Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry/Archive 6

Help needed to build an article
I have been working on a (potential) article that explains the nuances of Masonic recognition and regularity (See: User:Blueboar/drafts - Masonic recongnition and regularity)... and I have hit a serious snag. Finding sources.

I know the information is accurate, and I think it is presented well (if I do say so myself). But for the life of me, I can not find a single secondary source to support it (there are a few primary sources, but even they are few and far between). It seems to be one of those Masonic topics that nobody puts down in writing anywhere. Any suggestions (or actual citations) would be appreciated. Blueboar (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've had similar problems in other articles - it's in my ritual book, but not in the public domain. I'd be tempted to start with Anderson's charges and Mackey's landmarks and work outwards, illustrating with examples which are easier to nail down than statements of principle. The UGLE book of constitutions has a modern version of the charges - http://www.ugle.org.uk/about/book-of-constitutions - which is the closest thing to a definition of regularity that we have here. Rule 176 under Private lodges specifies exclusion for attending incompatible organisations. We don't use clandestine.
 * On regularity, while we have regular & irregular organisations within masonry, it is perfectly possible for an ordinary, regularly warranted lodge to become irregular through the absence of a single officer, and any initiation, passing or raising done in such a lodge would be deemed irregular. Again, in my ritual book etc, but I can cite the rebellion of the Grand Lodge of Wigan over the minimum number of members in a lodge. I put a short piece on this at the end of Antient Grand Lodge of England. If I fall over anything else, I'll put it on your talk page. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Freemasons with criminal convictions
A new category has popped up today - Category:Freemasons with criminal convictions - and I noticed it because I got one of the articles that was added to it by the category creator. Thoughts, opinions? Personally I am inclined to believe it's an "attack category" meant to smear the fraternity, but that's at least partly based on a certain article added to the cat (the guy might been a member of the Order, but he proved by his actions that he was far from a Mason) and party by the userboxes displayed by the creator of said category.

I find it hard to assume good faith here, so I'll just take a step back for a while and see what other people think about the whole thing. WegianWarrior (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Hard to assume good faith" is wonderfully polite. It looks like cheap points scoring, and I'm sure the creator would be equally offended by categories for paedophile priests and popes implicated in mass murder. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've CSDed them both, and notified the author that his editing is inappropriate. Only one person in the American subcat was even named to be a Freemason in their article; one was in there because "he was rumored to have resurrected by the Grand Lodge of Minnesota."  Whoever believes that is sufficient revidence of membership has a competency issue, and I don't mean in the restricted to Wikipedia sense of the word.  Also, for future reference for AfD if the CSD gets chucked out for whatever reason - "Attack page, and spuriously sourced.  "convicted of a crime" is anything from murder to shoplifting (Oscar Wilde is on here because of his homosexuality conviction).  I'm not touching any of the entries here just so folks can see the nature of the content, but I will point out that none of the entries in the American subcat except for Don King even mentioned Freemasonry, and from a brief look at what's in the main cat, Breivik is not a Freemason, Gelli was expelled, Wilde quit of his own accord well before his trial.  Pritchard left the country in which he was a member and was broke, so probably was not, Armstrong's membership is unsourced. Seddon's article says he quit a year after he joined, etc. So apart from the attack page, it's not even got the right people in it.  "Freemason" is also listed in a parent cat of "Occupation", which it is not." MSJapan (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like we will have to do this the hard way... the CSDs were declined, so we will have to do a formal CfD nomination. One thing to point out in addition to the "Attack page" argument... the categories are a form of over-categorization because being a Freemason and having a criminal conviction have no logical connection with each other.  Each part ("Freemasons" and "People with criminal convictions") makes a justifiable category on its own, but joining the two together is an over reach.  It would be like having a category for "UCLA Alumni with criminal convictions"... or "Episcopalians with criminal convictions"... or "Iraq War veterans with criminal convictions".   Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. MSJapan (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For those who wish to comment... the CfD discussion is at Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 19... you can also get there through the CfD Notification tag at Category:Freemasons with criminal convictions. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

