Jump to content

Talk:List of Masonic Grand Lodges/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Grande Loge Féminine du Gabon

This one is an interesting case study. All references to this body are derived from only two. One is a blog entry stating that Nicole Assélé, a cousin of the president, was the "self proclaimed" vénérable (Master) of the GLF du Gabon. The other is Wikipedia. Some editor seems to have mis-read a posting by la Grande Loge Féminine de France to indicate support for Feminine GLs in a few West African countries. In fact, it was mainly talking about their own lodges established abroad, not other Grand Lodges. The point being, getting a slot on this list seems to give a GL international credibility, whether it exists or not. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. And yeah... the issue of incorrect information being put in Wikipedia, and then picked up and repeated by other sources is a big problem. See WP:CIRCULAR. Blueboar (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

To do?

I think the list is now reasonably clean. There are probably a couple of dead links by now, so any eyes on this little minefield would be most appreciated. I believe the next task is to work through trusted sources (Penn GL, UGLE, Clipsas) and make sure all their approved GLs are on the list. Any other ideas? Please drag me in if you can't read the relevant websites - there were issues on a lot of the Cyrillic sites. I've done little else on Wikipedia since January, so I'll probably walk away from this article for a while. However, we do need to discuss where we go next. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Fiddler... thank you for all the work you have done.
One idea that I have been thinking about (and at the moment it is just an idea) is changing the "External Organizations" column to a more inclusive "Notes" column. We could still use this to note which external organizations the GLs belongs to... but would give us someplace to put other interesting information as well.
For example, we might want to include some brief history... I am thinking of short (neutral) sentences like: "Descends from a Provincial Grand Lodge that was under the jurisdiction of Grand Lodge of Foo" or "Split off from the Grand Orient of Blahblah, due to disagreement over membership criteria". What do you think? Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I like it. There are several bodies on the list that will probably never warrant a full article, but could do with a couple of notes on formation, current problems, rivalries. It all helps to paint a better picture, and a better picture helps with maintenance. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
OK... DONE (at least the column title is changed to "Notes"... now the harder part of adding in appropriate information.) Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Regular Grand Lodge of Macedonia

I have removed this one (again)... I am not finding reliable sources to support inclusion. All I can find is the RGLM's own website (which does not give an address for where the RGLM is headquartered, and seems primarily set up to sell a book), and one personal web-page (which simply contains a link back to the RGLM website).

What does this mean? It means we know that a website exists, but not that there is anything real behind that website. My recollection of the most recent consensus is that we require an actual brick and mortar building... or at least an actual street address... for a GL to be considered for inclusion. Blueboar (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Have to agree, although they appear to have produced a book. There is not even a hint of the other Grand Lodge being annoyed with them. Dropping the whole name into inverted commas, Google gave me 5 hits in English and 4 in Macedonian, and nothing on the ground. There are Grand Lodges with mailing addresses in parking lots who have done better. However, their venture into print probably means we shall hear more of them. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Self-Publishing a book does not mean much. Indeed, the fact that the book is advertized on the website makes me more suspicious, rather than less. Blueboar (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
You can download it free if you read Macedonian. It's published through some sort of consultancy - so still no address. The bibliography appears to be gibberish. What I meant above was that the urge for self-publicity echoes the way that the RGLE and the Grand Lodge of All England tried to insinuate themselves into current masonry, our own articles included. We haven't heard the last of this one. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear Blueboar. Please find street and all the legal data of RGLM on the Macedonian government website of IRS: http://ujp.gov.mk/mk/prebaruvanje_pravni_lica/prikazi?edb=4057009501963, or please paste РГЛМ into the search field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auroruszm (talk • contribs) 10:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear Blueboar, here are some documents.

