Talk:Continental Freemasonry in North America

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Freemasonry Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freemasonry articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to join us in our labors, please join the discussion and add your name to the list of participants. The "Top of the Trestleboard" section below can offer some ideas on where to start and what to do.FreemasonryWikipedia:WikiProject FreemasonryTemplate:WikiProject FreemasonryFreemasonry articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

◆ WikiProject Freemasonry's "Top of the Trestleboard":

Improve to Featured Article status
Add content to stubs…
Check recently changed articles for possible improvement, to remove vandalism, etc.
Requests
[Watch this list]
- Articles for all United Grand Lodge of England-recognized Grand Lodges (if notable)
Participate in articles listed for deletion
Need images
New Article to be created

Sourcing... again

JASpencer, this article has no secondary sources, much like the original GOUSA article. If the only sources about these lodges are their own self-published websites, then this article will have to be redirected back to Continental Freemasonry. Please read up on secondary sources. A ni Mate 22:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a very wide view of what is independent of the source. A freemason who does not belong to that lodge is independent at least for notability purposes, surely? JASpencer (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But your citations are, for the most part, simply external links! You've proven they exist, but not why they are notable. Have these lodges received coverage in reliable secondary sources other than links to their own websites? A ni Mate 22:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The negative reaction they've received makes them notable, however the (IMO mistaken) opinion is that freemason=not independent from source. If a Trotskyite splinter received no attention from a mainstream social democratic party then it would not be notable, if it did receive attention then it would be notable. The fact that both sets of people were left wing would not mean that the social democrats were trotskyites. JASpencer (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your "sources" say nothing other than, "We are a group and here is our website." That is it. Perhaps you would like to make a change to WP:SECONDARY that says, "...except when it comes to articles about Freemasonry". Unfortunately, that isn't the case right now. Do you know of any reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss Continental Freemasonry in North America besides masonicinfo.com? A ni Mate 22:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hodapp? Author of Freemasonry for Dummies? JASpencer (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using the book as a reference would certainly be a start, but a firm no to his blog. If a blog isn't connected to a major published work, it cannot be cited, and even then newspaper blogs are often deemed unreliable. Do you understand my objections to the article's current sources? You have certainly shown that these lodges exist. You have done absolutely nothing to show why they are notable. A ni Mate 23:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animate, I'm probably being slow, but when this was discussed before it seemed to be agreed that WP:SPS covered this as "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Hodapp ticks these boxes. I probably don't understand, but your interpretation seems to be more restrictive. JASpencer (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not being slow, you just didn't finish reading the section you quoted above. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. It's the sentence right after the one above. Has someone else reported this information outside of a blog? A ni Mate 21:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose the creation of this article... POV

JASpencer, I have made it very very clear on numerous occasions that strongly oppose creating any "Continental Freemasonry in North America" article. Doing so violates NPOV, as it gives undue weight to a branch of Freemasonry that is in the distinct minority in that region of the world (if not on the Fringe)

It is one thing to have a broader Continental Freemasonry article to discuss that branch of the fraternity in global terms, and to discuss the concepts that separate that branch from others ... but I strongly oppose splitting off regional articles such as this.

You know that while I think it is useful to have "Freemasonry in X region" articles to discuss the history, development and current state of the fraternity in any given region... I strongly feel that such articles must meet NPOV by discussing all branches of Freemasonry in the stated region. You are aware that I am in the process of drafting an article on "Freemasonry in North America"... in which I intend to discuss both "Mainstream" and "Continental" Freemasonry in the region. I find your actions in creating this article to be in bad faith.