A good time to check all the cats
As long as we are looking at cats... this is probably a good time to review all the Masonry related categories... we tend not to pay enough attention to them as a project. Are there any that should be merged or renamed? Are the cats being applied to appropriate articles? etc. Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 'Oh well... so much for good intentions. I did some clean up on Category:Masonic Lodges which opened a can of worms... Doncram is involved ... so some of you may need to stay away (or at least be very careful).  For the rest of you, please swing by and join the discussion at the category talk page. Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC notice
Members of this project may wish to comment on an RFC at the Talk:Pythagoras Lodge No. 41, Free and Accepted Masons article. The RFC relates to the scope of the article and categorization. Blueboar (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Masonic buildings again
I'm tired of arguments over stub articles that will forever remain such because they meet a foolish notability guideline but can't be sourced (as far as GNG is concerned) due to lack of information. Therefore, I've opened a discussion on the matter at WP:NRHP if anyone is interested in commenting. MSJapan (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Dunckerley
Much as I would love to, it is impossible write the history of Mark, Royal Arch, or Templar masonry without Thomas Dunckerley. I would like to add this article to the project. Any opinions? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In the absence of any feedback, I've put the project tag on the talk page of the article. It seems he introduced Mark Masonry to southern Britain, organised the English Templars, and personally installed the first Canadian PGM while on active service with the Royal Navy. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity... why do you say "Much as I would love to..."? Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about delay. It is looking increasingly likely that Dunckerley's life was based on an elaborate fraud, and the history of the period is complicated enough already. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that this project is a viable one and should be undertaken. I can appreciate your concern following the recent revelations following the publication of Dr Susan Sommers’ Book: Thomas Dunkerley and English Freemasonry, Pickering and Chatto, 2012, (ISBN 978 1 84893 358 3). This book, following her research, reveals that Dunkerley’s widely accepted claim that he was an illegitimate son of George II, is untrue. Certainly this could be something that 19th and 20th century biographers have elaborated on, and I believe is the only questionable issue with respect to his life. However, this book also documents his successful career in the Royal Navy and later on as a lawyer, as well as his involvement in Freemasonry, all of which have been documented elsewhere. Whilst earlier biographies of Dunkerley’s life have mention of a royal connection, for completeness both sides of the story should be mentioned in the references. Better still, whilst I have cited details from the synopsis of the Dr Sommers’ book, for completeness it should be read, in order to appreciate the research and amongst other things the documentary evidence obtained to verify the myth of his Royal connection.Aquizard (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2013(UTC)
 * I would love to write MUCH more about Dunckerley, but his parentage is not the only question mark, and my current opinion is largely OR and inadmissible as material here. The unique flavour of the Bristol ritual is probably his own doing. The spread of Chapter and the acceptance and organisation of Templar masonry, undoubtedly his work, I suspect was in the traditioner lodges of the Premier GL. He also attempted to introduce swords into some of his lodges, which horrified his superiors, and probably owed a lot to 18th century French ritual. There is still much about Bro Thomas that has yet to be written. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Maintenance!
There's a lot of stubs in the cat. Anybody got an interest in splitting the List of Grand Lodges into articles by obedience, and maybe by doing that we can knock out the unexpandable stubs and maybe say something about the individual groups within the scope of the larger overarching article? We could do with some improvement on the various Rectified Rites in particular, but there's no way any of them meet GNG individually because they're too small.

I'm going to CFD the Freemasons by nationality parent and request a wipe of the whole tree without upmerge - it's getting to the point where we have things like "Tanzanian Freemasons." If somebody has Freemasonry as a defining cat (Preston, Sayer, Morris, etc), it can go in the main Freemasons cat (that's what it's for). Otherwise it's trivia. MSJapan (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Good luck. Blueboar (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The list of Grand Lodges is useful... I use it in AfD discussions to illustrate to non-Masons that their assumptions about Grand Lodges are not always correct. (they often think all Grand Lodges are the same, and the list is a clear way to show that they are not).  So I would not split it up into obedience.  That said, I do think some of the stub Grand Lodge articles need to be reviewed/consolidated/nominated for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Need a UGLE history buff...
There is a particular Freemasons Arms article that indicates said building was demolished to make way for the UGLE building, and the current one is something else. #1 apparently was the site of the founding of several societies, as well as the FA. It seems circumstantially possible that it was used as a meeting site for UGLE (or one of its predecessors). Can somebody dig into this and see if we can't bulk that out a bit if there's anything to it? MSJapan (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This Freemason's Arms has been around since at least 1807, so there is no link to the Freemason's Tavern which was demolished in 1864 to make way for the extension to Freemason's Hall (the extension is now the Connaught Rooms, the hall itself being rebuilt in the 1920s). Sorry, no link to any Grand Lodge. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

RM discussions on Masonic Lodge/buildings
See: Talk:Pythagoras Lodge No. 41, Free and Accepted Masons. Blueboar (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC) (DONE - not moved)

Also: Talk:Masonic Temple (New Britain, Connecticut) Blueboar (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC) (Done - Moved)


 * And another Armstrong Lodge No. 26, A.F. & A.M. proposed move to Newport Masonic Hall. Blueboar (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And Columbian Lodge No. 7 Free and Accepted Masons - proposed move to Flowers Building. Blueboar (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Masonic Temple Building (Oak Park, Illinois) --> Scoville Square Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Towanda Masonic Lodge No. 30 A.F. and A.M. - Proposed move to Towanda Area Historical Museum. Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Third party input needed at Talk:Square and Compasses
Slow edit war. See the chain of edits starting with this diff - the issue is whether the sources are reliable, and whether the addition is WP:UNDUE. Discussion is on talk page. Please drop by and share your views. Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

