Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry

; Archives
	2006; 2007; 2008-2010; 2011-;

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#NRHP listed lodge buildings 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

To say what? There's nothing there to hook, and very little room for development. MSJapan (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Prince Hall pictures

This Wikiproject may be interested in the discussion at Talk:Prince Hall Mystic Cemetery#Photos 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. Ma^t_chups 02:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hearing no objections, I have implemented.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hmm, that's a likely rationale though inconsistent with how the basic categories are set up. Shriners is in both Category:Masonic organizations and Category:Shriners (the latter of which is also in Category:Masonic organizations which is a WP:SUBCAT issue, but not relevant to this discussion); Category:Masonic organizations is in Category:Freemasonry. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Category:B-Class bird articles not Category:B-Class bird-related articles; 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nothing really new in it... but nice anyway. Thanks Steve. Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably news to most people. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just found the MOS again after a long time...

Can somebody review it so we can finish it and put it into project space? MSJapan (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. but others should look at it too. Blueboar (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure anyone weighed in on this yet, and it's been a while, so let's hit this again and get it done. I'm going to see about doing some specialty notability guidelines as well. MSJapan (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Freemasons

Several years ago, the members of this project agree that having a [[Category:Freemasons]] 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 [[Category:People known for their contribution to Freemasonry‎]]. We cleaned out the broader [[Category:Freemasons]], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Masonic Officer Jewels, etc. Created by User:EricCable

Master
Past Master
Pennsylvania Past Master
Senior Warden
Junior Warden
Senior Deacon
Junior Deacon
Steward
Secretary
Treasurer
Tyler
Square and Compasses
Assistant Secretary
Chaplain
Historian
Marshall
Master of Ceremonies
Organist
Orator

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Officer Userboxes

I have created a set of officer userboxes...

This user is the Worshipful Master
of his Masonic Lodge

This user is the
Senior Warden
of his Masonic Lodge

This user is the
Junior Warden
of his Masonic Lodge

This user is the
Senior Deacon
of his Masonic Lodge

This user is the
Junior Deacon
of his Masonic Lodge

This user is the
Senior Steward
of his Masonic Lodge

This user is the
Junior Steward
of his Masonic Lodge

This user is a
Past Master
of his Masonic Lodge

This user is the
Treasurer
of his Masonic Lodge

This user is the
Secretary
of his Masonic Lodge

This user is the
Tyler
of his Masonic Lodge

This user is the
Assistant Secretary
of his Masonic Lodge

This user is the
Chaplain
of his Masonic Lodge

This user is the
Historian
of his Masonic Lodge

This user is the
Marshal
of his Masonic Lodge

This user is the
Master of Ceremonies
of his Masonic Lodge

This user is the
Organist
of his Masonic Lodge

This user is the
Orator
of his Masonic Lodge

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Barnstar

I just created a Freemasonry Barnstar.

		The Freemasonry Barnstar
		{{{1}}}

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I know the pentecostal movement vehemently rejects the notion that Christianity is a religion. __meco (talk) 07:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Mea Culpa... Noted and corrected :>) Blueboar (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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#"Split me" time? and comment there. Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Created Start class, low priority, redirects in place.Fiddlersmouth (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This article [1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Out of curiosity... why do you say "Much as I would love to..."? Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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#Cleaned up lodge listing (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

GL Arkansas declares the Shrine "clandestine"

See: here for more information.

This is going to affect how we describe the relationship between the Shrine and the Blue Lodge in various articles. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could get that big enough to read. I would suggest, however, that we not fall prey to current events, and see if anything changes in a little while. MSJapan (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't zoom? This will give some of the background. I agree that it would be best to take a "wait and see" stance for the moment... but this one looks like it will be hard to resolve amicably. The language of the edict is pretty harsh. Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is all chest thumping and frankly I hope GM Robert Jackson is run out of office for it. Petty bullshit between a couple high-level individuals. The GM of a state grand lodge can no more order all the Masons in his jurisdiction to quit the Shrine than he can order them to not be members of the Republican Party. I hope Shriners bring out some sick kids and say "look who Robert Jackson is hurting with this nonsense. Call him at (enter his home number here) and tell him what an asshole he is." Eric Cable | Talk 23:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Masonic Jurisprudence is fairly clear on this... a Grand Master could issue an edit expelling all members of the Republican party from Freemasonry if he wanted to (he would quickly find his jurisdiction de-recognized by the rest of Freemasonry if he did so... but he has the right to do so under Masonic Law).

The issue that caused this rupture between the Grand Lodge of AK and the Shrine is not petty bullshit, but involves a fundamental question of Masonic Law... Every Master Mason swears "Furthermore, I will not hold Masonic intercourse with a clandestine Mason, nor a Mason under sentence of suspension or expulsion until duly restored" (or words to that effect). To do so is a Masonic offense. Since the Shrine claims to be Masonic, it's meetings constitute "Masonic intercourse". An Arkansas Mason who was also a Shriner was expelled from Craft Freemasonry after a Masonic trial. The Shrine, however, allowed him to continue to be a Shriner. This means that every Mason that sits in a shrine meeting with this man is in violation of his Masonic Obligation.

As for all the kids... You are over reacting. The edict does not ban Masons from giving money to the Shrine (you don't need to be a Shriner to donate, or to volunteer at a Shrine hospital). The hospitals will not close, and kids will be OK. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I thought it was "making Masons clandestinely" because to be a Shriner one has to be a Mason, and if one is no longer a Mason but is allowed to be a Shriner, then the Shrine is effectively conferring Masonic membership on its own by allowing the member to continue. MSJapan (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... that is another part of the argument.

It will be interesting to see what happens. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Grand Lodge of South Carolina has joined Arkansas in prohibiting any of its members from participating in Shrine meetings in which suspended or expelled Masons are present. [2] --Taivo (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Category:Freemasons (again)

We really need to address this... I raised this issue several months ago, but the conversation died out. Several years ago, we determined that having a category for "Freemasons" was problematic (as there was often no way to be sure that the people added to the category actually are/were Freemasons). At that time, we determined that it was better to listify... we created List of Freemasons and deleted the cat. Unfortunately, the category has (once again) been recreated (and is once again filling up with potentially unverifiable names). Indeed, the problem is growing, as we now have sub-cats based on country.

