:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hearing no objections, I have implemented.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Categorization
Any good reason that this project uses "Category:X-Class Freemasonry-related articles" instead of the standard "Category:X-Class Freemasonry articles"?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably because, for example, Shriners is a subject that's related to Freemasonry, but not a part of Freemasonry.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's a likely rationale though inconsistent with how the basic categories are set up. Shriners is in both  and  (the latter of which is also in  which is a WP:SUBCAT issue, but not relevant to this discussion);  is in .  It seems like there ought to be a consistent set up.  I recommend we switch the Project classification categories to be closer to the ordinary categories model (and the system that most other projects use).  I don't think anyone, least of all project members will be confused, at least not any more than they already are. :-)  It also makes for a shorter category name and there are less than 1 dozen to change.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article on the Shriners isn't really a good example to use... as a lot of people think it really does not belong under cat:Masonic organizations at all (it is an organization that has an association with Freemasonry, but there is debate as to whether it should be termed a "Masonic organization".) Blueboar (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I think about it, I wonder if we should not scrap the "Masonic organizations" cat completely... in Freemasonry we distinguish between "Appendent" and "Concordant" bodies to indicate that not all bodies that are connected to Freemasonry in some way are the same... we might do the same here. Blueboar (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That would make sense to me; however, it has to be a sub-cat of something and the norm in other projects would be to use a short title like Freemasonry. Thus:  "Appendant bodies of Freemasonry" -> "Freemasonry" -> "Fraternal and Service Organizations".  Of course, Shiners could be in "Fraternal and Service Organizations" itself too or it could skip the "Freemasonry" cat altogether I guess but then a search in the Freemasonry cat wouldn't find it, which is the real problem.  If a person can reasonably be expected to look for it there, it should be in that cat or a subcat.
 * My real concern at present though is with the "Freemasonry-related" format in the WikiProject classification cats. These are primarily for project use to begin with and saying "Freemasonry-related" is like saying this is "WikiProject Freemasonry and related stuff".  Note, for example, that the article Birdwatching is in  not ; the point is that saying "Freemasonry article" is nothing more than saying "this page is part of (or within the scope of if you prefer) WikiProject Freemasonry" which is after all, what the template says.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that categorization isn't just a behind the scenes navigational and administrative tool ... because categories appear on the article page itself, they can be seen as being informational. When we categorize Shriners under "Category:Freemasonry" or "Category:Masonic organizations" the uninformed reader gets the idea that the Shrine is directly connected to Freemasonry, even a form of Freemasonry.
 * When we started this project, it was small (with only a few articles)... we covered topics that were directly connected to the fraternity... it has grown somewhat since then, and now includes some topics that are only indirectly connected. If we were starting this project from scratch, today, I would not name it "WikiProject:Freemasonry", as that term is actually somewhat controversial (there is debate, even among Freemasons, as to what exactly constitutes "Freemasonry").  I am not sure what I would name it, but I would search for a term that was both broader in scope and less contentious.  Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's understandable, I think we should discuss possible category tree changes or even a name change to the project if someone can come up with at least one alternative - though sister projects use that categorization as well. Remember that the cats that I'm talking about though only show up on the bottom of the talk page and are used exclusively to classify the quality of the pages.  I just think "Freemasonry-related" is awkwardly long for this purpose and that what we need to say can be said with less - and that it makes no sense to use that system when the main system that does show up on articles says "Freemasonry" plain and simple.  It might even be possible to make these categories hidden, but I'd have to look into that.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

A big to-do...
I just discovered Template:Rp, so we can use refname with different pages from the same source. Therefore, we should look at cleaning up at least the main article by using this, and I know York Rite needs it too. I, for my part, am currently bashing on Elizabeth Aldworth with it, so check back in a few hours to see what it looks like. MSJapan (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Antient and Primitive Rite
I had to clear Ancient and Primitive Rite out because the stuff was all copyvio from one of the SovSanc sites (and not true, as I discovered from a source document). I rebuilt the degrees thus far for Memphis from an 1881 manual, but it takes up too much space as I did it. Can someone table-ize it but retain the section dividers? MSJapan (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning GOUSA
At the moment our article on Continental Freemasonry in North America article mentions the Grand Orient of the United States (GOUSA). This was appropriate given that GOUSA had a treaty of Amity with the Grand Orient of France. However, that treaty has apparently been revoked (by GOF) {as reported here). Given this, I do have to question whether GOUSA merits mention in the article.  GOUSA still defines itself as being a Continental style alternative to mainstream American Freemasonry, but it is increasingly being rejected by other Continental style bodies.  Please discuss at the article talk page. Blueboar (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better to just add that link and note that this is pretty much the end of it? Regardless of tradition, a GL without recognition isn't really much of anything; there can't be a fraternity of one. MSJapan (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was really wondering whether we should be mentioning GOUSA at all. Essentially, the question is whether, given the small size of GOUSA... does mentioning it at all give it Undue weight?  As long as it was recognized by  major players in the continental system (like GOF and GWU), I believed it merited being included in the article (and argued such on the talk page)... but now that the major players have turned their back on it, I am questioning that decision. Blueboar (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, here's the question - do we mention it (briefly) as having been recognized for a brief period just for the sake of completeness of the historical record, or should we remove it as a short-lived fad of sorts? There's pros and cons both ways. MSJapan (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That sums up my question well. I really don't know the answer to this, so I thought we should get a consensus of the project. Blueboar (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