International Secretariat of the Masonic Adogmatic Powers
Both of this organisation's websites have disappeared. I can guess that it lost its relevance when its founders rejoined CLIPSAS, but I can't find any evidence of its dissolution. Its members no longer mention it on their websites. At present, then, claiming it has disappeared or become moribund is OR. Does anybody have ANY news of SIMPA in the last 2-3 years? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Article clean up required
A relatively new user, Jax MN (talk) has proposed adding the List of Masonic Grand Lodges to the main Freemasonry template. I have objected - with the caveat that my objection is temporary... I agree that the list should eventually be added (it is the sort of thing that is usually added to a template), but it has too many problems with verifiability and POV that it should not be added in its current state.

The obvious solution, of course, is to bring the list into a state where it can be added to the template. So... I am calling on the project to assemble and help improve the list... The first step is to improve sources and citations. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

There are a LOT of what I would call clandestine organizations on that list. Eric Cable |  Talk  17:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah... one of the problems with the list is defining what should and should not be listed. The major GLs (from both Anglo/US and Continental factions) are no brainers... but beyond that it starts getting tricky.  Regularity obviously would not work... Recognition does not work because there are some GLs that are not recognized by anyone other than themselves... and yet in practice are perfectly regular.  Yet without some sort of inclusion criteria we end up listing everyone, everywhere that even remotely claims to be a "Masonic Grand Lodge"... which includes scam artists and fringe groups (and, of course, the scam artists and fringe groups will insist that they are legit).  Not sure what the solution to that dilemma is. Blueboar (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * UGLE has a comprehensive list of the GLs that it recognises. CLIPSAS is now a major indication of who's talking to whom in the liberal/don't fit world, and has a list. If it isn't on either list, notability criteria can be applied as strictly as you like. Just a suggestion. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you exclude any of the GLs on this list? Blueboar (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a useful list. Column one good, column two we seem to be treating as a unitary body, I'd say column three needs picked through with extreme caution by somebody with a lot of time on their hands. It has been uncritically added to the list, so the question is, is it simpler to clean up the North American section or to start again? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The question I have is... can we be more critical and yet maintain neutrality. Once we start to sift through a source and say "this one is OK, but that one is not", where do we stop? Blueboar (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

This being a fair point, where do we stand on embittered cranks who fell out with their local masons and are now running a "Grand Lodge" from their spare bedroom? The least we ought to do is check that the GLs on the list still exist. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could include in our list a column "Recognized by the UGLE as being regular" with a value of yes/no. Eric Cable  |  Talk  13:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That gives undue weight to UGLE (UGLE is not the be-all-and-end-all of Freemasonry... even "regular" Freemasonry. For example: UGLE recognizes one of the Italian GLs (I forget which one), but Scotland and a few of the US GLs recognize a different Italian GL.
 * I have had another idea... one that I think is completely neutral, but will separate the wheat from the chaff... See: Talk:List of Masonic Grand Lodges. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

More eyes needed at List of Freemasons - again :/
A new user - Jahbulon-13 - have added a couple of names with sources that to me seems to fail WP:RS and, more importantly for now - does not establish that the persons are or was masons. I've tried to clean up after him, and left a message on his talkpage... but I'm not sure it'll help. WegianWarrior (talk) 11:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, J-13 seems willing to edit war over his additions. He has just gotten himself blocked for 72 hours, due to POV warring and 3rr (at several articles).  Hopefully the block will be enough to give him a clue, but we should keep an eye on him. Blueboar (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Having repeatedly pointed out a couple of relevant Wikipedia policies to him, just to have him re-add the exact same non-reliable source that didn't even mention the claims made... I'm not going to hold my breath. Still, there is always hope :) WegianWarrior (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I keep an eye on the list during the week, not so much on weekends. So is Jahbulon-13 currently blocked? Eric Cable  |  Talk  13:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes (See: User talk:Jahbulon-13)... he should be free to edit again on Tuesday. Remember that anyone can get off to a poor start, and it takes time to understand all our rules, policies and guidelines. WP:Assume good faith applies when he returns... try to be patient, and if you have to revert an edit he makes... explain why you are doing so.  Let's wait to see whether he constructively engages in discussion, or disruptively continues to edit war. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yea, MSJapan and I used to lock horns when I was a noob. Now I'm better that this shit than he is. ;) Eric Cable  |  Talk  18:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Update... the more I interact with this one, the more it is becoming apparent that in addition to being a noob ... he also appears to be editing with a distinct POV (see his anti-Masonic comments at Talk:Royal National Lifeboat Institution). He definitely needs watching. Blueboar (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Watching and tutoring - he also seems a little quick jumping to conclusions (I'm not sure about Blueboar, but I'm definitly not an American mason), which might explain why he is so sure about his "facts". Still, I'm hopeful that in time he will edit in accordance with the guidelines and policies. WegianWarrior (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I note similarities between this editor and User:TonyGosling (see Talk:Square and Compasses), who on investigation turns out to be a fundamentalist Christian make a living from conspiracy theory. Sometimes it's hard to assume goodwill.