It is obvious that a lot of editors want to have this category... but maintaining it (checking it for inappropriate additions) remains problematic. I would have less of a problem with it if categorization had a mechanism similar to watchlisting... something that alerted members of this project to the fact that an article had been added to the category (we would then know to examine the article, look for sources, and determine whether the categorization is appropriate or not), but at the moment no such notification system exists (as far as I know). Thus we don't know when a new article is added to the cat, and whether it was appropriately added or not ... we have to manually check the cat on a regular basis (which is a real hassle).

Any ideas? Blueboar (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just replied in the village pump, now I see this other thread and understand the specific request. As said in there, save the link [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Freemasons] (piped linked if you want) to your user page or the project page here, and it will provide a "watchlist" of pages that included or removed the category. Sorry that there is the sandbox as well, I categorized it for a moment to test if this tool worked as I understood. Cambalachero (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That does help (thanks)... still not quite the automatic alert I was hoping for, but its better than nothing. Blueboar (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added it to external links section of the Project page... as:

Category:Freemasons - watchlist

So... now that we have a better way to monitor the additions... we need to actually DO so. Our first step would be to clear out any mis-categorizations that currently exist. Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been creating the subcategories, and I do have a question. How do we define, say, an "English" or a "German" freemason? I would say the most logical definition is "the present-day country where the individual's lodge was located". Thoughts? - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Franklin was initiated in France, and became GM of Pennsylvania. One is initiated in a military lodge on a military base in another country, or maybe one is initiated in one country, but is originally from another. For those reasons, the definition is based on nationality of the individual, not lodge location. The general reader has no idea what the differences are, and they are not pertinent for the general audience anyway. MSJapan (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsay was born in Scotland, initiated in England, and was an important French Freemason. There are a limited number of individuals where I don't think the nationality of the mason is helpful, and is in some cases downright misleading. I think we should leave the Ramsays, Dermotts, and Andersons as Freemasons, and anybody else whose influence crosses the boundaries of national jurisdictions. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I applaud Biroitorul for his/her attempt to bring order out of chaos, I don't think categorizing the nationality of the mason is helpful (and can, in some cases, be downright misleading)... I would get rid of all the national sub-categorization. It really does not matter whether a Freemason is from England, America, Portugal, France, or the Moon. Blueboar (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ones from the Moon would be notable, although as I recall, GL of Texas has jurisdiction there by dint of having sent a charter up with Armstrong. Good point about Ramsey et al. above, though I'd also point out we have the "British, or Irish/ Scottish/Welsh?" issue which we've already seen plenty of, and some items relating to historical dissolutions of empires in Europe. Therefore, I would also be in favor of eliminating the subcats again, if only to avoid the maintenance headache. MSJapan (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully argue in favor of subcategories, with the caveat that if the nationality isn't clear, the individual be kept in the main category instead. In that sense, I fully endorse Fiddlersmouth's comment. Realistically, we're going to end up with maybe 20 subcategories, a fairly manageable number. (Someone like Eloy Alfaro doesn't need a subcategory all to himself.)

Now, let's say, hypothetically, we get to have 1000 people in the main category, and that 10 of those are Russians. And let's say someone is interested in finding out who the notable Freemasons in Russian history are. Well, he could look at History of Freemasonry in Russia, and he could ctrl-F for "Russia" in the list of Freemasons, but why not give this individual an additional tool - going directly to Category:Russian Freemasons rather than wading through the main category and trawling for a handful of Russian-sounding names?

To be sure, there might be some uncertainty about who is British/English/Scottish/Irish, and that can be ironed out over time. But I still think the benefit of subdividing by nationality outweighs the potential problems. Or at least let's keep the subcategories for a limited period (3-6 months?) and see how things stand at that point. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than just a English/Scotish/British issue... there's a Polish/Russian/German issue (depending on when the person lived)... there's a Serb/Croat/Austrian/Yugoslavian issue... there is the issue of preunification of Italy (do we list them as Italian or Tuscany/Lombardy/Roman/Neopolitan/Venitian?)... same issue for pre 1870 Germany (are they Bavarians/Prussians/Saxons/Hessians/Hanoverians or Germans?). The problem is that the world has changed hugely since Freemasonry started, there are countries today that did not even exist when many of these people lived. Even someone like George Washington could be argued about (he was a British subject when he became a Mason... so shouldn't we list him under British Masons? I could go on. Wikipeida gets HUGE debates over categorizing people by nation/ethnic groups. I strongly advise that we NOT get into that. Blueboar (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow or other, this does get dealt with on other category trees with relatively little fuss. For example, Ilia Chavchavadze was born in the Russian Empire in 1837, lived there all his life and died there in 1907. There was no independent Georgia between 1801 and 1917, yet of the thirteen nation-related categories into which he is placed, eleven are for Georgia and two for Russia. Or take Michelangelo: he died about 300 years before modern Italy came into being, yet he is in five Italy-related categories. Or Nicolaus Copernicus, a man whose nationality is disputed between Germans and Poles, and who died well over 300 years before either country reached close to its present form. He nonetheless fits comfortably into three Germany-related categories and four Poland-related ones.

You're right to come up with various examples of problematic category inclusion, to which I have a three-part answer:

1) The benefits still outweigh the downsides, just as they do for most categories broken down on national lines.

2) There's always the main category if subcategorization is impossible in a particular case.

3) Let's give the idea a trial run and if it actually proves unmanageable, we'll scrap it in the near future. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the trial run... see the section below, where I am compiling a list of articles that have been added to the category (categories) which I find problematic. I will also note why I find them problematic. Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that many of the articles now categorized do not mention the subject's membership in the fraternity. This raises two related issues...

WP:Categorization says: Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. ... however...
WP:Categorization also says: A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. In a lot of cases a person's membership in Freemasonry is not a defining characteristic... it's trivia... not worth mentioning in the article.

In other words... we have to think about WP:OVERCAT. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Freemasons sent to WP:Categories for Discussion

OK... I have sent this to WP:CfD... nominating the main cat and the various "by country" sub-cats for discussion (Or at least I tried to do so... I don't think I formatted the request properly... so if anyone here knows how to do it correctly, please clean up after me.) Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

These will do for now... I will continue to note problematic additions. Blueboar (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This one has to be mentioned...