News article
Here is a news article on the Masons from today's Washington Times: Masons make no secret of a desire for new members Steve Dufour (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing really new in it... but nice anyway. Thanks Steve. Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's probably news to most people. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Succession Templates for Grand Masters
I note that our fellow editors have created a "Succession template" (see Template:S-npo/doc) for "Masonic Offices" to put at the bottom of bio articles on various people who have held (or currently hold) Masonic offices. For the most part I think this trend is limited to those who have held the office of Grand Master (For an example, see the article on Henry Erskine, 10th Earl of Buchan, who was Grand Master of GL Scotland in 1745–1746)... but there is nothing at the template page to limit it to that office. Which means we could get this template added to anyone who has held any sort of Masonic office.

My concern is that this template gives undue weight to a person's Masonic offices - and to the office itself. In most cases, the fact that someone held a masonic office is not what makes them notable, and their involvement in Freemasonry is not really that important (worth, perhaps, a passing mention in the article)... Most Masonic offices are for one or two years... and don't mean much, even within the Jurisdiction. Even Grand Masters are big fish in a very small ponds. In some cases, like UGLE, the position is more ceremonial than anything else... and in others it is a dime a dozen thing, mostly filled by non-notable non-entities (I think of most of the current GMs in the US today).

I thought about simply removing all these templates, but then I thought I should bounce the issue off of the other project members first. So... what are your thoughts about these templates? Blueboar (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We're sort of taggign a footnote, really, unless there are some folks who are notable for their Masonic conections. However, very rarely are they Grand Masters, and very rarely are there two in a row that are notable.  It's sort of a tossup, because where it does seem to apply is in the case of English nobility, as the GM-ship is inherited.  So maybe we should leave it as-is? MSJapan (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "the GM-ship is inherited"... The Grand Mastership of UGLE is an elected position.  Yes, that jurisdiction has a tradition of electing members of the nobility (and especially the Royal Family), but that isn't a requirement.  Indeed, when the Duke of Kent (the current GM) retires from office, UGLE is going to have a tough time finding a Royal - or even a prominent non-Royal Duke or Earl - to elect (since the 60s, the younger generation of the English nobility has not been that interested in joining the Craft... UK Freemasonry is much more middle class than it used to be.) Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was my error - I thought the GMship was hereditary to the title, but it is not. Actually, though, it's the GM pro tem that does all the work, so it will probably cause that position to go away in favor of a GM who acts directly as such, or they'll simply make a Mason at sight of someone and make them GM, and have the pro tem still go about as usual.
 * That aside, though, I stand by the idea that if the person is notable for something else (like the Duke of Kent, who heads several orders, and has been GM of UGLE for 45 years), that's one thing. Otherwise, no.  I also don't want to end up with "list of GM of X" stuff all over the place, either. MSJapan (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Freemasons
Several years ago, the members of this project agree that having a was problematic. At the time we were faced with constant edit wars, as the category was added to and removed from articles on people who were merely rumored to be Freemasons. This was problematic because there was no way to demand citation with a category. In addition, we agreed that the category was often added in inappropriate situations. Even in cases where the subject of the article was known to be a Freemason, the subject's membership in the fraternity was really nothing more than trivia. Categorizing made it seem like membership in the fraternity was more important than it really was or is.

As a project, we decided that listification was the better route (we could demand sources) and this lead to the creation of our List of Freemasons article. We agreed that it was appropriate to have a small category for those who are notable because they were Freemasons (people like Albert Pike and James Anderson), and so we created. We cleaned out the broader, and brought it up for deletion. It was successfully deleted... but unfortunately that deletion was subsequently overturned. It has taken a while, but I notice that the category is starting to fill up again. I think it is time to discuss the issue again... is being a Freemason something that should be categorized? Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Unless something have changed, we should logically reach the same conclusion; no such category is needed, nor is it desirable. As a side note I've skimmed some of the articles in that category just now; most have a half sentence or so mentioning that the subject was a mason (mostly without citations), one (Thomas Bath) don't even have that much...
 * WegianWarrior (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * One difference between the last time we discussed this (back in 2007) and now... I note that someone has added a notation at the top of the category page, pointing to WP:BLPCAT... The restrictions there should absolutely be applied in cases where the subject is living. Unfortunately, most of the subjects in the category are not living. Blueboar (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Officer Userboxes
I have created a set of officer userboxes...