Fiddlersmouth (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Really had to laugh out loud here as YOU are the conspiracy theorist. Implying two different Wikipedia editors are somehow linked - had it ever occurred to you they may simply be linked only by a wish to get to the truth?

Secondly, you make no distinction between yourself as an anonymous user and me as - your talk of 'investigation' is simply a google search as I am entirely open about who and what I am. You, however hide behind anonymity. Thirdly, give me one example of 'conspiracy theory'? I am well aware of criminality at the top of Western society as evidenced again and again - latest today with revelations about Tiberius report in today's Independent. I am careful always to distinguish in my BBC taught investigative journalism to distinguish between fact and speculation, which makes me an investigative journalist and not a 'conspiracy theorist'. What do you mean by using the derogatory term 'fundamentalist'? I'm not interested in people's religion, beliefs etc.. Only their public spirited attitude, something in which I find you severely wanting. TonyGosling (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC) TonyGosling (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2014 (GMT)
 * It looks he's fairly set in his ideas - which he seems to regards as facts - and I suspect the best we could hope for is that he at least follows to Wikipedia guidelines and policies... who am I fooling - clearly those guidelines and policies was created by members of the Freemason religion to be used as a canard against those who knows the "whole truth". On the bright side I have learned that the word 'canard' can also be used for something else than the forward control surface on some aircraft, so it's not all bad :) WegianWarrior (talk) 17:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hiram Abiff
We currently have three articles rated at top importance: I'm not entirely certain why Hiram is top importance. Yes, to a mason Hiram's origins and the strands of his myth are a big clue to why Freemasonry is what it is, but to the rest of the world, its a bit of a technicality. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Freemasonry (now a Good Article)
 * History of Freemasonry (B class)
 * Hiram Abiff (C class)
 * You are probably right... but I am not familiar with Wikipeida's rating system when it comes to "importance"... what are the different levels, and what are they intended to convey? Blueboar (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The guidelines are on the project page, but are sufficiently vague for each project to make a subjective assessment. Some projects simply don't bother. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What's currently on the page is vague and few words of guidance. Some other projects have more in depth descriptions.  WPNY/A and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lighthouses are two viewed before that seem to have spent some time laying out details.  Based on these, we could have something like


 * Top - Subject is a "core" or "key" topic for Freemasonry, or is generally notable to the public at large
 * High - Subject is notable in a significant and important way within the field of Freemasonry, but not necessarily outside of it. Freemasons or topics with a recognized and lasting effect on Freemasonry.
 * Mid - Subject contributes to the total subject of the Freemasonry WikiProject. Subject may not necessarily be famous.  Provides more specific areas of knowledge that a serious reader would need to understand
 * Low - subject is not particularly notable or significant even within the field of Freemasonry. May be peripheral knowledge, or of mainligh highly-specialist or regional interest.