{{Category:Members of Propaganda Due}} 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)[reply]

What? Aren't they freemasons, isn't P2 Italian? JASpencer (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

More:

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?

(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)[reply]

Order of Knight Masons - AFD?

A concordant body found mostly in Ireland, but has some presence in the US. The article has remained completely unsourced for over a year (despite being tagged). I am considering nominating at AfD as non-notable due to lack of reliable independent sources (I have looked)... but before I do, I want to give other project members a change to look (you might find something I missed). Blueboar (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's an invitational, and perhaps has limited membership per local group as well; I'm not sure, as there is very little on it available. If we cannot say anything about it aside from its existence, I'd AfD it, as I'm not inclined to create an invitational bodies article. MSJapan (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be invitational in Ireland, where it covers the second temple period that they otherwise ducked by moving the Royal Arch to Josiah's reign. I think it would be better served as a paragraph under Holy Royal Arch. As MSJapan stated, there isn't sufficient verifiable material to warrant a full article. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK... nominated (with a note that merger may be an option). thanks for the feedback. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the arguments to delete the article here only further support its need to exist. The Knight Masons would not fit clumped in with the HRA article because it's also open to Royal Arch Masons in the York Rite. It would not fit into the AMD article because trying to squeeze it into AMD is a uniquely American folly, and it really isn't especially considered closely associated with the York Rite as its degrees are more prominent in the Scottish Rite anyways. It is however the basis for the Order of the Red Cross, and portions of the Scottish Rite, and as such in notable in that respect alone. As for finding sources, Google books have a few, but it's going to take a trip to the library to read many of them. I also know of many papers written about the body at a local lodge of research so I may ask some of the writers. I might also just call up my excellent chief and ask him if he has anything. PeRshGo (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "...it really isn't especially considered closely associated with the York Rite as its degrees are more prominent in the Scottish Rite anyways. It is however the basis for the Order of the Red Cross, and portions of the Scottish Rite..." Perhaps in Ireland... but not in the US. We have to remember that "Scottish Rite" in the US is very different from "Scottish Rite" in Europe. In fact, there are three distinct versions of Scottish Rite (because the US is actually divided into two distinct versions). These three versions of "Scottish Rite" may use some of the same names for their degrees, but those degrees are completely different... and have different histories. Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 15th & 16th degrees in both the northern and southern jurisdiction for the Scottish Rite trace directly back to Knight Masonry. Influences have altered them but they use the same source material. PeRshGo (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Influences have altered them" is a huge understatement... You might be interested in reading our article on the My Grandfather's Axe paradox: if every part my Grandfather's axe has been replaced...is it really the same axe? We are talking about more than just "alteration"... over the years, the degrees of both the Northern and Southern Jurisdictions have been substantially rewritten and reworked again and again... to the point that they no longer even come close to resembling the "source material" that originally inspired them. While the process was more gradual in the Northern Jurisdiction, in the case of the Southern Jurisdiction Pike's reworking has to be seen as a clean break. It's kind of like saying that Ancient Rome's Twelve Tables was the "source material" for both the Napoleonic Code and the US Constitution, because it is possible to connect the them through a chain of historical legal documents and codes. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - PeRshGo has come up with some potential sources... a lot of them are "self-published" by the KMs themeselves, and so do not go towards notability. A lot of the others only mention the KM degrees in passing... and we need more than that. However, it is possible that there is at least one good source in the pile... which is enough for me to Withdraw the AFD nom (I will revisit in a year, and re-open the nom if it turns out that the potential sources don't work to establish notability after all). Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One final comment on this (at least for now)... I think we need to distinguish between the degrees that the OKM confers and the OKM itself. The degrees have at least a tenuous historical connection to Scottish Rite, but the the modern Order does not. The modern the Order has no connection to the Scottish Rite... and is instead loosely tied to the York Rite and the HRA.

So... I will raise the following for consideration... is it possible that the degrees are at least somewhat notable... while the modern Order is not? Blueboar (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well we’re dealing with an organization that has 100 or so councils in the US, another 100 or so in Ireland, and a few spread elsewhere. As fraternal organizations go that’s a pretty good size. Then we take into the account the impact its system of degrees, the “green” degrees have had on Freemasonry as a whole, and I think we find dealing with a decently notable subject. Information about it could potentially be included in every body its had an impact on, but that’s rather messy and would only generate confusion about a subject that is already wrought with it from its name alone. Now, in-depth information is difficult to find, because even most Masonic writers are grossly unaware of Knight Masonic details but I think it’s very easy to find a great number of reliable sources that at least find it important enough to mention, and I think that earns a certain level of notability. PeRshGo (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but are their reliable independent sources that discuss (in some depth) these hundred or so councils (or the organization as a whole)? That's the issue. For a topic to be considered WP:NOTABLE enough for an article, we need sources that discuss it. It does not really matter how large an organization is, if no sources discuss it. Existence is not notability. (And, just to play devil's advocate... counting the number of chapters an org has can be deceiving... claiming 200 chapters means nothing if each "chapter" consists of only two or three people. I am sure that this is not the case with the OKM, but how do we know without sources). Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Article (or possibly essay) for review

Our recent debates at Talk:Continental Freemasonry made me realize that we don't have an article that properly explains the (complicated) issues of Masonic Regularity and Recognition.... so I have drafted one in my user space. See: User:Blueboar/drafts - Masonic recongnition and regularity (yes, I know the title is misspelled). Please drop by and share your thoughts and suggestions. At the moment it is completely unsourced, and thus my own Original Research... that would obviously be something we would have to fix before we could transfer it to main space. I present it as a beginning, not an end product.