http://rglm.mk/docs/friendship%20and%20solidarity%20treaty.jpeg http://rglm.mk/docs/Manifesto%20World%20Masonic%20Christian%20Alliance.pdf Auroruszm (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Will that be enough for proving you existence of the Regular Grand Lodge of Macedonia for turning it back on the list?Auroruszm (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Auroruszm: Please understand, we need to apply the same standards to the RGL of Macedonia as we apply to other Grand Lodges. As I explained on your talk page, self-published references are obviously not admissible in proving the existence of a Grand Lodge, although we like to link to their website as a secondary reference. We have already deleted organisations that file tax returns, because we/they can't show the physical existence of any lodges. Most of these are defunct lodges whose few remaining members rent out the building. Some are speculative, they have set up phantom lodges in the hope of attracting members, and there is at least one bizarre Grand Lodge that seems to consist entirely of Grand Officers, with no evidence of members or lodges. We need evidence of ordinary masonic activity. This archived notice might explain further. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think photos/scans of hard-copy documents I provided to you show involvement of the third party which are NOT self-published, but they are given in hard-copy by the third party. Also they show real activities that are impossible for a small or non-existing or clandestine or fake lodge. As I understand you want to convince me that hard-copy material (published from third party) is not good enough and a link from another website is better reference. Auroruszm (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auroruszm (talk • contribs) 01:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
All of your links, apart from the tax registration document, start with rglm.mk/. That is, like it or not, self published. None of your lodges even register on a search engine. The address you sent to the Masonic Trowel seems to be a block of residential apartments. Can you see the problem? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay understood. Paper - not good, web link - good. It will take some time.Auroruszm (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It isn't really a question of paper vs web link... it's the self-published nature of the papers or web link that is the issue. What we are looking for is independent confirmation that the body not only exists but actually operates as a Masonic Grand Lodge. Blueboar (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Will this independent link from the U.M.M.T. Convention be enough? http://mlnr1880.eu/eveniment/68Auroruszm (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Here is another independent link to video that confirms existence of the RGLM: https://www.privesc.eu/arhiva/55630/Conventul-de-iarna-organizat-de-Marea-Loja-Nationala-Romana-fondata-1880-si-UMMTAuroruszm (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Well... it may be a step in the right direction... Watching the video, I was able to discover that UMMT is (in English) The "World Traditional Masonic Union"... and they too have a website (See here)... and that website says that RGLM is a member of U.M.M.T.
Unfortunately, the UMMT website has the same problem that the RGLM website does... it does not say where UMMT is headquartered... nor does it give an address for any of the bodies that (supposedly) constitute UMMT. Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear Blueboar, I cannot understand what do you mean if your intentions are of a good nature. UMMT is listed on your list. There are Grand Lodges that have UMMT as a reference. There are Grand Lodges on your list that have only The Masonic Trowel as a reference too as well as RGLM has, but you still make it an issue. I don't see where this is going if you have honest and good intentions. Please clarify.Auroruszm (talk) 17:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm now reasonably happy with UMMT, having tracked down the members. They pretty much practise under the auspices of Marea Lojă Naţională Română “1880”, who definitely exist. The only group I was dubious about was Gran Loggia Ausonia, but they've just been handed their paperwork back by a court in Sicily, who are satisfied that they are a legitimate Grand Lodge (even if they meet in a residential apartment). I think RGL Macedonia can go in using the 1880 ref. BTW, I still can't find them on the UMMT site. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Fiddlersmouth. Does that mean that I am able now to turn RGLM back on the list?Auroruszm (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
First, it would be polite to wait for Blueboar to reply. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I have lost track... do we or do we not have something that says UMMT recognizes RGL Macedonia? Blueboar (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear Blueboar, RGL of Macedonia is member of UMMT and together with five other members of UMMT, as listed on the independent link, is co-founder of WMCA (World Masonic Christian Alliance). Auroruszm (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear Blueboar, RGL of Macedonia has everything needed to be equal with everyone else on the list by Wikipedia criteria, it has full right to be on the list by any masonic criteria, and I don't see any reason in your actions and nothing noble in your further obstructions. I provided to you three independent links that confirm that RGL of Macedonia exists and operates as a Grand Lodge (as you requested), so please allow its inclusion in the list. Auroruszm (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Please be patient with me... I am almost convinced... I don't see RMLM mentioned on the UMMT website - so all I am looking for is something from them that does mention it. Blueboar (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear Blueboar, addition of RGL of Macedonia on the website of UMMT is a new condition you have, and maybe after that you will have again even a new one, which doesn't look so serious. I don't know when will UMMT add RGL of Macedonia on their website, and I don't think it should be a condition for what you already asked for previously, and what is a Wikipedia standard. If your suspicion is so tough, you are very welcome to come to Macedonia and visit RGL of Macedonia and see RGLM's work with your own eyes on RGL of Macedonia's cost.Auroruszm (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Rewind. We have a citation from Marea Lojă Naţională Română “1880” saying that they have signed a treaty of recognition with RGL Macedonia at the UMMT winter convention. We know MLNR 1880 exists from the whining of their rivals, and we can confirm the existence of the members of UMMT. It would (in my opinion) be petulant to claim that a masonic body invited to a UMMT convention didn't meet as masons. I think the MLNR 1880 citation is sufficient for the inclusion of the new Macedonian Grand Lodge. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Fiddlersmouth, there is no response from the Blueboar for a three days. Does this mean RGLM can be listed? What should I do next? Auroruszm (talk) 14:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear Blueboar, please allow inclusion of the RGL of Macedonia on the list.Auroruszm (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Fiddlersmouth.Auroruszm (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, you did all the work. Keep us posted if and when you join UMMT, and good luck. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Fellows, I've been away from this particular page for awhile, and am now catching up on the RGL of Macedonia and UMMT issue. Thank you all for a very cordial effort to resolve this issue. This is a good example for other groups not yet on this list as to how to navigate the waters. Blueboar and Fiddlersmouth have again proved their good will. As a cleanup item, should the RGL Macedonia citation include UMMT as one of its external affiliations in the last column? And should the "WMCA" (World Masonic Christian Alliance) be added as another affiliation group, for them and for others? Jax MN (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I am still not completely happy with the weakness of the citations regarding RGLM, but I agree that it is probably the best we are going to get. I would still like to see something more definitive. That said... given what we have discussed so far, and absent any further information, I am reluctantly willing to shift my opinion from "not yet" to a very guarded "OK". However, let's not leave it at that... Keep your eyes out for improved citations, and we will revisit as needed. Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Australia