There should probably be examples. Ahwiv (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... I think one problem is that the article lacks a clear subject.
 * The bulk of the article (as currently written) focuses on the biblical Hiram, who is not really of much (if any) importance to Freemasonry.
 * What is of some importance to Freemasonry is the fictional/allegorical character of Hiram (ie the Hiram portrayed in the Masonic legend). However, that fictional/alegorical character is not as important to Freemasonry as the the story itself... or rather the lessons that the story is intended to inculcate... those lessons are of central importance to Freemasonry.
 * So, to determine the "importance" of the subject to the topic of Freemasonry... I think we may need to clarify exactly what the subject of the article is. Is the subject the biblical Hiram?... is it the Hiram of the story?... or is it the story of Hiram and its lessons? Blueboar (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * An encyclopedia has to cover the lot. The name comes from Chronicles, and the biblical roots are important to the masonic tradition. The rest is an essential part of the narrative that makes a decent article. The question is - Is importance determined by masonic parameters, or by the relevance of the article to your average Joe looking up masonry on the internet? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: the biblical roots are important to the masonic tradition... Meh... I seriously question that. The biblical Hiram was a master metal worker who crafted the sacred bronze vessels for King Solomon's Temple... the fictional Hiram of the Masonic legend was a master stone mason, who actually supervised the building of the Temple itself (and MOST importantly refused to break a promise ... even when faced with certain death).  The second may have been loosely based on the first... there are significant differences.  Saying the biblical Hiram is important to Freemasonry is sort of like saying that the historical MacBeth is important to English literature.  Yes there is a tenuous connection... but importance? no.
 * But that is besides the point... the point I was trying to make is that the "importance level" of this article depends on what aspect of the Hiram legend the article primarily focuses on. Blueboar (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The Hiram of Kings was a master metal worker. The Hiram of Chronicles did stone, wood, metal, cloth, anything at all, and was sent by Hiram of Tyre to be Master of Works at the Temple. His name is twice given in Chronicles as Huram 'Abi, which Luther chose to transliterate as Hiram Abif, discussed by Anderson (with biblical references) in a long footnote to the 1723 constitutions. So, Anderson firmly ties Hiram of Chronicles to speculative Freemasonry right at the start of the Grand Lodge period.
 * The exegesis of Kings and Chronicles, the reason's for the difference, are not important to the article and would take up as much space as what we have already. The article title is simply Hiram Abiff - and WP guidelines indicate that the article should be Broad in its coverage. Importance doesn't hang on a single aspect, but on Hiram Abiff in toto, the master craftsman, the masonic icon, and the lover of the Queen of Sheba. As such, I think he has high importance, as a key figure in Freemasonry, but not top importance as his significance is not generally appreciated outside the craft. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You still miss my point... OK, sure... the Masons took a biblical character (perhaps even an actual historical figure) and used him as the main character in their allegorical story... just as Shakespeare took the historical Macbeth and used him as a main character in one of his plays. But there are significant differences between the historical MacBeth and Shakespeare's MacBeth... and there are significant differences between the biblical Hiram, and the Masonic Hiram.
 * Now... apply this distinction to the concept of "importance level"... our article on the historical Macbeth, King of Scotland is rated "top importance" by the Medieval Scotland WikiProject... but is ignored by the Shakespeare WikiProject. Meanwhile, our article on Shakespeare's fictional Macbeth (character), is ignored by the Medieval Scotland WikiProject and is rated "top importance" by the Shakespeare WikiProject.  Now... suppose these articles were combined... how would the Medieval Scotland WikiProject rate the article, how would the Shakespeare WikiProject rate the article... it would be difficult to determine which MacBeth was the primary subject of the article.
 * That's the problem we are facing here. Because the article currently covers both the biblical Hiram and the Masonic Hiram, there is some confusion as to which Hiram is the subject of the article.  The biblical/historical Hiram is about as importance to Freemasonry as the historical MacBeth is to the Shakespeare ... and if there were a separate article on Hiram Abi (biblical character) I would argue that this WikiProject should ignore it.  If we had a dedicated article for Hiram Abif (Masonic legend), on the other hand, I would argue that the Freemasonry WikiProject should rate it as at least "high importance". ... but with the two subjects combined (as they currently are) rating becomes much more difficult.
 * Which raises a possibility... What if we separate the two subjects? Each article would obviously link to the other... but the subject would be more distinct (and rating would be much easier). Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you've nailed it, there should be separate articles for historical Hiram and Masonic Hiram, which leads to the question are there other figures in similar situations. Solomon? Ahwiv (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