 * I'm feeling left out here -- SarekOfVulcan, Marshal of Star in the East #60, AF&AM, Old Town, Maine 06:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Very neat! I would say we also need to add the Inside Sentinel, Electrician, and those offices which exist in non-US jurisdictions (Almoner, MC, and so forth). Maybe we should do some for the rest of the major appendant bodies as well? Also, as these technically can be spuriously used, I would suggest not creating GL-related boxen. MSJapan (talk) 06:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What? No box for "Assistant Secretary"? Hmmmph! (sigh... once again its "all the work with none of the recognition"... oh well, back to the salt mines) .  Seriously, these are quite nice.  Do we have a general "brother" userbox for non-officers? Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's take this conversation to User talk:UBX/Freemasonry/LodgeOfficer Eric Cable  |  Talk  15:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Freemasonry as a New religious movement, encyclopedic source
I know that this discussion has been had before. However, the Encyclopedia of Religion edited by Lindsay Jones, which is generally considered one of the best reference sources on religion out there, includes its article on Freemasonry in its synoptic outline in the new religious movements section. I would ask any editors who have access to that source to see if they believe the content of the article might be sufficient cause for Freemasonry to be listed as an NRM here, possibly in the category for same. Also, I note that book in particular made a point of trying to have all of its articles written by members of the "religion" where possible. Whether that means the article on Freemasonry was written by a Freemason, I honestly haven't checked. However, if nothing else, the structure of their article, and the references they include for it, might be of some help to editors here in putting together the main Freemasonry article. John Carter (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree and disagree and disagree. I KNOW there will be those who immediately say “Freemasonry is not a religion.” The real conversation here is “what makes a religion a religion.”  Freemasonry does not promise salvation, which is a major part of most religions. Freemasonry also does not offer forgiveness of one’s sins.  If a mason sleeps with another mason’s wife, there is not (that I am aware of) a way for a mason to do penance for that… he’d be brought up on charges and expelled from the fraternity. Also, and Freemasonry does not tell its members what to believe, it only requires that you believe something. Also, I’ve never had a mason say to me “It’s not Easter, it’s Resurrection Sunday” or something like that.
 * So while it is certainly true that there are a lot of masons who get the majority of their ‘moral compass’ pointing in the Lodge, I do not believe it is a religion just because the book you reference above says it is. Also, you can get into the whole argument of what is a cult, what is a religion, what is a scam (like Scientology in my opinion), etc. etc. Eric Cable  |  Talk  13:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would object to listing Freemasonry as a NRM on two grounds... First, Freemasonry emphatically and repeatedly states that it is not a religious movement, and is not intended to be a religious movement. This is important.  Is there any religious movement in history that has made an equivalent effort to explain that it isn't a religion and objects to being called one?   Second, even if one were to say that, despite the Fraternity's statements of self-identity, it qualifies as a religious movement... I have to question whether it qualifies as a new religious movement. Freemasonry has been around since at least the mid-1600s, after all. Blueboar (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would first note that the phrase "new religious movement" in and of itself has no clear definition that academia has yet agreed upon, although at least one functional definition I have seen is that a new religious movement is simply a religious group of some sort, not necessarily a religion per se, that perhaps has come into being since, roughly, the Reformation and does not have a specific bias, or whatever one might want to call it, toward any extant faith. The phrase "new religious movement" in no way necessarily implies that the group involved is a religion. Also, like I said, I think it would be useful if some editors involved checked the source indicated, which also has articles on many monastic and other type of dedicated religious groups of several religious types. Jesuits and Franciscans would also deny that there group is a "religion", as well, although they have articles in that source. For all I remember, the Knights of Columbus or similar groups might be included as well. Also, like I said, I think the encyclopedic entry in that source might, perhaps, serve as a reasonable basis for the structure of perhaps the main Freemasonry article here, and that perhaps the bibliography might be a good basis regarding which sources are and are not considered among the better sources available on the subject. I really wish people had made a bit more of a visible attempt to read the first post here than is indicated by some of the comments above. John Carter (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think if you were to add something that says Freemasonry is a religion to the main Freemasonry article, then every mason on Wikipedia will race each-other to change it because we have all at some point had to emphatically tell a spouse, parent, boss, etc. that Freemasonry is not a religion. Eric Cable  |  Talk  17:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't speak for other Masons on Wikipedia, but I would change it not because of anything I personally might have done or said... (that would be POV and OR) I would change it because the Fraternity itself explicitly and verifiably self-identifies as "Not-Religion".  It may well be the only organization in the world that explicitly self-identifies by what it is not, rather than what it is... but then Freemasonry is a unique institution in many other ways as well. Blueboar (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am very much amused by the fact that all the comments to date relate to whether Freemasonry is a religion, which was never even indicated in my comments which started this thread. A new religious movement is not necessarily a religion, and I don't think I ever said it was, although that assumption seems to be one that seems to be the only point others see fit to comment upon. I have I believe said that already, but, evidently, that comment was not seen. Also, I note that the book itself, Jones' Encyclopedia of Religion, is counted as among the most reliable on the general area of religion, and among the core collection for that general subject. My primary point was actually that there is an entry on the subject in one of the most highly regarded reference sources currently available. I regret that all the responses to this thread to date seem to only interested in repeating the statements of Freemasonry itself, which seems to me to be contrary to wikipedia policies. FWIW, so far as I can tell, having not myself actually read the articles, like I already said, I believe that Freemasonry might be included in the NRM topical outline because it is one of, if not the, first groups which more or less posits religious beliefs for its members without dictating what those beliefs should be. Many NRMs are rather syncretic in nature, allowing what had been earlier beliefs which were not necessarily held by earlier groups within a given denominational tradition, and I think perhaps that is why it might be included. But, evidently, it is perhaps less important to actually examine the sources than to simply repeat what seem to be unrelated points. My apologies for perhaps thinking it might be worth the time for editors to actually examine the source indicated, and now realize it may in fact have been a mistake to assume any other members might even be willing to do so. John Carter (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "more or less posits religious beliefs for its members"... Absolutely NOT. Freemasonry does NOT posit religious beliefs for its members... in any way, shape or form.  Blueboar (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I misphrased. I am sorry that you so quickly rushed to make a judgement, by the way. You yourself, Blueboar, have stated many times that Freemasonry has historically indicated that its members must have a belief in a god. That being the case, although my phrasing might have been faulty, and I apologize there, I find the all to evident immediate rush to disagree a rather clear violation of WP:AGF. One might have at least asked for clarification. John Carter (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Quoting John Cater - the Reformation and does not have a specific bias, or whatever one might want to call it, toward any extant faith. ... I would say the reformation was a politio/religious movement whereby there was a reasonable expectation something 'new' would be greated, or a break from the past in a religious sense achieved by reforming a religion internally. That was done soley in the context of the Christian faith and would that not mean it had a Christian focus, or bias ? I would think so. There is no expectation of that in Freemasonry in an organisational sense - no intention to create a new organisation or philosphy (whether religious OR otherwise). Indeed, the inherit conservatism of Freemasonry would see that rejected by most members and certainly peak bodies....


