Talk:Grand Orient of the Netherlands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Freemasonry (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a project to improve all Freemasonry-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Freemasonry-related articles, please join the project.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Netherlands (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.


What makes this organization notable? WP:ORG lays out the criteria needed:

A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content.
The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for example) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[1] except for the following:
  • Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.[2] Material that is self-published, or published at the direction of the subject of the article, would be a primary source and falls under different policies.
  • Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories.

The Guideline goes on to discuss Non-commercial organizations:

Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization. In other words, they satisfy the primary criterion above. Other criteria are:
  • Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information may be included in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included.
  • Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found.
  • The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive.
    • Even though the parent organization may be notable, individual chapters of national and international organizations may not be notable enough to warrant a separate article.
    • Local chapter articles should start as a section of the parent organization article. If the parent article grows to the point where it may be split to a new article, and notability can be demonstrated using the general notability guideline, then it can be split. This should occur as a top down process. See {{splitsection}},

It does look as if the scope of activities are national in scale, but the article fails the second part of the criteria: information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization. At the moment, the article is all but completely sourced by the organization's webpage (the single exception being the citation to the UGLE website that supports the statement that UGLE recongizes it... which I do not think is notable in itself, and can be challenged as not being fully independant of the organization.). We need independant third party sources to establish notability here. Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have found a website, in Dutch, from a foundation called "Stichting OVN, Stichting ter bevordering van wetenschappelijk onderzoek naar de geschiedenis van de Vrijmetselarij in Nederland", translated "Foundation for the advancement of masonic History Research in the Netherlands". According to their site ( they are independent and not affiliated with any Freemason's lodge or other esoteric organization. I could get more information from them if they can be considered independent enough by wikipedia's standards.

On the subject of notability...Freemasonry is not a big issue in the Netherlands but the masons have received some coverage when the Grand Orient celebrated its 250th anniversary in 2006. Apart from that, there is this foundation that I mentioned, another foundation called "Stichting Argus" is a critical monitor of Freemasonry in the Netherlands which gives it some coverage. Further, the Order pays for a University professor in the Netherlands and something I think probably is noteworthy, because the history of the Netherlands involves colonialism there are several Provincial Grand Lodges that are under the obedience of the Grand Orient in several countries (including of course the Dutch Antilles but also in Suriname, Thailand, Zimbabwe and South Africa). From that point of view, I think the Grand Orient of the Netherlands does deserve some Wikipedia coverage. I'll try to rewrite the article and see if it can be made something that others might like to read. Regards, Bronsing (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into sourcing ... One thing to be careful of... Masonry in the Netherlands is fragmented. Be sure that sources are talking about the Grand ORIENT and not the Grand LODGE (which is a different, rival body). Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Dutch East Indies (Indonesia)[edit]

Recently, User:KARL RAN added a lot of information (apparently taken from the Dutch version of Wikipedia, and translated) including a list of various historic lodges in Indonesia that, in colonial days, were under the Jurisdiction of the Grand Orient of the Netherlands (GON). I question whether this is really relevant information. I completely agree that, in the context of discussing the history of the GON, the article should mention the fact that GON used to have various provincial and subsidiary Grand Lodges under its jurisdiction, but I see no reason to list lodges that fell under those historic Provincial Grand Lodges. Especially lodges that do not even exist anymore.

The article should primarily focus on the GON as it is today, and while it should discuss its history, it should summarize that history. This isn't an article about Masonry in the Dutch East Indies... its an article about the GON, and should focus on that.

I attempted to shorten and summarize the addition so that the article remained focused on the GON (as opposed to being focused on historic Masonry in the Dutch East Indies) but was reverted by User:KARL RAN.

Perhaps he can explain why he feels that a large section on the history of Masonry in the Dutch East Indies ... and especially a list of historic (no longer extant) lodges... is important to include. Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I could see a separate history article on Freemasonry in the Dutch East Indies (or Freemasonry in Indonesia). That would probably be a more appropriate venue for the information. 15:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Less isnt necessarily more. With regards to stubs, that have very little information to begin with, I have often seen the progressive added value in taking the deliberate approach of organic growth. Letting individual contributors add sections that have their particular interest or expertise (referenced of course), without too much interference of a 'chief-editor'. I can for instance imagine a south african wikipedian add to the article based on south african sources, etc, etc. Ultimately building a comprehensive article that can be trimmed by creating sub-articles such as the one you suggest. I feel an overall approach with less focus on the ideal end-article has less restrictions (i.e. is more inviting to attract editors) and in the long run has more qualitative merit.

so i guess thats my overal stance in wikipedia. The current dutch article is quite informative and probably edited by actual GON members. A quick translation to english might be a quick win, but unfortunately it lacks (as usual in the necessary references. however I certainly dont mind kicking in with the sub article you proposed right away, so you can edit this article as you see fit. krgds, --KARL RAN (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Karl... FYI there are no "chief editors" here... we are all "on the level" as the Masons say. It is quite common for editors to have different opinions and views on what should and should not be included in an article. When we disagree, the key is to not take it personally and to discuss our views and try to reach a consensus. Glad you are willing to consider alternatives. I would be happy to collaborate with you on a sub-article.
As to my overall stance in Wikipedia... I suppose I am a "less is more" type of editor... I prefer articles that are narrowly focused and stay on topic without drifting off into potentially irrelevant sub-topics. That does not necessarily mean we ignore the sub-topics, but it might mean covering the sub-topic in a different article (one that would be linked to in a summary in the main article). Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

OK... given the discussion, I have been bold and started a sub-article on Freemasonry in Indonesia (essentially I just moved the relevant material over with a few minor editorial changes). Hopefully we can find additional sources to grow both articles beyond the stubs that they are. This resolves my concerns. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

being in london its a bit of a bedlam this weekend, so just a quick comment: i was thinking 'freemasonry in the dutch east indies' might be more appropriate name for the article as freemasonry is in fact outlawed in indonesia and not practiced anymore (as far as i can tell). while historically it has been an important phenomenon in the colony ie dutch east indies. rgds, --KARL RAN (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
That's fine with me... I picked the current title because I figured more people would search for it under that name... but I have no objection to moving it. If we do move it, then the current title should be made into a redirect (and, come to think of it, if for some reason we don't move it, we should make Freemasonry in the Dutch East Indies a redirect.) Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to know who the Grand Master have been?[edit]

Have they often been members of the Royal Family like the English Grand Masters? Questions like that I am very curious about.--JaredMithrandir (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grand Orient of the Netherlands. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)