A separate article on Huram 'Abi would have about three sentences and link to Hiram Abiff, and would probably be nominated for deletion if anybody noticed it at all. Even the biblical Hiram is only important to masons, and is an essential part of the article's narrative. In other words, it is not reasonable to separate the two. Solomon is a good example. Solomon of the Targum, the Mishnah and the Koran are hardly recognisable as the sainted wise king of the Old Testament, but the whole cast of Solomons is (rightly) here in one article. The point is, as Hiram Abiff relates to project Freemasonry, is he Top or High importance, or something else. It's not a complicated question. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Even the biblical Hiram is only important to masons, and is an essential part of the article's narrative"... well, that's where we disagree. I think there is enough on the biblical Hiram to justify a stand alone article.  And I don't think he forms an essential part of the narrative in an article on the masonic Hiram... I think the biblical Hiram's entire connection to Freemasonry can be summed up in one sentence:  "The character of Hiram Abiff found the Masonic legend is loosely based on a biblical craftsman, mentioned in 1 Kings 7:13–14, and 2 Chronicles 2:13-14."  That's it.  Blueboar (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, he is based on the Tyrian/Israeli craftsman found in chapters 2 and 4 of 2 Chronicles. How do we know this? Why can we discount the bronze-caster of Kings? This is not only relevant to the article, but it is this sort of detail that gets an article up to FA status. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup at List of Masonic Grand Lodges
Probably needs wider discussion of ethos, to prevent reversions, recurring arguments, usual stuff. Interested editors please chip in at Talk:List_of_Masonic_Grand_Lodges. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Freemasonry at Wikimania 2014
Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014 For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to: Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Categorization of Notable people who happened to have been Freemasons
A while ago we discussed the issue of categorization... specifically the issue of when and how to apply Category:Freemasons and the various sub-categories listed at Category:Freemasons by nationality. The consensus was that these categories should exist... but that we also needed to be more discerning as to which articles were placed in these categories. Lots of historical figures joined Masonic lodges at some point in their lives, and so could be included in the categories ... However, for many of them, being a Freemason was not a "defining characteristic" (as defined in WP:Overcategorization). For a lot of bio-articles, the subject's membership in the fraternity is essentially trivia... mentioned (if we are lucky) in one sentence, along with membership in half a dozen other clubs and organizations. After our last round of discussions, we agreed to go through the various cats, and attempt to clean them out. We removed the cat from articles that did not even mention that the subject was a Freemason... and also from many articles that relegated mention of the subject's membership to a single sentence along the lines of: "He was a Rotarian, a member of the chamber of commerse, a Freemason, and an Elk, ..." etc. We kept the categorization for articles in two situations... 1) where there was some evidence that the subject was important to Freemasonry or 2) some evidence that Freemasonry was important to the person. Unfortunately... the categories have once again grown, and now (again) include a lot of subjects for whom Freemasonry was not really defining. My first reaction was to do yet another round of "policing"... to once again go through the categories and remove the cat where it is inappropriate. However, as this is something like the third time we have done this... I have to wonder whether it is worth doing. It is clear that many editors want to add the cat to any and every bio-article where the subject was a Freemason... regardless of whether membership was "defining" or not. (I suspect that at least some of these editors are well intentioned lodge historians, who are proud of the fact that  was a member of and are adding the cat without understanding the rules for categorization). I suspect that if we clean up these categories, it will just be a matter of time before they once again grow. So... do we accept the inevitable, and not worry about these cats? Or do we fight the good fight and police them? I know what previous consensus was... but consensus can change. What is our current consensus? Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the time has come to accept Freemasons by Nationality as a lost cause. From the start, these wibbly little categorisations have been more used and had more meaning to editors outside the project, and there are probably more important things to do with our limited time and resources than telling the tide to go back. What we can do is to ensure that those who have made notable contributions to, and/or are notable for their membership of Freemasonry are in that Category:Freemasons, and the rest are excluded. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's the "and the rest are excluded" part that I am asking about. Do we want to go through another round of policing these cats per WP:NOTDEFINING... knowing that, sooner or later, we will have to do it all over again?  Or do we simply give up?  Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was referring to the top level, which now seems to contain people who used to belong to the deleted Category:People known for their contribution to Freemasonry. I think washing our hands of the rest is better than giving up, even if it amounts to the same thing. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

RGLE
I have just removed the Regular Grand Lodge of England from our List of Masonic Grand Lodges, for obvious reasons. However, there appear to be a few RGLE droppings that will refuse to go away for some time. There are Grand Lodges, especially in Eastern Europe and the United States, who bought charters and ritual from RGLE, ditched their mother GL when they realised it was a sham, but still stubbornly refuse to go away. Many are now part of SOGLIA. I believe we need at least a stub article on RGLE (currently a redirect to the main Freemasonry article) to explain these anomalies, unless there are any other suggestions. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Morals and Dogma
I just noticed that someone recently added a "selected excerpts" section to the article on Morals and Dogma. I don't necessarily object, but... given how easy it is to take Pike out of context... I do think we should at least review the selections. I have opened a discussion at Talk:Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Masonic periodicals online
A new project has made a collection of masonic magazines from the 19th and early 20th centuries in the UGLE library available online. As digital reference, it's a bit clunky, but nonetheless a valuable reference for anybody interested. The collection may be viewed here. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Freemasonry in Spain
Just started this article (the title was being used as a redirect). I could use some help... more writers and more sources are needed. Blueboar (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm currently trying to collect sources for a similar project on Germany. If I fall over anything on Spain, I'll send it your way. This mentions the lodges in American bases under Franco. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have a plan for this? The article on Spanish WP is quite comprehensive, but lacking in refs that don't point to Catalonia. A rough translation wouldn't be a bad starting point, with progressive improvement as the search for references progresses. Opinions? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As Blueboar stated, help needed. I've just slotted a translation of the es:wiki article into Freemasonry in Spain. It now looks like an article, but needs more sources. Hopefully, the skeleton laid down will yield enough search terms to continue the process. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Freemasonry in Germany
I felt this was a huge hole in our coverage which needed plugged. I started with a section from de:wikipedia, which was pretty much unsourced, and have now got up to about the 1870s using the same old texts I suspect were responsible for the German text. I rewrote the Strict Observance paragraph, and the rest will eventually need the same treatment. If anybody feels they can contribute, this would be a good time. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * For the sake of documenting what I've done, the de:Wikipedia material on Freemasonry in general was largely unreferenced, so the skeleton of the new article was taken from the German material, but rewriting proved easier than translation. The last section was culled from various WP articles in German and English, and still needs a few references. I think everything is minimally covered, so I've given it a C. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Freemasonry in Italy
I've just started this article with a rough guide to the eighteenth century. I think this is the most important area of European masonry that we haven't covered, and so far I've pretty much used the It:Wiki article as a ground plan, and re-written it with references. If anybody has an interest and wants to chip in, please feel free. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