I also find your double redirecting of the GOUSA article to here to be in extremely bad faith. I agreed that the GOUSA article should be redirected to Continental Freemasonry... I did not agree to almost immediately re-redirecting the information off into another article... and in fact stated firm opposition to doing so on the GOUSA talk page. Blueboar (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. Unless JASpencer is able to come up with some reliable sources for this article, it too will be redirected to Continental Freemasonry. I've asked about his sources at WP:RSN and I can't really see anybody agreeing that the sources cited are reliable. Perhaps you should start a draft in user space at User:Bluboar/Freemasonry in North America, and you two could collaborate via the talk page. A ni Mate 00:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. It's just that I started such a draft about a week ago... it is at User:Blueboar/drafts... I announced that I did so at least twice on the GOUSA article talk page, and JASpencer even left me comments about it. That is why I find his creation of this article to be in such bad faith. Blueboar (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's certainly not the most respectful thing to do, but nothing here is irrevocable. Continue working on your draft and give it excellent sources. Meanwhile, if JASpencer is unable to come up with viable, reliable, verifiable, and any other word ending in -iable sources, this will be redirected to Continental Freemasonry in a couple of days at the latest. A ni Mate 02:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would any of you be opposed to expanding the Continental Freemasonry article's section on North America? If not, then I have no issues with the suggestion to forward it. However, as I have said before, I believe that many of the American GLs may be subject to the same scrutiny, since many of them are very small now and may have a hard time proving notability on the same grounds.[1]Voltairesghost (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are enough reliable secondary sources to warrent an expansion, I would have no objection to doing so. That is the key to what AniMate has been telling us... the need for reliable, independant, secondary sources. That really means discussion in published books, non-masonic newspaper reports, and accademic journals (I would consider the publications of Masonic research institutions such as Quatro-Corinati to be a masonic equivalent of an accademic journal... they have peer review and high editorial standards).

On your second point, I agree that many of the articles on "mainstream" Grand Lodges have the same sourcing (and thus notability) problems. This does need to be addressed. By the way... thanks for the link, I have been looking for a reliable source on mainstream membership estimates. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One note on the link, the numbers do not take into account dual membership or lifetime membership. So, if one person belongs to multiple lodges, they are counted multiple times. Most "regular" Masons I know are a member of at least 2 or 3 lodges. Likewise, older members that pass away and hold a lifetime membership are often kept on the rolls for many years before the error is corrected. So, the actual numbers may be a little lower than those shown since there is no true audit available. However, I believe that these are a good reference point for considering which GLs may be in need of a notability check.Voltairesghost (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting us really side tracked, but I don't see anything on the MSA page to indicate whether their numbers do or do not take into account dual memberships or lifetime memberships. So how do you know? Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common knowledge, just ask them. One example of intentionally altering numbers is in Halcyon Lodge, the one that left the GLOH, before leaving they were forced to pay per capita on deceased members by the GLOH even though they were known to not be members. How many more such cases exist? They publish their head-count, but I would like to know how many lodges each still has. This would provide a much more accurate count since the lodge must have a certain level of support to exist. Please do not misread this post as stating that the GLs are all intentionally inflating the numbers. I believe that some of it is just due to bad records, e.g. lifetime members passing away, etc. Of course, this is all irrelevant to the topic at hand and I will be glad to answer any other questions regarding this on my talk page.Voltairesghost (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... common knowledge... in other words, yet another thing we can not mention in Wikipedia because it isn't written down and published in a reliable source. It may well be true, but it isn't verifiable. Not helpful. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, WP:CIVIL. In other words avoid biting newbies and calm down. Not helpful. Thanks. JASpencer (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar, had you actually finished reading my post, I said that it was off-topic, but is verifiable by contacting those bodies that you belong to. If you have anything further to say on this subject please post it on my talk page. However, you have set a double standard in your own right through the defence of supposed landmarks in Masonry. Most of them are made-up, which would explain why there is no foundational evidence for them. Hence the political games that you are trying to play here. Those things that set you apart from me, as a Mason, are contrived and fake walls created by men who are long dead. Why do you persist in building those walls?Voltairesghost (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VG... The problem is that Wikipedia does not allow for most "common knowledge" type statements, and certainly does not allow "contact them, they will tell you" verification... for us to be able to mention something in an article, it has to be published in a reliable source somewhere. I did not mean to imply that I doubted what you told me. I simply meant that we can not include any kind of statement about how the MSA derived its numbers in a Wikipedia article. Since I have been looking for a source for numbers, this is therefor not helpful to me. I am sorry if what I wrote was not clear.