Another possibility (if people like it, but no sources can be found to support it as an article) is to make it an essay, attached to this project page... I could see it being used in talk page discussions to give non-masons the necessary background information so they understand what we are talking about when we start to toss around masonic jargon like "Irregular", "Recognized" and "Clandestine". Blueboar (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent idea, and a good start. You probably want internal schism and mis-governance in there as well (eg GLNF). Shouldn't be too difficult to find general references from coffee table books on masonry, with examples thrown in to illustrate. I think it should be an article, since it rounds off coverage of the subject. It might be an idea to add the jargon into Wictionary. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, this may not be horribly esoteric. OED should have a definition that covers this, and we've got the usual written stuff that addresses it, like Morris and Hodapp, and online stuff, like Paul Bessel. If we will cover all three, there is also a need to look at general historical politics in some countries. For example, I believe (as I mentioned before) that the ban on politics by UGLE was to prevent what happened in France with the Revolution. This is not to say Masons were not involved in the Revolutionary War, but they weren't doing so as members of their lodges. So I think this is RS sourcable, but I would leave it as an essay for now until we have a product we can then maybe distill down into an understandable and sourced paragraph or two to add into an article. MSJapan (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Importance levels

Could someone please post something to show or get started the community consensus on applying importance levels to articles within WikiProject Freemasonry? I am gearing up (knock on wood) to attack this open to do list item and could do well (well, better, anyway) with some guidance. I have gone ahead and applied whatever levels seem right at the moment to many pages, and will leave it to others to vet those decisions.
kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 23:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot rationalise the Premier Grand Lodge of England being assigned low importance. Perhaps they all need looked at? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Take note, I did not assign that one. ~~But I'm gonna be bold and edit it.~~ But I've been bold and edited it. As to standards what I've done is assess what order I would High for something someone who wants to learn about Freemasonry should read first, Mid for what to read next, and so on.
kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 02:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WikiProject_Freemasonry#Article_assessment
kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 02:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether "article importance ratings" are directed towards readers, or towards editors (members of the project)... I think that (up till now) we have been looking at "article importance" from the POV of editing. From an editor's stand point, the more complete an article becomes - the lower its importance becomes (ie it is less important because there less work that needs to be done, while other articles are more important because they do have work to do). That changes if we think of importance ratings as being directed towards readers. If we are talking about readers, I think kcylsnavS's assessment system is good. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Blueboar. After I wrote that I found WikiProject_Freemasonry#Article_assessment, which states:

The following values may be used for the importance parameter.

Top (Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia)
High (Subject contributes a depth of knowledge)
Mid (Subject fills in more minor details)
Low (Subject is mainly of specialist interest)
NA (for pages where importance assessment is unnecessary, such as book, template, category, disambiguation and redirect pages; adds items to Category:NA-importance Freemasonry-related articles)
??? If an importance rating is not assigned, the article will be filed in Category:Unknown-importance_Freemasonry-related_articles. The rating should be assigned according to the grading scheme. Articles that are unassessed or in dispute can be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Freemasonry/Assessment.

Note that importance is determined by the article's subject rather than its content.
kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 14:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... I am not disagreeing... I was just explaining how we got where we were... I think that we may have misunderstood the purpose of the "importance" scale. Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I repeated it here because I had such a difficult time finding the quality class definitions, notwithstanding the links right on the page, and repeating the importance rating definitions in another place never hurts new editors like me. As a further comment, however, I think "importance" can be bottom-lined as degrees of notability within Freemasonry. In fact, absent some objection, I think I might put that shortcut definition on the project page (since I can't seem to quit tinkering with it this week).
kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 15:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pages for masonic lodges which are really about the buildings they meet in

Please see and comment at Talk:List of Masonic buildings in the United States#Pages for masonic lodges which are really about the buildings they meet in. RiverStyx23{^talk_email} 13:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a particularly US issue (although it does occur elsewhere)... in the US it is common to name the building after the lodge that meets (or met) in it... so the building that Cumquat Lodge No. 4321 meets in will be named "Cumquat Lodge No. 4321". (even if Cumquat Lodge itself no longer exists, or has moved out of the building to new premises.)

My personal preference would be to resolve any confusion by disambiguating... articles on notable lodges (the organization) would be entitled: Cumquat Lodge No. 4321 and the articles on notable lodge buildings would be disambiguated as: Cumquat Lodge No. 4321 (building). Unfortunately, such disambiguation is often opposed by our colleagues at WikiProject NRHP (who insist on using the name as it appears on the NRHP database, even if it might cause confusion). Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article review

How about we adopt something like this: Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment/A-Class_criteria#Formal WikiProject review?

Category:Masonic Lodges

There is a new discussion at Talk:AF and AM Lodge 687 concerning application of Category:Masonic Lodges. RiverStyx23{^talk_email} 16:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The categories survive

Now that Category:Freemasons and the subsidiary categories by nationality have survived CfD, I think it's time for opponents of those categories to move beyond trying to have them deleted, at least for now, and join in a discussion about how to use them to their best advantage. One issue left somewhat unresolved from a month ago is how we define "English Freemasons", "Italian Freemasons", etc. Personally, I would say, regardless of lodge, the nationality of the subject at the time of his death (e.g. George Washington was British in his early years but of course died an American citizen) or, where this is unwieldy, the successor state of the one to which the subject held allegiance (e.g. a Freemason from Tuscany or Sicily would be under "Italian Freemasons"). Thoughts?

I would also consider creating a Category:British Freemasons for cases where it's unclear if the subject was primarily Irish, Scottish, Welsh or English. Someone like George VI comes to mind, since we're not supposed to use the "English" categories for British monarchs, even if he did belong to an English lodge. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The closure (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_8#Category:Freemasons) was "No Consensus", not "Keep" (yes, I know that a "No Consensus" defaults to not deleting the cat) It's definitely premature to create even more categories like these, when the broader community is not in solid agreement on the ones we already have. Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to be more constructive in my approach: for instance, if a half-dozen Finnish Freemasons surface tomorrow, we should create Category:Finnish Freemasons, no question. (And by the way, according to fi.wiki, not only were Sibelius and Risto Ryti Freemasons, but Sigurd Wettenhovi-Aspa, Aake Kalliala, Heikki Kinnunen, Paavo Talvela and Iiro Viinanen are/were also Freemasons. Obviously that would need to be confirmed by reliable sources, but it's something to look into.)

I think there's undoubtedly good reason for a Category:British Freemasons - George VI is an obvious candidate, but also others who straddle nationalities within Britain, say a James Anderson (Freemason) (England/Scotland) or a David Jones (MP for Clwyd West) (England/Wales).