After a long hiatus...
I'm sort of back, and I've got a few articles in my userspace which I am going to work on, namely Thomas Smith Webb's Illustrations of Freemasonry. I need to locate my materials, but if anybody has some useful stuff, let me know. MSJapan (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Grand Lodge (Deletion discussion)
Please see Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_5. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup crew!
ImprovementUK is a new editor who has a whole raft of edits to Masonic articles, and I've found several mistakes in either incorrect wl's (replacing regular masonic jurisdictions wikilink alt text with UGLE, where they aren't the same), uncited info in GLS (Schaw), and Fiddler fixed a template error. I've asked the user to desist in editing until we review. MSJapan (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Opposition to Freemasonry within Christianity Comment
Possible single purpose account have shown up at Opposition to Freemasonry within Christianity and a couple of other articles on Wikipedia, stating among other things "Mormonism doesn't belong in this article. Arguing that Mormonism is Christian would be EVEN MORE ABSURD than arguing that Freemasonry is Christian.", something I as a christian Scandinavian Mason working the Swedish rite is rather disagreeing with. Some off the editors contribution looks okay, so a mass revert is probably not the best way to deal with it. More eyes needed, since I'm busy with Real Life these days =( WegianWarrior (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My point with that edit was actually that this article is about Christian opposition to Freemasonry, but Christianity and Freemasonry, although most Christians would consider them incompatible religions, actually have more in common with each other than Mormonism, at least in the sense that they are both monotheistic religions. Mormonism is the most polytheistic religion on earth. So I do not think it makes sense to call the Mormons an example of "Christians" who oppose Freemasonry. The definition of "Christian" is not a "person who opposes Freemasonry". Islam also opposes Freemasonry. Nobody other than the Mormons considers them Christians, the idea that Mormonism is a form of Christianity is a popular fallacy, one wikipedia should not be repeating. So since that article is specifically about Christian opposition to Freemasonry, including Mormons in the article is off topic.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is about more than the Mormons, but let's start with them. Most Christians view Mormonism as a weird, heretical, or dangerous form of Christianity. Claiming that "The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints" is not some branch of Christianity is frankly ridiculous. This reminds me of the ghastly little pamphlets where Evangelicals try to prove that anybody that disagrees with them can't possibly be Christians.
 * Then we have the deletion of swathes of material because the individuals referred to aren't "mainstream" masons - whatever that means. To the loony fringe of Christianity, all Freemasonry appears to be lumped together. It matters not that Crowley joined a fringe masonic lodge in France, he was a mason, and is therefore another lump of mud to sling. The references in Blavatsky obviously were not read before the axe fell. Blavatsky wasn't a mason, but the dominant form of mixed Freemasonry in the English speaking world was created by her followers. Not mainstream, but more mud (see above). This material needs editing, granted, but wholesale removal of referenced material needs discussion. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll second that. The discussion of who is and is not Christian is subjective and outside the scope and purpose of the article.  The Mormons are Christian for purposes of the article.  The problem with fringe is that the fascination with Crowley and Blavatsky, Waite and others causes a popularity that belies the fringe nature.  I mean, we had a whole article based off of one comment one guy made once, and everybody took to be word of law for all Masons throughout the world.  Patent rubbish.  I will also add that PaulBustion88 is, per his talk page, engaging in tendentious editing in several areas. MSJapan (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And the user's permbanned for socking, so that should be the end of that. MSJapan (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Advertizing? Notable?
Just saw this: Freemasons Universal Tartan. It could use some review as I am not sure it passes WP:NOTABILITY. Advertizing? Blueboar (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Gone. MSJapan (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That was quick. Blueboar (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Predominance of different branches
In several of our articles, we state that Continental style Freemasonry is predominant in Latin America. This certainly used to be true (say a hundred years ago) ... but I am not sure if this statement is accurate in the modern age. There has been a significant growth in Anglo-American style Freemasonry in Latin American over the last fifty years. What I don't know is whether there has been a similar growth (or shrinkage) on the Continental side of the aisle.