In any case... you are right, it is off topic. Let's drop the subject and more on. Blueboar (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, point taken. I wish I had more to give you in this regard. There are, unfortunately, very few good sources of information in this regard.Voltairesghost (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is (unfortunately) true about a lot of things regarding Freemasonry. It is one of the constent frustrations that those of us who edit the various Freemasonry articles have to deal with... especially those of us who are Freemasons. As insiders, we know that something we want to say about the fraternity is factual and accurate... but we can't say it in our articles because no one ever wrote it down and published it in a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'traditional'

A recent change was made in regards to the usage of the word 'traditional'. The quote from the change is as follows: "in North America, 'traditional' could mean 'allied with UGLE' as that is the older tradition." However, in consideration that the UGLE was not formed until 1813 and the GOdF can trace its lineage to the original GL of 1717, I do not believe that this assertion is correct. 'Traditional' is not exclusively used by the Anglo-American GLs, nor are they any "older" than other traditions. I could go into a whole discourse on the 'Antients' versus the 'Moderns' and the fact that the so-called "older" tradition of Masonry in England today follows the Ahiman Rezon which is the constitutions of the Antients, and did not exist until the latter half of the 18th century. (You will also need to note that this is when the requirment of belief in deity became prevalent because all Anglo-American GLs use this as the foundation of their constitutions.) However, I believe that there are ample resources on the internet and in book form that would do a much better job of proving that the Anglo-American tradition of Masonry is no older. In additiona, even a cursory reading of the letters of Ben Franklin and George Washington will show that both men were extremely put-off by the "new" form of Masonry that had begun to move into America towards the end of the 1700s. In particular, this form of Masonry was extremely pro-England, which to many of the Freemason founding fathers was good reason to never attend lodge. It should also be noted that Franklin was removed from his lodge by this same group and denied his Masonic funeral by the GL of PA until 2006, which now uses him as a political and historical tool. (Although, he had always kept his ties to the lodges in France that he belonged to.) Seems a little intillectually dishonest, no?Voltairesghost (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not dishonest at all... Just a disagreement. But perhaps I confused you by using the term "UGLE", so let me rephrase... the form of Freemasonry that is "traditional" in North America decends from English Freemasonry... this is the form of Freemasonry that today is embodied by the 51 "mainstream" US Grand Lodges, the various Provincial Grand Lodges in Canada, as well as the various Prince Hall Grand Lodges. The Continental form of Freemasonry is a new-comer to North America. It definitely isn't "traditional".

That said... my point in changing the text was that we should avoid using the term "traditional Freemasonry" completely, as there can be legitimate POV debate over what constitutes "traditional". More importantly, we have to keep in mind the audience for this article: the bulk of those who will read this article are non-masons, who will not know (and probably not care about) all the hair splitting background history that you and I are discussing. When they see the term "traditional Freemasonry" they are going to assume this means "the type of Freemasonry that was practiced by my Grandpa at the local lodge in my town". This certainly isn't what you mean by "traditional Freemasonry". Thus, it is best to avoid this confusing term all together. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I can concede to your understanding of the word 'traditional' in the context of NA; although I believe it should be changed to "Traditional Liberal (or Continental)" instead, as this is more specific. However, I do not believe that there is a clear understanding of the historical foundations of the GLs in America. The GLs that exist in America today are not the GLs that existed before the Revolutionary War. As I mentioned in my previous message, this is a misconception that has been propogated by bad information. It is clear from the letters of many of the founding fathers that this is the case. And within scholarly circles, where truth is held to a higher esteem than tradition, it is a well known fact. So, to state that this liberal tradition of Freemasonry is "new" to America, is completely incorrect. Sure, it died out as the Antients moved into America, but they never claimed France as they did England and America. However, it is re-emerging in America with these groups.Voltairesghost (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