Just a note to advise our Australian friends that links to the Australian grand lodges would be welcome, as soon as they are created. This may be in process... Just now, I reverted several Wikilinks that were properly formed, except that the pages to which they pointed were not yet created. As soon as that occurs it would be appropriate to add them. Jax MN (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

To do?

Carrying over the discussion from an archived Talk section, in the Notes column, those many small jurisdictions that are outside of the orbit of one of the premier grand lodges seem to point out their various external organizations effectively, by which usage they show they participate in one or more external bodies to some degree, thus providing them the appearance of added legitimacy. (I think I said that in the most un-biased way I could.) That said, those GLs that descend from one of the premier grand lodges, and which may today continue in relationship with some or many others of such origin, those GLs are at a disadvantage for lack of an External Organization notation here. This disadvantage is exacerbated by the fact that the least-recognized groups also may lack an external organization, and a casual reader may lump them all together. We editors have attempted to mitigate by showing the dates of founding, the number of lodges, and number of masons. However, the disadvantage and resultant lack of clarity remains.

To correct this, our adjustment of the title head to "Notes" was a good starter move, and allows us to consider options for additional brief items in that column.

I am quite aware of the sensitivity of the words "regular" and "mainstream", and the rationale we all agreed to in our previous discussions that this List of Masonic Grand Lodges refrain from use of such biased and perhaps inflammatory terms, which fairly one must admit do not have a consensus agreement. It seems to me though, that some wording might be acceptable here, which would denote origin and orbit, if not specific and current recognition. To this end, I suggest that we consider the following abbreviation and explanation to denote those groups within the 'mainstream' tradition, if you will forgive my use of mainstream here:

PGLO or Premier GLO = Premier Grand Lodge Origin. These include the original three grand lodges of England, Scotland and Ireland, formed from Time Immemorial Lodges,[1] along with those grand lodges that were formed in relationship with the premier (~original)[2] grand lodges or, by extension, by other grand lodges who trace their origin to one or more of these three, AND which today are in amity with them OR who share recognition with a substantial part[3] of the other grand lodges which are currently in amity with the three premier grand lodges.

I think this would suffice as a citation for the 'mainstream' (forgive me) GLs in Europe, North and South America, and around the world. As a test, it would allow both the Grand Orient of Italy and the Regular Grand Lodge of Italy to include "Premier GLO" but would not include others, who either have self-selected out of that 'club' or who have been removed as schismatic. The same would hold true for American PHA grand lodges, all 37 of them, who trace their origins back to UGLE and of which the majority are now recognized by a broad section of other PGLO groups, while in contrast the PHO groups have self-selected out.

