Category talk:Freemasonry

Do we want to list every Mason?

I notice that the Freemasonry category has been added to a couple of articles about people who happen to have been Freemasons (usually with only one line indicating the connection by saying something like "he was an active Freemason"). Is this really something we want? If so, we should put it on our Project to do list. If not, let's remove them. Blueboar 14:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it's a claim, it needs proof. Sometimes it doesn't matter much, but it depends on the individual. MSJapan 16:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Name Umbrage

Maybe I'm the only one, but I take offense at the term "Freemason" as the broad categorization of masonic activities. Generally, that term is used to implicate us in absurd conspiracy theories etc. Why not rename the project and categories the more correct "Free and Accepted Masons?" CigarBandit 09:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC) C.G.

Fair question. It's important to remember that we are not writing for Masons, but for the general public, whose accepted general term is "Freemason" (and we use the term as well). Historically, the designation "Free and Accepted" (F&AM) is not the same as "Ancient Free and Accepted" (AF&AM), and the usage varies on the jurisdiction (which means F&AM is not always correct). The end result is adding a level of unneeded obfuscation that really means nothing to anyone, as whether it's F or AF, one is still a Mason. MSJapan 01:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair Response :). I can certainly see the logic of that, and the argument for said side had entered my mind, but I still hold the possibly naive view that the truest of terms is the best way to better educate people and disseminate a more cohesive and complete document. Anyway, I was curious and you responded to my curiosity, so thank you and keep up the good work here at Wikipedia, gentlemen (and ladies). CigarBandit 09:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC) C.G.

Freemasonry POV

I have a question concerning the POV of articles on freemasonry. There is a tendency to bias the POV of articles on freemasonry towards the POV of "regular" freemasonry by changing the content or re-categorizing articles. It seems to be very hard to adher to a NPOV on freemasonry as it is a controversial topic which invites POV and even vandalism. How to deal with this in a constructive and open way to lead the work on Wikipedia towards NPOV? I only ask this for the benefit of the content on Wikipedia, not from any POV towards "regular" or "irregular" freemasonry. Pvosta 07:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a fairly well-established consensus about its historical, original significance? Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Henry P. H. Bromwell

I have been doing some extensive revisions to the Henry P. H. Bromwell page and would like to add the freemasonry category to this page. I understand that community consensus is against this, but I feel that his work with Masonic Geometry may merit an exception.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I would personally say No, the category is not appropriate. The entire concept of Masonic Geometry is debatable, and certainly not something that is part of mainstream Freemasonry. It isn't quite "fringe", but it comes close. As for the article itself... it is one thing to discuss Bromwell's ideas as being his opinion, it is another to state them as fact. A lot of statements need to be "hedged" with attributive prefixes: "According to Bromwell...", "Bromwell believed that...", "Bromwell wrote..." etc. Blueboar (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

no worries, a lot of what was written in that article comes from secondary sources as per Wikipedia guidelines, the fact is that outside the book itself I haven't been able to access anything primary from Bromwell, and the only thing I used from the book are the forwards and introductions.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

actually I have re-read the Bromwell piece and I am unclear on where you believe statements need to be hedged? I am going to copy this conversation to the Bromwell talk page so that we can continue this discussion in the appropriate space.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Categorisation: "Secret societies"?

@Blueboar:, @WegianWarrior: Regarding recent revisions. No pun intended - actually no values assumed - but arguably Category:Freemasonry does qualify in Category:Secret societies, or either we'll have to change the description of Category:Secret societies? Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Then go with the latter option, and change the definition. I note that the definition given on the cat page is problematic. Our article on Secret societies gives several definitions... and they do not agree with each other. If we used one of the other definitions, we would not include organizations such as the Freemasons in the cat.