he GLs that exist in America today are not the GLs that existed before the Revolutionary War. In some cases, they are, such as Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New York - all deriving from both Moderns and Antients.--Vidkun (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VG, I agree that you do not have a clear understanding of the historical foundations of the GLs in America. So let me enlighten you... First, lets talk about the US... Prior to the revolution, there were no Grand Lodges in North America. There were several Provincial Grand Lodges, opperating under charter from either the Grand Lodge of England (the "Moderns") or the Antient Grand Lodge of England (the "Ancients"). After the revolution (and in one or two cases during it), the lodges in each state created independant Grand Lodges. Some were direct continuations of the Provincial GL (which simply declared their independance), some (like NY) were hybrids - a union of the Ancients and Moderns PGLs, still others were new creations. However, whatever their origin, they created constitutions that were based upon those in England. As the US grew and expanded westward, so did Freemasonry. Masons who had moved from one state into territories what would eventually become another state would petition an existing Grand Lodge for a warrent to form a Lodge. When the territory was granted Statehood, these lodges (at least 3) would gather, agree form a new Grand Lodge (with constitutions based upon those already in existance) and petition the existing Grand Lodges for recognition. In Canada the process was similar... except that the "original" GLs on the east coast maintained their Provincial GL status for a longer period of time (until after the union of the Ancients and Moderns and the formation of UGLE).

You say that "the GLs that exist in America today are not the GLs that existed before the Revolutionary War". Of course not... Freemasonry has never been a static thing, and it is affected by society around it. Freemasonry in the US has been affected by events like The American Revolution, the Morgan Affair, the US Civil War, and the boom of Fraternalism in general that occured around the turn of the last century. Freemasonry in Canada is closer to what it was in colonial days, but it too has had its own changes. Heck, the same can be said for every Grand Lodge. But the changes in Anglo/American Freemasonry are tiny when compared to the changes that have occured in Continental Freemasonry. The GOdF that existed in the early 1700s was profoundly different from the one that existed in 1870 (at the formal split between the two traditions). What we call the Continental Tradition today really evolved during the decades after the Napolionic Wars... it was highly influenced by the revolutions of the mid 1800s. To pretend otherwise is (to use your words) intellectually dishonest.Blueboar (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, if they are affected by society, why did the GLs in America become pro-England after the revolution? Why did Washington state in his letters that he chose to no longer participate in lodge due to the way that they treated Franklin? It seems that the opposite should have occurred. Regardless, I do not wish to get into a puffed-up chest contest as I am a minority here and would rather that you just read some history books from non-Masonic sources on this period. Where do you get this notion that 1870 was a formal split? Have I not provided enough historical documentation to prove that this is a widely-held misconception?

Please check out some Masonic sources on this page Grand_Lodge_of_Pennsylvania#The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Moderns in regards to the Antients and Moderns in the state of PA. You will see that the assertion that PA has the same presence as it did before the revolution is not true. Let's face it there was a schism in Masonry in the mid-1700s and the group that has and still controls English-speaking groups is overwhelmingly from the 'Antients', whereas those of French origin can trace their heritage to the 'Moderns'.Voltairesghost (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the GLs in America become so pro-England after the revolution?... actually, they didn't... at least not right away. That occured later (once UGLE was formed). At first there was quite a bit of discord and confusion between the various US GLs and the English Grand Lodges. For one thing, neither of the English Grand Lodges were quick to give up their claim of sovereigncy in America... as is witnessed by (I think) the Moderns granting a charter to Africa Lodge (the origins of Prince Hall Freemasonry). All of the US Grand Lodges had to wrestle over issue over whether to recognize the Moderns, the Ancients or both. The bond between US and English Freemasonry really developed after the union of the Moderns and Ancients made such issues irrelevant. Of course, Canadian Freemasonry during this time maintained a consistant "pro-English" attitude... which is understandable since Canadian Freemasonry was still part of English Freemasonry.