 * 'the Knights of Columbus or similar groups might be included as well they well may be included in 'NRM' the knights being a secterian religious organisation restricted to catholics.
 * Personally, I cant see how Freemasonry could be a NRM (even not having defined it) because a lodge which made such a move would be declaired irregular and ejected from any regular GL system. As an aside, books on Freemasonry are often in "spiritual" and "religion" section of bookstores - reflecting the general misunderstanding about Freemasonry.


 * Can anyone give an example of actual regular freemasons using Freemasonry as a NRM? Would non-freemasons viewing it like that (assuming some non-freemasons do) have a place in this artilce ? I think not.Melbournemason (talk) 02:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not see how the view of Freemasons would even necessarily be of primary importance. There are any number of groups which do not self-identify as something, even though they are regularly regarded as that same thing by outside entities. Again, the emphasis is on independent reliable sources in wikipedia, isn't it? John Carter (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I know the pentecostal movement vehemently rejects the notion that Christianity is a religion. __meco (talk) 07:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's made very clear. MSJapan (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC) striking through comment to avoid misunderstanding due to refactoring by meco via inserting comments inside of completed threads, vis a vis that my reply was not to a comment on Pentecostalism.
 * What is far from clear, though, is what part of John Carter's original post you are responding to. Could you clarify on that point? __meco (talk) 07:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not correct. I have reviewed my previous four, consecutive comments in this thread, and none of them consists of inserting a comment inside a completed thread. I can only surmise that you are identifying this edit as an injection between your response above and the comment to which you were responding. However, if that is the case you are the only one at fault since your comment bearing a level 1 indentation by necessity is a response to the only post that isn't indented, i.e. John Carter's original post. To avoid anything like this happening to you again you should appraise yourself of the information at WP:INDENT. Also, if you meant to outdent a response to the most indented comment (that being John Carter's post which starts out "I do not see how the view of Freemasons") the correct way to do that would be using the Outdent template. __meco (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I find your initiative considered and believe you provide sufficient reason why freemasonry should be classified as a New Religious Movement. However, as you have so blatantly observed here, this may not be an unbiased, open-minded venue for airing such thoughts, rather this project's membership primarily sees itself as gatekeepers and apologists against the profane wanting to edit articles within their perceived ownership. I haven't actually made up my mind whether it is simply about holding on to a conviction no matter what contrary evidence may exist or emerge, feeble-mindedness, or an insidious underhandedness employing known suppression techniques and fallacies. Reality is that your post is not being addressed on its merits, its facts are simply ignored, and instead a discussion of straw man arguments is conducted to refute your argument as baseless.