I tried comparing the membership numbers given at List of Masonic Grand Lodges but that was a dead end - we have verifiable numbers for most of the GLs that are in the the Anglo-American tradition, but not for most of the Continental style bodies (probably because the Continental GL's don't publish their numbers). Any ideas on how we could verify which branch has predominance in the modern era? Blueboar (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, what if we avoid the question entirely by rewording it to "historically"? That way we're not on the hook to find any data we don't already have sourced, and we're not misstating anything contemporary. MSJapan (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Another possible factor is political instability, and the tendency of extreme right or left wing regimes to wipe out Freemasonry, especially the politically active lodges. Further regime change would leave a level playing field. I think MSJapan is right. "Historically" or "Originally" will do the job. The references look sadly in need of an update. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Reading round this raises another issue. Nobody has fallen out with the Grand Orient of Brazil yet. However, the "English" lodges that started in 1912 amicably separated from this GO in 1935. Why? Because two divergent rituals don't exist comfortably in the same body, especially when the passwords of the first two degrees are reversed between them, and the third degree of one holds the secrets of the other's "Fourth Degree" (the Royal Arch). One lot had both wardens in the west, and no deacons, and the other had standard English lodges, JW in south, two deacons - completely different floorwork.
 * The Grand Orient of Brazil practices Continental Freemasonry, but is "regular" in every other aspect. This sort of breaks the mould. We are categorising GL/GO Freemasonry in terms of contemporary masonic politics. Perhaps we should be paying more attention to the ritual divide. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Are there sources to support the idea that "Continental" is defined by ritual differences? If not, it would be Original Research to claim that this is where the schism lies. Blueboar (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could find me a reference in Continental Freemasonry that mentions Continental Freemasonry. This appears to be a WP definition. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that a source is not cited in the article does not mean that a source does not exist. We certainly did not make up the term.  It is quite common (see this google book search).  And even a cursory reading shows that the term is most commonly used in the context of discussing those Masonic bodies that admit atheists.  I would have to do more reading to see if any of the sources explicitly defines the term. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Mackey - ''CONTINENTAL LODGES This expression is used throughout this work, as it constantly is by English writers, to designate the Lodges on the Continent of Europe which retain many usages which have either been abandoned by, or never were observed in, the Lodges of England, Ireland, and Scotland, as well as the United States of America. The words Continental Freemasonry are employed in the same sense.''

As we have discussed before, other usages have crept in. These are based on a different split, along political/religious lines. However, if we accept GO Brazil as a Continental observance (I don't see an alternative), then the original definition must hold. The differences are fundamental to the practice of Freemasonry, the other stuff came along later. Mackey also gets us out of the morass caused by regular French and Italian Grand Lodges who get lumped in as "Continental" because they won't be dictated to as to whom they are allowed to have masonic relations with, and UGLE and their mates have fallen out with them. I await with interest the reaction of the US Grand Lodges when the Grand Orient of Italy starts admitting women. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't accept that GO Brazil is "Continental Freemasonry". As for Italy... if GOI starts admitting women, I am positive that the US Grand Lodges will all withdraw recognition. The big question will be whether the US Grand Lodges switch recognition to one of the other Italian GLs ... or whether they decide to not recognize any Italian GL.  Blueboar (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * GO Brazil was formed by the Grand Orient Lusitano, with the active support of the Grand Orient de France. It started with the French Rite, which is still widely used. Having instigated the revolution and fought for the end of slavery in the 19th century, the Grand Orient is STILL heavily involved in politics. There are a number of their lodges that are uncomfortable with this, and a further split may be on the cards, but we have to regard GO Brazil as a Continental observance, because this is clearly how they see themselves. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh... it seems we are once again nit-picking over terminology.  GO Brazil may have its roots in "Continental observance"... it may even have elements of "Continental observance" today... but observance isn't what modern sources are talking about when they use the term "Continental Freemasonry".  The simple fact is that term "Continental Freemasonry" is almost always used by modern sources to describe those Masonic bodies that don't require a belief in Deity (and to a lesser extent, those that admit women).  By that usage, GO Brazil isn't "Continental Freemasonry".  In modern usage, the term "Continental Freemasonry" has nothing to do with origin ... or ritual... or even recognition ... it has everything to do with whether atheists (and to a lesser extent women) are admitted.  Sure, the term "Continental Freemasonry" may have been used differently in past eras... but terms often change their meaning and usage over time.  That's why Mackey is problematic as a source... his terminology is outdated.  Especially in this case.  He couldn't have used the term "Continental Freemasonry" in the context of describing the schism... because the schism had not yet occurred when he was writing his encyclopedia.  Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Distinguishing between Continental Observance and Continental Freemasonry is REAL nitpicking, and meaningless to most people outside Freemasonry. I have been unable to find a usable definition of "Continental Freemasonry" that doesn't correspond to Mackey's other than those which are based on, or cut and pasted from, Wikipedia. The inability of the main article on Continental Freemasonry to provide any sort of reference as to its own definition is clearly an issue. Creating our own terminology is a much bigger one. You appear to be describing Liberal Freemasonry, a definition agreed by its own lodges and contemporary masonic writing. Let's not confuse the two. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Grand Army of the Republic Hall (Clearwater, Minnesota) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Grand Army of the Republic Hall (Clearwater, Minnesota) to be moved to Clearwater Masonic Lodge–Grand Army of the Republic Hall. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Cornerstone listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Cornerstone to be moved to Cornerstone (ceremonial masonry stone)?. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 07:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.