I think our basic trouble here has been a lack of wording for such an affiliation, because we remain jealously sovereign (not subordinate to England, for example), and not all of these groups are in amity. But the majority are. If we can somehow reflect that point, I think this is workable. Jax MN (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that you are trying to come up with a name for something that does not have a name. All it is is a mass of overlapping chains of mutual recognition, that simply exists without a name. And within the mass, there is disagreement as to who is in "the club" and who is out. Each GL maintains its own separate list.
Also... even the word "origin" is not a neutral term ... almost every schismatic masonic lodge and grand lodge goes out of its way to claim a chain of decent from one of the Premier Grand Lodges in order to "prove" its legitimacy (although sometimes the 'chain of descent' is very tenuous, or simply invented out of whole cloth). If we are supposed to remain neutral, where do we draw the line and say that the chain has been broken? Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I know, I know. Thus the attempt to draw a wide enough circle noting that inclusion would be acceptable if "a substantial part" of those still in amity with one of the premier GLs continue to recognize a particular group. 20 or 25 should do it. This is, by the way, similar to Pantagraph Publishing's resolution of the issue, where they will include a GL in their book, "List of Lodges" if it is recognized by ten or more other grand lodges already in that book. Arbitrary? Maybe, but it has worked for them. Jax MN (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's not forget that the first Grand Lodge spun off by the Premier GLs grew up to be the Grand Orient de France. These are, as Blueboar implied, extremely muddy waters. In some contemporary cases, it is almost impossible to tell which national GL was the "splitter", and the Regular big boys have different opinions. Italy is snakes and ladders. I think the purpose would be better served by indicating which Grand Lodges have a restrictive view of regularity, and those that welcome all masons regardless of rite. This would identify the big "regular" club, and those who aspire to join it. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The thing is, Pantagraph needs to take an entire book to account for all of the permutations. We don't have that luxury. Every time I think about the issue, I keep coming back to the same basic question: what exactly are we trying to communicate in the column?
The list of external organizations (now the NOTES column) was originally a way convey which "bloc" of Freemasonry each GL belongs to... but it has never done that job well. I have to question whether such a complex issue really can be summarized (realistically) in a list article. So let's discuss whether a list article is the right venue in which to try to convey that sort of information. To my mind, this type of information just does not lend itself to being summarized in chart form. It's too complex to put it all into a little box.
If I am right, then perhaps we need to think outside the box (pardon the pun)... Many of the GLs listed in this list now either have their own article, or are covered in their own sections within a broader "Freemasonry in X" article (and those that are not, easily could be). I am thinking that complex issues (like discussing a grand lodge's origin, which "bloc" of freemasonry it currently belongs to, who does and does not recognize it, etc. etc.) are all issues that are better presented full paragraph form (ie within articles/sections devoted to that specific Grand Lodge instead of in a list). In a paragraph you can devote the space needed to explain the complexities. In a small box you can't. Blueboar (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a good dialog. Let's take a look at your GOdF example, Fiddler. Yes, they were created from the premier GL. Since then, they have created their own solar system of groups that orbit them, none of which (GOoF or their progeny) meet the criteria for inclusion in the proposed PGLO group because they have self-selected out of that group, and are therefore not recognized with amity by that substantial part of PGLO grand lodges indicated in my