 * My suggestion is that, rather than attempting to elicit reason and consensus from this project, you make the initiative on the talk page of the freemasonry article directly, and when you are met with aforementioned reactions from ensconced members of this project, you call on WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN, WP:RFC and similar resources not associated with the topic itself. __meco (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that this project, and its more dedicated members, seem to have rather serious POV problems, and that potentially such POV pushing could be seen as its primary reason for existence. Personally, that being the case, I would also have to wonder whether it itself is in accord with policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In an effort to bring some clarity to this discussion, and avoiding the personalisation immediately above, would it be useful to actually find a definition for NRM, rather than trying to situate the appreciation.
 * I do find it difficult to reconcile the notion but I can equally understand why some would insist that Freemasonry fits their understanding, a consequence of not actually having a definition.
 * ALR (talk) 08:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be wonderful if there were a clear definition of the phrase NRM, but it is a new phrase and idea and, at this time, there is no particular definition of NRM which has gained broad acceptance in the academic community. I remember having a discussion with Cirt about this some time ago. At that point, when getting together the List of new religious movements, when we were discussing what was to be included in the list, the only thing he could suggest was that, if one or more of the encyclopedic sources dedicated to the topics of NRMs, like the Historical Dictionary of new religious movements, call it one, then it is one. And I tend to agree that, given what Meco has indicated is the clear bias of the more dedicated members of this project, there may be no good cause to turn to it for input which places policies and guidelines first. John Carter (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I also note that my original post contained the suggestion to ask the editors here to review the source indicated. I notice, for all the rather heated responses, there has been no indication on the part of any of them that they would even consider doing so. I find such a refusal to even apparently consider looking at highly regarded reference sources extremely unfortunate. John Carter (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't assume... I looked to see if it was available (for free) on line ... gave up when I found it wasn't. Lazy, perhaps... but I did make an attempt. Blueboar (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Extremely lazy, actually. The source was only published about seven years ago. It is included in virtually every substantial reference section I have ever seen of both public and college libraries, being the shelf-long series in white covers with gold lettering. And I wonder whether such laziness to verify sources is something you and the other potentially POV editors here find reasonable? John Carter (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven’t found a free version of the source, and can’t say I am particularly compelled to continue my search as ultimately it would be one source making a claim against hundreds that would state the exact opposite. I also have to say I’m a bit disappointed in the near immediate accusations of bad faith that have come so quickly in this discussion. PeRshGo (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, it was only published a few years ago - I doubt there would be one. Maybe someone here could be bothered to actually look in a library? Or, again, is that asking too much of you all? John Carter (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding the immediate accusations of bad faith by meco above there is some scope to discuss the issue, however I'm not entirely convinced that the approach here is particularly productive; here's an idea go and do the relevant work yourselves... If the source is available to everyone then share that please.  I have to say that I'm not inclined to put much more effort into pursuing sourcing for something that I don't see much mileage in, particularly as the "sheer weight of numbers in a vote" route has been jumped to as quickly in the discussion as it has done.
 * Given that there appears to be no definition for the term I can see how this will end up.
 * We're in a very unfortunate situation with the various positions that people entrench themselves in with respect to the subject, the crux of the issue being regularity and what we mean by that. In this instance I can pretty much forecast how the various arguments for an against pan out, so it will just come down to weight of numbers in a vote:
 * The assertion is in one tertiary source, although as there are other sources that assert a religious nature the substance of that evidence is largely irrelevant. You can throw sources at the assertion and not worry too much about whether they're representative.
 * The suggestion above is that Freemasonry requires it's candidates to have a belief in a Supreme Being, whilst making no value judgement on that SB, therefore that constitutes a religious movement. Personally I find that a bit tenuous but as I said above I can understand why some would find that a convenient peg to hang the issue on.
 * The point is made above that any organisation that removes the SB requirement would be considered irregular therefore not Freemasonry as far as most Freemasons are concerned. However there is precedent to consider any organisation that calls itself Masonic to represent Freemasonry.  Personally I don't like that as it means that we've moved very far from a definition of what Freemasonry is, hence the issues around the main article, however there have been enough votes to set the precedent.  A more nuanced view is, by now, impossible.
 * The various contributors who self identify as Masons are inherently assumed to be acting in bad faith therefore anything said by one of us is suspect. As observed by two contributions above.  Tedious and unproductive but a well worn path, and largely the reason I rarely involve myself in this project any more, frankly I got sick of the accusations and offensive treatment.
 * Fwiw I wouldn't describe my own response as particularly heated, I only asked for a definition. It would be nice if you'd bothered trying to sell the idea rather than just impose it.
 * So we can take one of two routes now, sell the idea by explaining your thinking and substantiating it, or force it down the votes route. Which is your preference?
 * ALR (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I once again notice how individuals here are free to make judgements about my own conjectures without apparently reading adequately either the source itself or me. If anyone actually bothered to read the start of this thread, which I am very much beginning to doubt, I explicitly said that I had not consulted the source myself yet, in large part because of the rather regular attempts over the years that I have seen here to insist that only the views of Freemasonry itself be given any particular weight. Once again, I am beginning to seriously wonder whether the members here are actually trying to improve the relevant articles in an encyclopedic fashion, or are simply looking for a excuse to continue to push an internal POV. John Carter (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I did indeed read your entire statement, and nowhere do you indicate you had not read it. You in fact came across as saying, "I read it, and I think you should look at it too, because it says this." So, if you had not read the source, why did you speak as if you had? "However, the Encyclopedia of Religion edited by Lindsay Jones, which is generally considered one of the best reference sources on religion out there, includes its article on Freemasonry in its synoptic outline in the new religious movements section." indicates to me that you had read the item in question.  How can you then enter into an argument in favor of a minority position and assume that Freemasonry is NRM without knowing what the essay actually says?  For all you know, it could say "while incorrectly considered an NRM, Freemasonry is not, but many NRMs draw on it."  You were, at the very least, unclear in your communication, and you now seek to blame "POV pushing editors" for your lack of clarity.