As for the 1870 split... sorry I mispoke... I meant 1877: when GOdF changed their constitution to allow the admission of Antheists. Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Role in the Obama Administration

There have been rumours that the GOUSA and other Irregular Lodges have played a more significant political role since the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States, at least from the perspective of historic American politics and public deism. Now, these are just rumours, but it would certainly be a good thing to investigate on what is Continental Masonry's political role in the US and how it fairs politically in comparison with older, more established Lodges that have had great influence in past administrations. ADM (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While GOUSA and the other Continental style bodies do not have the complete ban on the discussion of politics and religion that is common to the "Mainstream" Grand Lodges, I think it is a huge stretch to say that they play any significant political role in the US. They are simply too small to play such a role. This is in contrast to some European countries where the Continental style is dominant, and do play a political role. I would also disagree that the older, more established US lodges have had any great influence in past administrations (that is more a conspiracy theory than fact). Blueboar (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec province

It appears that Continental Freemasonry has a special niche in the Quebec province, although the majority of local lodges are of the regular/deist branch. This niche is mainly attributed to positive relations between France and Quebec/Canada, with the GODF being involved in local Masonry since the period of the American Revolution. In the 20th century, some conspiracy theorists have blamed this French encroachment on the rise of Quebec separatism and on the wider phenomenon of the Quiet Revolution. ADM (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not go so far as to say that there is a "special niche" in Quebec.... but there is a presence. The Grande Loge Nationale du Canada, which is a member of CLIPSAS, started in 1985. It is relatively small (not surprising in a Province that is largely Catholic)...perhaps one hundred members total in 15 lodges (Compared to the Anglo/US style Grand Lodge of Quebec which has been around since 1869 and has 4,582 members in 94 loges). I would take the idea that there is a tie between the GLNC and Quebec seperatism with a grain of salt... Less than half of the GLNC's lodges are French speaking (7)... the others are Arabic speaking (6), English speaking (1), Spanish speaking (1). As for what conpiracy theorists say... two words: Reliable sources? Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GOUSA and WP:UNDUE

Let me start off by saying that I completely agree that a short paragraph on the Grand Orient of the United States is entirely appropriate for this article... but the recent additions skewed the article to the point where over half of the article was devoted to it. GOUSA is still quite small (last I heard it had something like 10 lodges, with an average of 20 members each... correct me if I am out of date), and such in depth discussion gives it Undue weight. Blueboar (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GOUSA additions and clarification

I have revised the GOUSA section. It is slightly shorter than the longer version. My argument for keeping the lenght is as follows. Of the three entries (orders), GOUSA is the second largest. GWU is only 5 lodges. GOUSA has 12 and other triangle lodges in the works. Le Droit is the largest order in the USA, but not by far. If anything the Le Droit entry is too short, given its history, and then this will balance with the other two. Given the size of GOUSA and GWU, the length of the GOUSA article is proportional.

The Chamberlain URL is dead. Until someone finds a replacement, I think it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khartung (talk • contribs) 01:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I have cut a bit more, which brings the section down to a more realistic size. Blueboar (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Now we need to get the total number of lodges for Le Droit. I have corresponded with the Grand Master before. I'll see what I can dig up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khartung (talk • contribs) 21:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent addition removed for inaccuracies

I was quite shocked when I saw the latest addition. It was full of inaccuracies and the only things the editor could possibly ever cite would be the two letters between the GWU and GOUSA revoking their treaties. Which of course the person adding the content either did not do his homework or is purposefully being himself mislead or trying to mislead others. I do not know which but have my suspicions.

On Dec. 28th, 2010 the GOUSA sent a letter to the GWU revoking the treaty. The GWU followed on Jan. 10, 2011 with their own letter to the GOUSA. These two letters are displayed at: http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2011/01/more-squabbles-in-irregular-world.html (hosted by Chris Hodapp author of Freemasons for Dummies with no ties to either the GOUSA or GWU). Note there was no reason given by the GOUSA for revoking the treaty. It is however well known that the GWU is a masonic body chartered "under" the GOdF and as such the treaty in place between the GOdF and GOUSA also includes the GWU. In short, the treaty between the two was redundant. The GWU was the GOdF's mixed gender body but in 2010 the GOdF became mixed gender thus removing the need for the GWU for all intense purposes. I can only speculate here but I would think the GWU is concerned about this since both the GOUSA and GOdF, who are sovereign unto each other, are both mixed gender now. You have to draw you own conclusions here.