proposal. For the perspective of PGLO GLs, the French Grand Orient is regular of origin, but not of practice... ...while in the eyes of their own camp of GLs they indeed may be regular in practice. This solution therefore takes talk of regularity out of the equation. Let's take another example, of Bulgaria. Both the UGLB and GLoBAFAM are regular of origin and practice, and have their adherents within the PGLO. But a third group, the GLB does not. I can't think of a test case where this model breaks. Indeed the bar where a GL may claim inclusion may even be set as low as 10, to comfortably follow a precedent set by Pantagraph. Nor is it pejorative to those not citing PGLO.
I admit the word "Origin" within the proposal may be troublesome. Perhaps we could instead use Premier GL associated, where "associated" is lower case, since it is not an actual entity (noting a point Blueboar raised). And in cases where schismatic groups vie for control? just like in the case of the two Bulgarian GLs I mentioned, and the two Italian GLs, and the two mainstream-acceptable Greek GLs, BOTH of the cited groups in those countries would be eligible for PGLO or PGLa citation, while others (DH, CLIPSAS, etc.) would not. Remember, the goal here would not be to slyly usher in talk of regularity by publishing England's list, but to show a broader circle of those who aren't in the external orbits of DH, CLIPSAS, GOoF, etc. Jax MN (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope you can see that "self-selected out" is as POV as "the unforeseen complications of the vindictive actions of a Francophobe earl". The division you are describing, viewed from the fence, is between those Grand Lodges who believe they can define Freemasonry according to their own restrictive terms, and those who don't give a rat's backside what the other lot think, but still recognise them as Freemasons. The restrictive/non-restrictive definition works for the purpose of the list, but given the difficulty we are having in nailing this down, I think that any attempt to tabulate this would result in confusion for the average WP user. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a delicate problem, but not insurmountable. I'm not convinced that "self-selected out" is necessarily POV. It's more of a statement of fact. My own jurisdiction could opt to leave COGMNA, thus opting out. Or, we could adopt policies that would have the same effect, and we'd quickly come to that realization, and a point of decision. Do we revert, or stay the course? Either way, it's our choice. The GOoF (or the RGLE) have every right to claim that they are the more legitimate inheritors of Freemasonry as a result of their schism, and they can talk about it all day until the sun goes down to those within their orbit or within hearing. A prospective candidate would have to judge for himself (or herself). While the GOoF can easily prove a 200+ year old pedigree, giving some institutional heft to their claim that they have some legitimacy (they are a corporation, they have an unbroken history of a certain amount of decades, they have multiple physical addresses and assets, several known jurisdictions recognize them...), the RGLE has no such provable history, but nothing prevents them from making a similar claim. The result being, "may the best grand lodge win" if not Caveat Emptor. We, in the US, cannot stop the GOoF from starting groups here, but we know that such an effort to colonize would be horribly difficult to continue, especially if its aim were to eclipse the existing 'mainstream' groups. Further, if a new group, say the GL of Tahiti, which was formed in the wake of the GLFN debacle, were to collect more than a handful of recognition treaties, they too could legitimately 'prove' their claim to be a PGLO or PGLa grand lodge. There are enough PGLO or PGLa groups, like Massachusettes and Illinois, and England and others, who actively review prospective amity requests and don't wait for COGMNA's commission or UGLE to make a decision. Does this broader definition of the Premier Grand Lodge orbit work? Again, the brief description in my updated proposal is clear enough, and (I think) NPV. A reference on the main page could invite those of contrary opinion over here to the Talk page. Here's an updated version of my proposal, using "associated" instead of "Origin".