 * Secondly, I think the issue is that many of the editors feel that you are pushing a FRINGE idea. Despite many other sources we already have that indicate the contrary, you are taking the position that "Freemasonry is a new religious movement"; otherwise you would not have brought up the source in the manner in which you did. In short, you see what you want to see, and not what is actually there.


 * I also think that editors here are not happy with what they perceive as unwarranted personal attacks by you simply because your point of view was not accepted. The actual unmitigated truth is this: Freemasonry is unequivocally not a religion, and accepts men of all faiths.  Therefore, without any religious analogues of its own, it cannot be a religious movement of any kind. If "belief in a Supreme Being of one's choice" is a religious tenet, you might as well call all political offices and court proceedings in the US and elsewhere "religious movements" as all electees to offices and witnesses who testify are required to swear an oath on a Bible or other sacred text in many countries around the world. MSJapan (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure if that was a response to my post as it hasn't really addressed anything I raised, but as it's indented against it I have to assume that it is. I am trying to be as open minded about this as possible, but I'm not getting a warm feeling about that being reciprocated at the moment.
 * Let me try this again, in an effort to focus on the suggestion...
 * What makes you think that you might be able to justify the categorisation and associated edits to a range of articles?
 * If you think it has mileage then I'd like to hear you sell the idea, please.
 * ALR (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Out of interest - has anyone read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_religious_movement ? I note text in that article says modern origin - would 1717 as a date for the formation of GLE by existant lodges or reforms of the early 1800's to ritual be seem as modern ? Would which has a peripheral place within the dominant religious culture apply to Freemasonry ? Given no one, including John Catern has read "Encyclopedia of Religion edited by Lindsay Jones" or can access it, the wiki artilce might be of use.Melbournemason (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is unclear as to what constitutes a NRM. So I don't think we can use it to settle this question.  I suggest that we all step back... and table the issue until someone actually locates a copy of the Encyclopedia of Religion... and can tell us what it actually says.  ALR MSJapan has a valid point... we have all been assuming it says that Freemasonry is a NRM... but for all we know it may actually say it isn't one. Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That was me, but I'll let ALR take the credit. :) He should have left a space, as our comments are sort of run together otherwise. Considering I have seen several instances of incorrect statements about sources based on a lack of perusal of source aforesaid, let's find it and then deal with it. MSJapan (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Mea Culpa... Noted and corrected :>) Blueboar (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

List of Freemasons... proposed split into smaller sub-articles
It has been proposed that the List of Freemasons article is getting overly long, and should be split into smaller sub-articles. Comments from the project members are requested. Please see: Talk:List of Freemasons and comment there. Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"Rising Sun Lodge 29" has been accessed a Start Class status. It is submissible for the WikiProject Alabama? As Always, Thank You!Cnhudson (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Karl Gotthelf von Hund
I needed to access information on Karl Gotthelf von Hund, and ended up expanding the one sentence stub on English Wikipedia using material from the German article, since I had to translate it anyway. As his only claim to notability is Masonic, and his Rite of Strict Observance is already part of the project, I assume that his absence from the project's lists is just an oversight. What is the etiquette for placing a WikiProject Freemasonry banner on an article?Fiddlersmouth (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The question in my mind is whether Hund is really notable enough for Wikipedia to have a stand-alone article devoted to him... if his only claim to notability is that he invented a Masonic Rite, then WP:ONEEVENT may apply. Perhaps we should consider merging the bio article on Hund with the article on his Rite (or vise-verse)...with appropriate redirects so readers looking for information on either the Rite or its creator can find what they are looking for.
 * And it would certainly be appropriate to place the project banner on such a merged article. Blueboar (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The whole notability thing rests on this being the first attempt to massage the Templars into Masonic ritual. The Strict Observance article is one paragraph long, and there probably isn't much more to say about it. If this became a paragraph under Hund, redirect set up, and a deletion request raised for the Rite of Strict Observance, is this the way to go about it? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My point was that the articles should be merged... The next question is how to merge them. Should we merge the article on the person into the article on the Rite, or vice-verse?  To figure that out we need to assess which is more notable (the Rite or the Person who created it).  It may be that they are about equally notable... if so, I would suggest merging them under a combined descriptive title - something like: Karl Gotthelf von Hund and the Rite of Strict Observance. Just an idea. Blueboar (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am starting to think that a merge may come back to haunt the project. While Strict Observance had a short lifespan, it had a wide influence, and left footprints all over Europe, especially in Sweden. Someone, sometime, is going to want to explore that. (It seems my earlier comment of "isn't much more to say" was a bit premature.) On the other hand, merging a biography into an article on a rite could just end up being messy. Perhaps the more sensible options, from the point of view of maintenance, would be to either leave things as they are, or adopt Hund. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What aspect of a merger would "haunt the project"? Remember, things are not fixed in stone on Wikipedia.  A merger would not necessarily have to be permanent.  If someone comes up with more information (and sources) to write an expanded stand-alone article on the Rite, or an expanded stand alone bio article on on Hund, we could always break the two topics apart again.  Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm just expressing my innate idleness in a solution that requires the least work. Karl Gotthelf von Hund and the Rite of Strict Observance sounds just fine.Fiddlersmouth (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Created Start class, low priority, redirects in place.Fiddlersmouth (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Article in need of better sourcing
Chamber of Reflection needs some sources, and some clean up. I don't know the best sources, but perhaps others will. Blueboar (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The article seems to have been simply cut and pasted from the British Columbia and Yukon site http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/gmd1999/pondering.html Fiddlersmouth (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not good (potential copyright vio). Sounds like a rewrite is in order.  That said, it would be nice to get additional sources... any ideas? Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This doesn't happen in our jurisdiction, and I've only been vaguely aware of the Chamber until now. So far, I've only got to the above link, the solitary ref in the article, and the French wikipedia article http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_de_r%C3%A9flexion .Fiddlersmouth (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't use them in NY either... I get the idea that having Chambers of Reflection is essentially an archaic practice... they were somewhat popular back in the 1800s (appealing to the Victorian Era's obsession with death), but they are now rare. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah... according to the BC&Y article.... it is apparently still used in some in European and South American Rites. In a modern context, this may be more of a "continental Freemasonry" vs "anglo-american Freemasonry" thing. Blueboar (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely looks like a Grand Orient thing. GOdF use the same symbols as da Costa describes. Can't find a source on origin yet, but from the alchemical stuff, Cagliostro might be a starting point, as the Egyptian rite uses the Chamber. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * First sentence is from Mackey. Am I right in thinking the US Scottish Rite doesn't usually take in blue lodges? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is pretty good for just reading about it, but I don't think it's such a good cite for Wikipedia. I will say that here in North Carolina it is not a common practice, and definaetly not used in initiations. That being said, more and more people around here are getting into Esoterism and Kabbalah and becoming more interested in it.  I for one plan to build one into one of the upstairs closets in my garage as a place for me to be able to sit and study Masonic materials or just plain read, etc. without the distractions of bieng in the house.  Eric Cable  |  Talk  12:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I've wiped out the copyright stuff and replaced it. Not so much an article as a bijou articlette. There is hardly anything out there on origins, tons on the symbolism, mainly highly personal. The few sentences I gleaned on history were all in French. The Symbolism section badly needs revisiting, hopefully referenced from an article better versed in alchemy than Bro da Costa. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I just created a bunch of vector graphics for officer jewels, etc.