And finally, the question of defining "country" in Category:Freemasons by country remains an open one. It would be edifying to hear some views on that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are (perhaps unintentionally) engaging in WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT behavior... there are many editors (including me) who still have a serious and unresolved issue with the whole idea of having any "Freemasons" categories... especially "by country" cats. The issue has not been settled... it has simply been postponed. I would consider creating even more categories as being WP:Disruptive, until a firm consensus on the issue is actually reached. I would request that you hold off... until the issue IS fully settled, and we reach firm consensus (one way or the other) on the issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, "no consensus" closures don't remain frozen until consensus is achieved. Normal editing continues to happen, treating such closures in practice as "keeps". I've just created Category:British Freemasons, not because I'm perverse, but because it happens to serve a useful purpose in its tree. (And if you take issue with that, here is where you file a complaint.) I don't plan to create Category:Zimbabwean Freemasons, Category:Burkinabé Freemasons or Category:Omani Freemasons, simply because there is no need to do so now or in the foreseeable future.

As of right now, we have twenty "by country" subcategories. If that grows to 25 or 30, it's hardly a tragedy, although I don't have any immediate plans for more categories. If by "reaching consensus" you mean "achieving a 'keep' or 'delete' at CfD", such consensus may not develop for months or years, and the normal editing process isn't just going to stop happening in the meantime.

And again, any thoughts on defining "country" for the relevant category would be appreciated. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 4#Category:Freemasons and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 4#Category:Suspected Freemasons, at which time both categories were deleted. RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 17:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and note also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 3, whereby Category:Freemasons was duly revived. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The key word ought to be consensus. "Here we go" is not a helpful edit description, and the "normal editing process" should not consist of a series of drive-by alterations dependent on the POV of a single editor, otherwise unconnected with the project. These articles have talk pages. Please use them. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take that as a reference to my edit on James Anderson (Freemason). Well, my edit summaries sometimes veer into the unhelpful, and will continue to do so, I'm afraid. I don't always check in my idiosyncrasies at the door when editing, as long as they don't prove distracting. It does actually makes sense: you had objected to the "Scottish Freemasons" category, so that was my way of saying "here we go, here's a solution to our difficulties". Plus, clicking "prev" and loading the diff takes what, 0.384 seconds?

"A series of drive-by alterations dependent on the POV of a single editor, otherwise unconnected with the project" — would that be a reference to this fellow, or to me? Either way, pardon us for intruding on your bailiwick. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Biruitorul, that's exactly right. I'm simply indicating that there isn't strong consensus either way. I'm not against the category; I just don't see what purpose it serves to label people by way of a method which doesn't require verification. RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 01:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, RiverStyx23, that's a valid opinion. However, as long as we have Category:Freemasons and its subcategories, it would seem reasonable to use them, populate them, make them work in tandem with the List of Freemasons, right? Let's not treat them as some sort of odd relation shut away in an attic. They're there to help and should be handled just like any other category tree, for instance the recently closed as "no consensus to delete" Category:Place names by language, Category:Members of the clergy with criminal convictions, Category:Actresses by nationality.

And for anyone getting the sense I'm some sort of loose cannon wanting to wreak all sorts of havoc on this topic, that couldn't be further from the truth. I did want Category:Freemasons revived for a long time, and when I saw it'd come back, I simply took the opportunity to apply a very standard practice in our categorization scheme, namely to revive the division by nationality. I don't think that deserves so much comment. We have the categories now, they did survive a free and open discussion, and we should try to move on, even if not everyone is happy about them. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something to ponder

This was not explicitly raised in the CfD discussion... but I think it is a factor, and should we get to the point of a third nom, it should be highlighted. Wikipedia:Categorization of people#General considerations states:

Categorize by those characteristics that make the person notable: Apart from a limited number of categories for standard biographical details (in particular year of birth, year of death and nationality) an article about a person should be categorized only by the reason(s) for the persons notability. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right.

So let's apply this to the people currently categorized with Category:Freemasons (and the various by country cats). The vast majority of these people, are NOT notable because of their membership in the fraternity. Therefore, according to WP:COP they should be removed from the cat.

That leaves us with just the few who are notable for being Freemasons... people like James Anderson and Albert Pike (people who made a contribution to the fraternity)... AND, as it happens, these people are already categorized as such - see Category:People known for their contribution to Freemasonry. In other words... when we knock out the people who are being improperly categorized... the overarching Category:Freemasons, and most if not all of the by country cats become redundant and potentially confusing. We already have a more appropriate category for the people who are not knocked out. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping WP:STICK would kick in by now, but apparently not. Anyway, what about religion? I know Freemasonry isn't a religion, but it shares certain aspects in common with religion, and we do tend to categorize people that way. Ronald Reagan is in Category:American Disciples of Christ and Category:American Presbyterians, even if he himself recognized he wasn't a particularly church-going man. Or how about Harry Reid? He never makes a big deal of his Mormonism, but there he is in Category:American Latter Day Saints. Or then again, Gerald Ford, not especially known as an Episcopalian or a Freemason, but part of both categories. I don't doubt that the notability of Oliver Hardy, Shaquille O'Neal or Omar Bradley would be the same regardless of their membership in Freemasonry. But I also see the matter in the same light as the religion categories. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See: WP:Other stuff exists... what occurs with some other category is irrelevant. We are not talking about other cats... we are talking about Category:Freemasons. I am saying that if we apply the actual WP:GUIDELINE that governs categorizing people... the majority of the people currently categorized in Category:Freemasons should not be... and the few that would be left are already categorized (and I think better categorized) under the clearer Category:People known for their contribution to Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biruitorul... I am puzzled by a contradiction in your argument... on one hand you admit that Freemasonry isn't a religion, but then you turn around and argue that we should "see the matter in the same light as the religion categories" (which I take as you saying we should treat it as if it were a religion)... perhaps you could explain why we should do this? Blueboar (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Biruitorul is arguing that Freemasonry is a religion, but using how categories in the religion area are used. The example of Ronald Reagan or Harry Reid bring that out. Neither is notable or really known for their religion, but both exist in such categories. Your WP:Other stuff exists reference is on point. Ahwiv (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but that still does not answer the question of "Why?". Why should cat:Freemasonry be used in the way religion cats are used... as opposed to, say, the way profession cats are used (see the musician/lawyer example given in the guideline). Blueboar (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because, while no one thinks Freemasonry is a religion, it's closer to a religion than it is to a profession. (Feel free to disagree.) Again, take Gerald Ford. He was an Episcopalian as well as a Freemason: no one questions either. But he was pretty low-key about both. I don't think a historian asked to name Ford's top three attributes would pick either of those two, in the way one might for Washington (Freemasonry) or Jimmy Carter (Southern Baptist). On the other hand, as long as he stays in the "American Episcopalians" category (and he will, no doubt), there's no reason for him not to stay in "American Freemasons" as well. It may be a small part of who he was, but it's also verifiable and mentioned in reliable sources about him.