More importantly, given that there are multiple sources that explicitly state that the Freemasons are not a Secret Society, I don't think we can base categorization on an overly inclusive definition that would (arguably) include them. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: I have been BOLD and have removed the definition at Category:Secret societies... not sure which of the other definitions should be used (it may be better to not include any definition). That can be discussed at the category talk page. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Arguably 'Category:Freemasonry' does NOT qualify in 'Category:Secret societies', since there is a multitude of reliable sources stating that Freemasonry is not a secret society. As mentioned in my edit summery, the belief that Freemasonry is a secret society appears to mainly be restricted to conspiracy theorists (and a number of anti-masons, but a large number of them seems to be conspiracy theorists as well...). WegianWarrior (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore... I would disagree with Chicbyaccident's assessment that Freemasonry does fit the definition that used to be at the cat page... Let's examine that definition and apply it to Freemasonry:

• A secret society is an organization which requires its members to conceal certain activities - such as rites of initiation or club ceremonies - from outsiders.

Freemasonry does not require it's members to conceal its activities... In fact, they often publicize their activities (posting announcements of their meetings in local newspapers). Its rites and ceremonies have been exposed numerous times, and are matters of public record.

• Members may be required to conceal or deny their membership...

Hardly... Members often proudly display their membership with bumper stickers, lapel pins, etc. etc. They are happy to tell others that they are Masons. Furthermore, membership is often required by the government to be a matter of public record.

• and are sometimes sworn to hold the society's secrets by oath.

This is about the only part of the definition that comes even remotely close to fitting... but even then, it widely misses the mark. Yes, Masons do swear an oath to "keep the secrets" of the fraternity... but there is no clear definition of what is and is not "secret"... indeed, many Grand Lodges have decided that (since there have been so many exposures over the years) nothing is really "secret" anymore, and they publish "official" ritual books that are for sale (even to non-Masons). No... the reality is that the Masons are actually less secretive than your average business (which usually have non-disclosure agreements that employees are required to sign).

So... no... even if we were to apply the definition that used to be included on the cat page (before I removed it), Freemasonry would not have fit that definition.

Of course, if one is a conspiracy theorist, then one believes that all this public acknowledgement is merely a smoke-screen... and that there is REAL secret stuff going on... stuf that the Masons don't tell anyone about... but which, of course, the conspiracy theorists somehow knows all about (and they will tell you if you buy their videos). Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Freemasonry may contain a lot of entities that are or were partly or fully transparent, as well as those that require or required partly or full member integrity in terms of details or the whole. This is undisputed. Consequently, if Category:Secret societies have any raison d'être, naturally it should contain Category:Freemasonry. Anyone understand that a category attributed to an enitity does not prove an essential or even thoroughly consequental trait to that entity, but merely seeks to assist visitors looking for things that are related to a certain category, i.e. Category:Freemasonry. Again, no offence intended, and again, not meant to propose freemasonry as whole as a conspiration, an essentially secret society, or so. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Then would it not make a lot more sense to tag those entities that may belong in Category:Secret societies instead of the whole Category:Freemasonry? By tagging the whole category you're implying (rather strongly) that Freemasonry is a secret society, something which is it is verifiable not.

To draw a parallel, it would be akin to placing Category:Presidents of the United States in Category:Adultery since one or more of the US presidents may have done a naughty with someone he wasn't married to... WegianWarrior (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Additional: Please list the entities in Category:Freemasonry that you feel belong in Category:Secret societies? The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Propaganda Due, and then only after their charter were withdrawn, making them at best a pseudo-masonic lodge (the article is allready listed in Category:Secret societies related to organized crime, a subcategory to Category:Secret societies). WegianWarrior (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that may be a good compromise. However, for the rest - provided the essential traits of general freemasonry - does it qualify in Category:Religious orders? Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Going by the definition currently used in out article on Religious order (... communities and organizations of people who live in some way set apart from society in accordance with their specific religious devotion, usually characterized by the principles of its founder's religious practice), no. For starters; Freemasonry isn't a religion, there are no specific masonic devotions, and no identified founder. As an aside, the continental masonic tradition allows atheists to join, making the placement in the suggested category even less suitable. WegianWarrior (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

OK. Still don't agree with the disqualification of Category:Secret societies, though, but letting it go. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)