 * Caution... I think most of these are common between all jurisdictions... but some may be limited to only a few jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions may use different jewels for the lower officers (or no jewel at all). Blueboar (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I can say with certainty that the Norwegian Order of Freemasons uses different jewels - and I'm going to assume that the other jurisdictions using the Swedish Rite uses similiar jewles to what we do in Norway... just saying; the grafics themselves are very nicely done. WegianWarrior (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I really disliike the treasurer one. I think I will re-do it. Eric Cable |  Talk  13:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Robert L. Caruthers
Is there a name for the star-clad thing he is wearing in the lede image? Bms4880 (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That could be his Grand Master's collar, but I'm not sure what the one for Tennessee looks like. MSJapan (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah... the item around his neck in the image is generically called a "collar". Many fraternal organizations have adopted collars for their various officers to wear (others use a heavy chain, but the idea is the same)... The big disk attached to the bottom of the collar is known as a "Jewel" (and indicates which office the person holds). Most organizations will use the same style of collar (or chain) for all their officers (uniformity of look), the only difference being which jewel is attached... but it is not unheard of for the head of the organization (what ever that officer is called: "Grand Poobah", "Supreme Commander", etc) to have a slightly fancier collar than everyone else. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning Irish grand orient lodges in GOdF article
I need someone who is familiar with Continental Freemasonry and the Grand Orient de France to review a discussion at Talk:Grand Orient de France (and related edits at the article). The issue is whether it is appropriate to list a group of lodges in Ireland in the section on "Lodges chartered by GODF outside France"... from what I can gather looking at the relevant webpages, the GOdF chartered a few lodges in Ireland, which subsequently have formed their own Grand Orient (the Grand Masonic Orient of Ireland). My understanding is that the section is designed to list lodges outside of France that are currently under direct GOdF jurisdiction... and I think the connection between GOdF and the lodges in question is more historical in nature.

I have tried to discuss my concerns with the IP editor who wants to include the lodges in the list... but he simply accuses me of having an "anglo" bias and says I do not understand how Continental Freemasonry works. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I do admire your patience. Yer man with the IP address in Virginia had two of GOI/GMOI/GMOIRL's lodges left in the wrong section. The Irish Grand Orient is probably going to warrant an article of its own. Until then, I think that the presence of GOdF as midwife during its recent birth warrants its presence here. I've clarified the context. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Fiddler... I am less sure that GMOIRL is notable enough for a stand alone article (not sure it would pass WP:ORG), but that is a separate issue. Your edit at least clarifies the current connection between GMOIRL and GOdF (which is an improvement).
 * The next question is this: I assume that GOdF has "signed a treaty of amity, and presented patents for its degrees and rituals" to lots and lots of Continental style Grand Orients, all over the world... so what makes the fact that they did so with GMOIRL unique enough to make it worth mentioning this particular case in the GOdF article?  Doesn't singling out GMOIRL for mention give it WP:UNDUE weight? Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