As for your WP:WAX point: for one, that's an essay on deletion discussions, so not really applicable here. For another, categories don't exist in a vacuum and it doesn't hurt to look around and see what practices are followed in similar areas. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not a binary consideration, is it. Freemasonry is a fraternity and is no more a religion (or a profession) than SAE is. RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 22:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Masonic ritual and symbolism

Please take a look at the above article... Not sure what to do with it. The article seems to have changed its scope and purpose several times since it was first created... but in its current state, it is essentially a just an index list of various articles on Masonic rituals. Perhaps a title move is in order (to List of Masonic rituals. It does not discuss symbolism at all. (Another option is to delete the page and turn it into a category). Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat related, I noticed the article Masonic ritual murders have recently been created as a redirect to Masonic ritual and symbolism... which to me seems to want to give the impression that murder is a part of masonic rituals. WegianWarrior (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not sure what to do about it either - I actually liked it better as a redirect to the main article - I have taken care of a couple of minor issues:

Firstly, it does not refer a global world view; in particular the statement that work is conducted from memory (false as far as the Swedish Rite goes, but I can't find a citation for it right now).

Secondly, a sentence under Standardisation brought up the old 'incompatibility with christianity', which is not only fully covered in the relevant article but more importantly has nothing to do with standardisation - it just shows bias on the part of the editor IMHO.

Thirdly, I would love a reference showing that some lodges does have more than one VSL on display during work, and a clarification if this is all at once or different ones at different times.

I would argue it should be turned back into what it was yesterday - a redirect to the main article. WegianWarrior (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to CSD ritual murders - there's no reason to have POV redirects. MSJapan (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Masonic ritual murders... suggest merger into Masonic conspiracy theories... its worth mentioning that there are people who believe this crap, but context is important. Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know of at least lodge that has more than one VSL on its altar at all times, but I don't know of any third party source that would prove it. It may - or may not - be indicated in the lodge's website. I know you can look at Kipling or Claudy, but I believe all those references are in fiction works. Perhaps one of the earlier Short Talk Bulletins would have something. RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 17:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization clean up

In the recent CfD discussion (here, and our conversations above), it was suggested that rather than delete Category:Freemasons (and the various sub-cats), we need to police it... removing the cat from articles where it is not appropriate.

Following this advice, I have completed an initial clean out. My primary criteria in determining which articles should (and should not) be categorized was WP:Categorization of people#General considerations - Categorize by those characteristics that make the person notable. If there was nothing in the article to support categorization, or if all the article had was a one sentence "bio-trivia" statement (asserting that the person was a member, but had nothing to indicate that the person's membership makes him notable), I removed. I left the cat if there was even a somewhat iffy indication that the person might be notable for being a Freemason.

If you think I removed the cat from an article where it it belongs, please discuss here or on the article's talk page. The removals are not permanent, and we can always return the categorization if it turns out the person is, in fact, notable for being a Freemason. I would also encourage editors to look through the remaining articles... I was unsure on some, and in such cases I erred on the side of keeping the categorization. Some of them probably should not have the cat. Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You make the above sound so antiseptic, when according to the log you link above, you were the nominator for deleting the category, and then you proceed to delete people from the category when you didn't get your way in the CfD vote. When I suggested that before wholesale deleting people from the category on your User Talk page, you delete my comments and ignore it. Only now when your Talk page is overwhelmed with others objecting, do you dignify a response here that is less than open. You post advice on one page, then reference those pages to support your actions, not revealing that it is your own advice. I'd say you are premature in your actions. Ahwiv (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um... no... a clean up was not my "advice"... I wanted to delete the categories completely. That desire did not gain consensus. However, multiple editors at the CfD said that the solution to my underlying concerns about the category was to police the category. So that is what I did. Now that my policing is complete, I am asking others to review what I did... and fix any mistakes I made (either by returning the cat to articles where they think I mistakenly removed it, or removing it from articles where you think I mistakenly kept it.) This was a first step in what will be an ongoing process. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus. I just went to the history of BlueBoar's talk page and read the argument which I somehow missed. It reminds me of this past weekend when I was at a conference of lodge Sr. Deacons from around my state and I talking about Wikipedia participation and how there are a couple people who think of themselves as the self-proclaimed Grand Masters of Wikipedia. Gee, I wonder why I would ever think that? Eric Cable | Talk 19:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if that was directed towards me... but if it is: Nah... Grand Masters only serve for one year (or are purely figure heads). I would much rather be the self-appointed Grand Secretary ... not self-appointed Grand Master. :>)

Now that's funny. Ahwiv (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Seriously, if you have a problem with my clean out, there is a very simple solution... return the categorizations that I removed. It really is that simple. We can then discuss the issue on an article by article basis. That's how consensus building on Wikipedia is supposed to work... BRD... Bold, Revert, Discuss. One editor edits an article, adding and removing stuff... if someone objects or reverts, you go to the talk page and discuss. Both sides listen to the concerns of the other... they do some compromising and come away with a solution that everyone can live with (even if neither side is completely happy with it). Blueboar (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jack Dempsey

OK... this was one where I removed the categorization, and was reverted. Talk page discussion is now taking place. Please swing by, read the comments so far, and share your opinion. Blueboar (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adolphus Frederick Alexander Woodford

I have just added the good reverend to the project. He may be largely forgotten, but huge amounts of masonic history is still based on his research, and the work of his followers. Nearest equivalent I could find was Mackey, so I've given Woodford the same importance rating (mid). Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over instructions at Category:Freemasons

A while ago, I added the following instruction to Category:Freemasons:

*NOTE - Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#General_considerations states:
Categorize by those characteristics that make the person notable: Apart from a limited number of categories for standard biographical details (in particular year of birth, year of death and nationality) an article about a person should be categorized only by the reason(s) for the persons notability. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right.