Only one "lodge" has ever been removed and that was Euclid and not for the reasons he stated but over their wanting to not allow anyone who was not Christian to join. The others he references specifically, Emeth, Benjamin Franklin and Praxis were not full voting lodges but instead probationary lodges working under Warrants of Dispensation from the Grand Master. In short Benjamin Franklin and Praxis warrants were pulled because their leadership decided they did not want to wait the probationary period and "allegedly" attempted a coup d'état, which failed of course, and the two Masters are currently under suspension awaiting their trials. The other Masons in those lodges were offered to restart them under new leadership or to transfer to other existing lodges. Sir Francis Bacon lodge is not defunct but just changed their name. Traditions I need to verify their current membership status but I know for sure it did not resign and Sirus only lost one member. The membership numbers he referenced are wrong, way wrong.

I also find it extremely unusual that a Brothers name, full name at that, was directly cited. I just spoke personally with the mentioned Brother and he was unaware his name had been referenced and did not want it to be used period and most especially used to slander the GOUSA.

To keep it simple, nothing in the entire paragraph that was added can be properly sourced under Wikipedia's rules except maybe for the two letters referenced above and must be removed. On a final note, any Masonic body who tries to bring liberal Freemasonry back to America will always be under attack and have lies made up about them. Anyone who defies what Antient or mainstream Freemasons have always done, which is not allow Atheist, Women and in many states African Americans to join will meet the full wrath of the mainstream pundits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwbro1 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um... Please check the edit history and don't make personal attacks ... I have not added anything to this article recently. Since last March (almost a year ago) the extent of my edits to this page have been to add a citation request (to the very paragraph Dwbro is concerned about) and to revert a vandalism edit by an IP editor who removed cited information about the original GOdF Treaty. I will strike the use of my user name from your comment, but an apology would be nice. Blueboar (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies BB. I am not a very avid user of wikipedia so am very capable of making mistakes. :) Please accept my public apology for wrongly accusing you of making the slanderous edit.--99.194.178.145 (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apology... a brotherly thing. I have taken the liberty of amending your comment a bit more, to remove any implication that I was involved. I hope you don't mind.

As for your concerns... your complaint about the material being unsourced is quite valid (especially considering that the material mentioned a living person). You were absolutely correct to remove it. However, in the future, please keep your suspicions as to the motivations of other editors to yourself, and don't make knee-jerk personal attacks based on those suspicions. Focus on the edit, not the editor. Blueboar (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed B:. I have no problem admitting my mistakes, which I make quite often. :( Thank you again.--99.194.178.145 (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure... I am always happy to point out other people's mistakes. (: Blueboar (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the current grand master and the past grand master are not on the same page regarding Euclid. [2] We should be accurate in our statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadenareal (talk • contribs) 01:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes to the GOUSA section

This section continues to be altered by IP editors, without any reliable sources to support the changes. My problem is that it is very hard to find reliable sources on the current status of GOUSA. I can see from the George Washington Union's webpage that the GWU has revoked its treaty of Amity... and I have heard rumors that GOF would follow suit. I have also heard that some of GOUSAs lodges have been unhappy and may have quit GOUSA (to either join GWU or form their own new Grand Lodge/Orient)... but again these are rumors, and rumors can be wrong. Does anyone have a reliable source for what is currently going on with GOUSA? Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar this is the work of a few suspended folks one in particular in VA. If you check Chris Hodapp's Freemasons for Dummies you will see where they tried this before about the GWU. They said the GWU pulled the treaty when in actuality the GOUSA revoked it for the GWUs part in something that I cannot discuss in the open. As for the Treaty between the GOdF and the GOUSA what they missed is articles 8 and 9 of their respective treaty which says that if any dispute arises the two GMs must appoint representatives to discuss the issue. It also states that neither side can unilaterally pull recognition without a minimum of six months notice, which I can guarantee has not happened. The GOdF and GOUSA are not stupid, neither would jeopardize their integrity by violating their own treaty. --Dwbro1 (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well... Wikipedia does not really care about the issue of "who revoked the treaty first" ... what matters to us is that the two groups are no longer in Amity. I note that the current state of the article no longer even mentions the GWU-GOUSA treaty ... that is probably the best way to deal with the issue. Blueboar (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update... since the above comments, the treaty of amity between the Grand Orient of France and GOUSA has been officially withdrawn (see here for more information on that). I am taking the same route there as as I did with GWU... rather than confuse the reader, I think it better to simply not mention the treaty in the first place.