RESOLVED... (I hope). Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

List of Masonic Grand Lodges
The continued existence of this article requires some serious thought. We have something like 78 references for much more than that in terms of entries. Numbers of lodges and membership numbers are mostly unsourced, and we have groups that literally have one lodge on that list. MSJapan (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah... and it continues to have WP:NOT (index/link farm) concerns as well. On the other hand... It is a great way to visually show people how Freemasonry isn't one monolithic body.  Also, I remember how difficult it is to explain to people who are not knowledgeable about Freemasonry how one Grand Lodge can be notable while another isn't (a lot of people are somewhat familiar with UGLE and the various American GLs... and they assume anything that calls itself a "Grand Lodge" is some huge important organization that governs lots and lots of Masons).  This list has helped visually explain the issue.
 * The question is... how do we fix the problem without loosing the benefit?  Blueboar (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent additions to the cats that are problematic

 * Emmanuil Xanthos - no citation, article does not even say he was a Mason
 * On the "article does not even say he was a Mason", well pre-cat article (unchanged since) says "he was initiated in the Freemasonic Lodge of Lefkada". As far as not being cited, the first citation in the references is an academic article "Freemasonry in Greece: Secret History Revealed".  I've made sure that the citation is linked to the claim.  Is this really a problem edit?  JASpencer (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks JAS... I stand corrected. (I have some concerns about the reliability of the source... but that is a different issue... both the statement and the source were there. I just missed them in my quick review). Blueboar (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

These will do for now... I will continue to note problematic additions. Blueboar (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Alphonse Mucha - questionable citation (calls Freemasonry a secret society)
 * Philippe Buonarroti - no citation
 * Michele Moramarco - article says he writes on Masonic topics, not that he is a Freemason
 * Thomas John Barnardo - article does not mention his Masonry... we list him on the list as "British" but he is categorized as "Irish" Freemason
 * Geoffrey Taylour, 4th Marquess of Headfort - article says he joined UGLE lodge (cited)... categorized as "Irish" Freemason
 * John McCurdy (architect) - article claims he is a Freemason in Ireland, no citation
 * Oscar Wilde - joined an English lodge in Oxford - categorized as Irish Freemason
 * Alexander Labzin - article claims he was a Freemason - no citation given
 * Nikolay Novikov - claim is sourced, but source is questionable. (Might be fringe Mason several of the people categorized under "Russian Freemasons" seem to have been the old Right of Strict Observance)
 * Alexandru Sturdza - no claim in article that she was a mason, no source to support cat
 * Alexander I of Yugoslavia - article does not mention masonic membership... is listed on our list, but with a citation needed tagged (was supported by a Serbian GL website, now dead)
 * Salvador Allende - no mention of Freemasonry in his bio article. We list him on the list (cited to GL California website)


 * This one has to be mentioned...
 *   has been added to Category:Italian Freemasons.
 * While sort of quasi-accurate... it is very misleading and highly POV. Blueboar (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What? Aren't they freemasons, isn't P2 Italian?  JASpencer (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Italian, sure. Freemasons... less so - at the very least after 1976 when their charter was withdrawn. Grand Orient of Italy made the argument in '81 that the P2 had ceased to exist as a Masonic Lodge in '74. But I suspect you know all this... assuming you have read Wikipedia's article on Propaganda Due. WegianWarrior (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I:t's actually a more complicated situation... A lot depends on when they joined the lodge... From 1945 to 1974 P2 operated under the jurisdiction of the Grand Orient of Italy. There is some debate as to the lodges status between 1974 and 1976... but after 1976 when P2's charter was officially withdrawn, there is no debate.  The lodge became a pseudo-Masonic, "black", or "covert" lodge operating illegally (by both Masonic and Italian definitions of "Illegal").  Thus, anyone who joined the lodge prior to 1974 can legitimately be called a Freemason (although many were suspended or expelled later).  Those who were initiated in the lodge from 1974 to 1976 are questionable, and those who were initiated after 1976 can not be considered Freemasons.  To add a further complication (and in Freemasonry it seems there is always a "further complication") some of the members of P2 during the "black" era were Freemasons in other Italian lodges, or lodges in other countries... so these members were Freemasons, no matter when they joined P2.  Like I said... complicated. Blueboar (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

More: (NOTE... the Overcat issue probably applies to most of the people in the "English Freemasons" and "American Freemasons" cats... so I will stop listing them. You get the idea.) Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * James Anderson (Freemason) - English? or Scottish?
 * Leo Amery - article does not mention membership - WP:Overcategorization based on trivia?
 * Edward Andrade - article does not mention membership - WP:Overcategorization based on trivia?
 * Edward Victor Appleton - article does not mention membership - Overcategorization based on trivia?
 * Joseph Banks - article does not mention membership - Overcategorization based on trivia?

More categorization problems
I note that every article listed in is also automatically tagged with the category. I question whether all these people really made any significant "contribution to Freemasonry".

But there is a more complex issue... for some reason, our article on History of Freemasonry in Russia (which is not really about people at all) gets tagged with the same cat. I think there is some automatic linking buried in the various templates or category pages... a glitch perhaps, but I can not figure out where the glitch is occurring. Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)