Membership in a fraternal order such as Freemasonry is not considered a "standard biographical detail". Thus, this Category should be added to articles on people who are notable for being Freemasons, but not to articles about those who are primarily notable for other things, and merely happen to have been (or currently are) Freemasons.

It was my belief that this instruction expressed the consensus of our WikiProject. However, that belief is being challenged (see: this diff). To settle the issue I thought I would ask the project directly... so that we can establish (or re-establish) exactly what our consensus is. so...

Do you agree with this instruction or not. If so, why? If not, why not?? Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I (obviously) agree with it. I think this instruction is what distinguishes the Category from our List of Freemasons article. My understanding of the relevant guidelines and policies is that the Category should be limited to those who are notable for being Freemasons, while the list article is appropriately more inclusive - listing any notable person who was or is a Freemason... regardless of why they are notable. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree. Now that we no longer have a separate category for people notable for their contributions to the craft, this is our only flag for persons who were/are eminent within freemasonry. Dumping anyone who was ever a mason in this category is directly comparable with tagging everybody who ever swung a club with Category:Amateur golfers - we end up with an overcrowded, meaningless category.Fiddlersmouth (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Forum. Nothing said here can possibly be called a concensus. JASpencer (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What would you say is the right forum for determining the consensus of members of a WikiProject? Blueboar (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I can't think of a better place to ask for opinion and building consensus, considering that not all the members of the WikiProject have every page in the project on their watchlist. WegianWarrior (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, this is a false consensus particularly with a large scale WP:CANVASS to contend with. Wikipedia:Categorization/Noticeboard is the place where you are most likely to get neutral experts. You could then list it on here. Belatedly listing it over there (which has not been done yet) is exactly backwards. This is another example of editors attached to this project trying to write the rules for themselves when wider Wikipedia rules don't suit, as before with notability and AFDs, with the argument that Freemasonry is different. It's not. JASpencer (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Large scale WP:CANVAS? What are you referring to? Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the instruction is being too narrowly construed. For example, Harry S Truman is not in the category, yet is well-known for being a Freemason.[3] [4] Life magazine had a cover picture of Truman in his full regalia as Grand Master of Masons in Missouri. clariosophic (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a valid point (and may require further clarification of the instruction)... although I note that Washington actually is categorized as being a Freemason (he appears in the sub-category: Category:American Freemasons). As for Truman, since he was a Grand Master, he would probably be better categorized under the subcat: Category:Masonic Grand Masters (In fact, I have just added him).

So that we can better understand where you draw the line on this... What would be your take on someone like Leon Abbett or William "Bud" Abbott (just to pick two names at random from our list article). Do you think the instruction valid in their cases? Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would not classify either one as notable for being a Mason. clariosophic (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. But I also agree with Clariosophic that there might be cases where the individuals themselves emphasized their Masonic connections even when their major contribution was in some other realm. Truman and Washington, for example, were openly Masons and made that part of their public life. Red Skelton and John Wayne, on the other hand, did not make their Masonic affiliations a part of their public life. --Taivo (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that the instructions covers most of what should go in the category, but per Clariosophic and Taivo there are a few people who are well known Masons that are famous for other reasons - George Washington for instance - that won't always fit neatly into other Freemason categories. WegianWarrior (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say all we need is a tweak. The intention of this was to avoid overcat via intersection of trivial material, and to prevent a lot of uncited additions that were (and likely are) occurring. However, to follow the example above, is Truman really notable to the general public as being a Mason? I'm not so sure, because the only people I've heard it from are other Masons. I know I never learned in school that Truman was a GM. I never learned Washington was a Mason at all, either, for that matter, much less Revere et al. However, enough has been written about the topic for many of these men where it's a supportable statement. Let's just make sure we're not skewing the information based on "specialized knowledge", and also keep in mind that even then, it's not going to solve every potential problem. MSJapan (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I think we have two issues here... 1) Whether to limit the cat in some way, and 2) Where to draw the line, if we do limit it. My request for consensus was aimed at answering the first question... not the second. Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My agreement was for 1) and we can leave 2) for another discussion or just case-by-case. --Taivo (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that some people, while not primarily famous for being Masons, have made significant enough contributions that they should be included. Mozart for the Masonic Funeral Music and the Magic Flute, Sousa for Nobles of the Mystic Shrine and the Thunderer, for example. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:JASpencer this is the wrong forum. Rklawton (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree I have to disagree with this one Blue. Your basic premise is that a notable person should not have the fact that they were a Freemason mentioned in their bio unless they were notable for being a Freemason. I find this to be harshly exclusionary and lacking in common sense. By this logic a notable person that served in the military should not have that mentioned in their bio unless they were notable for being in the military (There are dozens of other ways I could make this same argument). I cannot accept that. Becoming a Master Mason is a difficult journey and requires a man be willing to accept a great deal of responsibility and agree to live by a strict code of conduct. This is not done lightly, and speaks to how a man chooses to live his life, which is certainly pertinent to their character as a human being. Finally, it is in no way harmful to the Project to state (if Sean Novack is a notable person) "Sean Novack was a Master Mason and was raised on April 24th, 2012 at Anoka Masonic Lodge #30. He completed the York Rite on May 9th, 2013." Trying to exclude this information sounds like trying to trivialize a particular portion of a person's life simply because you don't understand it or agree with it. (I know this is not the case, but having experienced anti-Masonry hatred from surprising sources in the past I want to warn you that it could easily be misinterpreted). I think you may be trying a little too hard here to not show preference toward something you feel strongly about. SeanNovack (talk) 06:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that this is about excluding information, it's about making the category meaningful. For almost every Freemason that has ever lived, Freemasonry is a hobby, just like golf. If I'm researching great Spanish golfers, I don't want to wade through a meaningless list of names looking for people who actually contributed to the game, rather than little-known scientists who played the occasional round. By all means mention masonry in the article, alongside watching hockey, underwater opera, and whatever else they did in their spare time. People who actually contributed to masonry are few enough, let's not bury them. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 10:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SeanNovack, you misunderstand. This isn't about article content whatsoever. It is only about the categories that we list at the very bottom of every article that index important elements about that article. It is about the automatic lists as here that are automatically generated by Wikipedia to help index. The actual content of any article will not change one way or another if a person has a category entry at the bottom of the article or not. Go to the very bottom of any article's code and you will see the category codes listed after the coding word "Category:" --Taivo (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taivo, thank you. I was misunderstanding what Blueboar was referring to. I appreciate the clarification and with that in mind I would have to agree that the proper place to make this particular determination would be better made elsewhere. SeanNovack (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also have to agree that this is almost certainly the wrong forum for this discussion. The issue is about the application of a category, and the relevant experts to rules of categorization are at the noticeboard, not here. There also seems to me to be a rather serious question of possible forum shopping as per WP:FORUMSHOP here, because, unfortunately, so far as I can tell the active editors of this project tend to be themselves freemasons, which can and should raise rather serious potential problems with WP:POV. Also, there is, unfortunately, the question as how to, exactly, determine that someone is and is not notable for being a freemason. I would think, on the most neutral level, those individuals who have over time received significant attention on the subject of their freemasonry in independent reliable sources would, potentially, all qualify as being to some degree notable for being freemasons. Honestly, that would probably include all the articles we have on people who have been described in reliable sources as Freemasons. I am currently making a list of the articles in the Mackey encyclopedia of freemasonry found at the phoenixmasonry web site, and I tend to think that, honestly, pretty much anyone with a substantive article in what are generally considered relatively reliable sources like that one would probably to some degree merit serious consideration. Now, there is a side issue of overcategorization. That is a different matter, and honestly the people here are probably not the best ones to determine that matter of policy and guidelines. Under the circumstances, I believe the best thing to do would be to more or less close this discussion, file an RfC regarding the question and leave notices on the relevant noticeboards and related pages, and see what input we get.