That said... It is becoming clear that more and more continental style Masonic bodies are distancing themselves from GOUSA... this reopens the question as to whether GOUSA should be included in this article. I don't have any opinion on that... I merely ask the question. Blueboar (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge the whole neutrality of this article

This page is inherently biased toward Anglo Freemasonry. We don't need a rehashing of Anglo Masonry on the Continental page. If you want to learn about Anglo Masonry go to that page. This page has an obvious bias, and needs major reworking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.28.150 (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um... Could you please explain how the article is biased towards Anglo Freemasonry? Blueboar (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North America vs. US

The title of the article is misleading, as it does not even mention either Canada or Mexico, or any other North American country other than US. I recommend renaming it to Continental Freemasonry in the US, or adding sections for non-US organizationsTruther2012 (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there is continental (aka 'irregular') masonry in Canada and/or Mexico, but please be bold and add the sections if you have any verifiable information on the subject. WegianWarrior (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Masonry certainly does exist in both Canada and Mexico... looking at our List of Masonic Grand Lodges article, in Canada there is the Grande Loge Nationale du Canada which is a member of CLIPSAS (however it's not a large group - only 15 lodges, mostly in Quebec and Montreal - so it may be undue to give them more than a passing reference). For Mexico there is the Grand Orient of Mexico - which was historically very big, and influential (it played a crucial role in Mexican politics in the 19th and early 20th century) ... no idea of its current size, but it also belongs to CLIPSAS. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there is a number of CLIPSAS-affiliated GLs in Canada, particularly in French (hint) speaking Quebec. I do not necessarily have any worthy information on them to add at this time. My concern here was more with the article's intent.Truther2012 (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far I know - and I've had this article on my watchlist for a while - the intent of the page is to cover Continental Freemasonry in North America. I'm guessing that it so far has mostly covered the Continental Logdes in the US since they they to make a lot more noise... for better or for worse :) WegianWarrior (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a mention of the Canadian Grand Loge National du Canada and the Mexican Grand Orient of Mexico... its a start. Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English vs. Non-English speaking groups

The list of groups / lodges is divided into English and Non-English groups. Is there any particular reason for this? I dont see it adding any value. Further, the same groups are not restricted to any given language. I propose merging two sections and clean up the list.Truther2012 (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I think the idea was to show that some of these groups have direct connections to various European Grand Orients (started by them?), while others don't... but, I agree... what language they speak is not a good way to define this. Blueboar (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DoneTruther2012 (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other Names section

This section is questionable. It's very short, not referenced, and in my view does not add any more information that is particular to Continental Freemasonry in North America. I propose deleting it altogether.Truther2012 (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it does not have any references at the moment does not mean that no references exist. I'll try to dig some up... but please give me a reasonable amount of time. Blueboar (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is less about references, but more about fit. This section may make sense in the overall Continental Freemasonry, since the different names are not North America-specific. Truther2012 (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DONE --Truther2012 (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Continental Freemasonry in North America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090107185550/http://www.calodges.org/no406/FRANC-OR.HTM to http://www.calodges.org/no406/FRANC-OR.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Continental Freemasonry in North America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Regular Masonic jurisdiction which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]