If the latter is done, I also believe that it would very useful to at the same time ask for independent input regarding what articles should and should not be tagged for the project. In general, I tend to think that any article which so clearly relates to a given topic that reliable sources relating to that topic would contain a significant degree of reliable material which might be covered at some length in that article should be tagged. In effect, use the banner as an indicator "we've probably got some unique material on this subject you could use" rather than "we want to work on this article." I am going through creating a lot of lists, which can currently be found at Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles, and honestly think that, if we are all here to build an encyclopedia, making it easier for editors interested in developing a specific article to find all the potentially relevant and useful sources for information which should receive significant discussion in that article is probably the most neutral and collaborative way to go. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, I disagree with the premise of the instructions. I had disagreed with your interpretation of the categorization of people guidelines on several people you tried to remove such a category from. Multiple people disagreed with you at that time, and then several days later, you added this editorialized instruction into the category, without informing those of use you disagreed with you. To me it was an underhanded attempt to get your way by simply adding your opinion to the category. As I originally said, the category for people says "standard biographical information". It isn't demographic information, but biographical information. Membership in a fraternity would certainly qualify as standard biographical information. No biographer would leave such information out, unless it was an abridged version for a specific purpose. The bulk of the objections listed here seem to be along the lines of "it's hard to do what we want within the guidelines of Wikipedia, so we're going to do it this non-standard way". That is not the way to run an airline. In addition, I agree with JASpencer, John Carter, and others that this is not the proper forum for this consensus. It is a question about general categories for people usage, and how the Category Freemasons uses it. The Freemasons category should not be using categories differently thank Elks, Moose, VFW, American Legion, etc. Ahwiv (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Membership in a fraternity would certainly qualify as standard biographical information. No biographer would leave such information out, unless it was an abridged version for a specific purpose.... Really? Then perhaps you can explain why William Manchester's exhaustive, two volume biography of Winston Churchill (The Last Lion) - which goes into all sorts of details about Churchill's private life - does not even mention Churchill's membership in the fraternity... not once. It's hardly an "abridged version for a specific purpose". In fact, most biographies of Churchill leave his membership out. Why do you think this is? Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree for the reasons SeanNovack (talk) lists above. Eric Cable | Talk 12:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EricCable, perhaps you failed to notice that SeanNovack's objection was due to his misunderstanding of the proposal. He thought that Blueboar didn't want Masonic membership mentioned in the article, but I pointed out the error and SeanNovack saw his error. This isn't about article content at all. This is about a small line of code at the bottom of the article which is used for indexing purposes only. Read all the replies to SeanNovack and you will see the exchange in its entirety. --Taivo (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of intent: Yes, my query for consensus of the project has nothing to do with whether we mention a person's membership in an article or not (or how much we talk about it... that depends purely on sourcing). I am inquiring about what instructions we should/should not give for adding someone to Category:Freemasons (and by extension the related sub-cats). Blueboar (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty Then.. I would say if the article states that they are/were a Freemason add the tag. If the article does not include it, then omit the tag. Eric Cable | Talk 17:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eric... would you be willing to elaborate further on why you feel the way you do on the issue? Blueboar (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.. It comes down to, "What would a print encyclopedia do?" A print encyclopedia would not mention every single discernible fact concerning a person, but only those that were notable in respect of that person's own life, or which that person himself considered important. The fact that Harry Truman was a Freemason meets both tests. The fact that Lyndon Johnson was a Freemason meets neether test, and is of interest only in the context of Freemasonry. Don't clutter up every single article with unimportant details. Thus, I support the statement pretty much as written. Also, I see no problem with project consensus being developed here on the project talk page.RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 22:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Article on Anglo-American Freemasonry

Just saw that it was created. At the moment is is simply a cut and paste of a few paragraphs from the main Freemasonry article. Needs work to make it a true stand alone article distinct from the main Freemasonry page. Blueboar (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done. MSJapan (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those who wish to comment... the CfD discussion is at Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]