PGLa or Premier GLa = Premier Grand Lodge associated. These include the original three grand lodges of England, Scotland and Ireland, formed from "Time Immemorial Lodges,"[1] along with those grand lodges that were formed in relationship with the premier (~original)[2] grand lodges or, by extension, by other grand lodges who trace their origin to one or more of these three, AND which today are in amity with them OR who share recognition with a substantial part[3] of the other grand lodges which are currently in amity with the three premier grand lodges. Not all grand lodges within this grouping are in amity with each other.

Indeed, "origin" presents difficulties because of points you raised, and likewise, "associated" has its own baggage. It begs the question, "are you still associated with one of the PGLs?" I therefore inserted a closing sentence in the revised proposal just above, to call attention to this. Jax MN (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b ...the premier Grand Lodge in England was established on 24 June 1717, St John’s Day, when a feast was held at the Goose and Gridiron Ale House in St Paul’s Churchyard. The four Lodges involved met at the Goose and Gridiron, the Crown Ale House in Parkers Lane (near the present building in Great Queen Street), The Apple Tree Tavern in Charles Street, Covent Garden and the Runner and Grapes Tavern in Channel Row, Westminster. Three still survive and are now known as Lodge of Antiquity No 2, Fortitude and Old Cumberland Lodge No 12 (originally No 3) and Royal Somerset House and Inverness Lodge No IV. These are known as “time immemorial lodges” the only lodges within the English constitution with this distinction. They, together with Grand Stewards’ Lodge, have the ability to operate without a warrant within the UGLE. Similar lodges exist within the Scottish Constitution and Irish Constitution grand lodges. "Introduction".
  2. ^ a b Premier in this usage is strictly limited to mean "original", and not "better than all others".
  3. ^ a b For purposes of consistency, our usage follows the pattern that Pantagraph Publishing has adopted for inclusion in their annual "List of Lodges", where ten or more recognition treaties are required for inclusion in that book.
The RGLE can make as many claims as they like, they have NO lodges. Attributing the schism to the GOdF is seriously POV. The Belgians threw out the God requirement five years before the French, and didn't get excommunicated by the UGLE until the 1920s. I won't bore you with the other dirty deeds in UGLE, but I'm thoroughly ashamed of their conduct. For the record, three Grand Masters and at least one Deputy Grand Master of the Premier Grand Lodge of England were atheists in the 1720s - regularity isn't as simple as we would like it to be. The definition is becoming more cumbersome, and less understandable by non-masons. Inclusive/non-inclusive does the same job, and I'm not convinced it works either. Meaning that nailing down something that is obvious to us is not going to work without serious amounts of background information. I'm with Blueboar on this, I think we're trying to nail jelly to the wall. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Which gets us back to the more fundamental question... What is the point of listing the external bodies that GLs belong to? Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
It is definitely important to distinguish between Prince Hall and PH National Compact. The affiliations of some of the smaller GLs make them a tad easier to understand. There are probably areas, for instance in Southern Europe, where external affiliations don't matter much, but its value as a research tool in understanding the workings of the smaller groups, and its low cost in space and maintenance, make the column worth keeping. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Re: It is definitely important to distinguish between Prince Hall and PH National Compact. ... WHY? Blueboar (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Because it's even confusing for masons, especially those who know little about Freemasonry in the USA. The National Compact has a history that distinguishes it from the wibbly little independent PH spin-offs, but is a pale shadow of Prince Hall. At present, a couple of clicks of a mouse will go some way to explaining. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Um... could you clarify what you mean by NC is "a pale shadow" of Prince Hall? (I am sure the members of NC would disagree)... And how does NC in this list distinguish it from the wibbly little independent PH spin-offs?
let me ask the question a slightly different way: Why is it important for this list to distinguish between PH and PHNC (or any other external org.) Why is is it important to indicate which external organizations a given Grand Lodge belongs to? Exactly What information are we trying to convey to the reader by listing all these orgs.? Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at answering Blueboar's question. There are several purposes for this List:

  • To provide a comprehensive list of all Masonic grand lodges in the world, as meet the bar of having a physical presence, an external citation, and which meet as lodges.
  • By this definition, we do not list groups where we cannot prove these three. This 'first pass' at legitimacy is intended to omit other truly bogus groups: money-making scams, internet-only attempts to confuse, and dead organizations from previous lists.
  • Another benefit is to provide a bread crumb trail of citations for future researchers of websites we find and previous discussions.

Usefulness of the list for the casual reader is enhanced by provision of websites whereby readers may contact the groups on the list. A further benefit are the columns citing demographic information: number of lodges, number of Masons, and year founded, as this information helps the reader clarify the nature of a group being investigated. To that end, the further purposes accrue:

  • The List helps readers understand the size, scope and connectivity of the grand lodge they are investigating.
  • As the List includes groups of many levels of mutual recognition or the lack thereof, from centuries of amity to full on angry schism, it offers a Notes column to help distinguish the broad groupings of grand lodges, either formal or de facto.
  • The List defines the names and acronyms of the various external organizations that serve to group various grand lodges.
  • The List's writers warn that they have not attempted to determine or show regularity, which is a term used by groups to paint others in an unfavorable light. Inclusion is therefore a broad tent, and one person's regular grand lodge is another person's irregular grand lodge. This helpful admonition indicates to the casual reader who is already a part of one of these groups that for visitation, a person should seek guidance from their own grand lodge's grand secretary.

Time to weigh in. If we can agree on the purpose of the List, perhaps then we can settle the matter of concluding this final column, on external organizations and notes. I still think it is possible to create WP:NPV language describing the main contingent of grand lodges, which fall under the orbit (if not current recognition) of the premier grand lodges. Jax MN (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is all that much confusion as to the purpose of having a list of Masonic GLs in Wikipedia... my question is simply why we have the last column. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I suppose the question that I am asking is this: what is the purpose of trying to indicate the various forms of connectivity in the first place? Blueboar (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's try this the other way round - supposing we take the last column away, what does the casual reader assume? That each GL exists in a vacuum? That they're all in it together as one big conspiracy? If our subject knows differently, where do they look for more information, especially when so few of our GLs have a WP article. The column joins the dots between many of the interest groups that exist within Freemasonry, information which needs to be covered, and is best summarised as a dimension on this list. Jax MN is right to point out that the biggest interest group, the "regular" Grand Lodges, has no entry. If we cannot find consensus on a method of marking these lodges that seems workable, this is no reason to trash a useful, if not essential, data set. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to view this from the point of view of a reader who knows nothing about Freemasonry... and thinking about what information that user will get from the column.
For example, a user will see that there is a Grand Lodge called the "Jeff Long Grand Lodge" in the US State of Georgia (one of seven Grand Lodges in that state). The reader will further discover that this Grand Lodge belongs to "Int FM". Clicking on the link, he will discover that this stands for "International Freemasons - An African-American oriented group of grand lodges in the United States".
OK... the reader's next question will likely be... So what? Why is this something I need to know? Blueboar (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that given a choice we would all take care to ensure that citations on this List show appropriate weight. By not inserting a notice of connectivity between the 'mainstream' grand lodges, yet while providing one for 30 other groups, some venerable and others quite wibbly, we run the risk of diminishing the 'mainstream' grand lodges in the eyes of casual readers. --not giving them enough weight. COGMNA groups in North America have their association, true, but today there is no similar organization in Europe, which means all those organizations are blank in that column. It begs the question then, is this a sin of omission? Further, my experience informs me that about 70% of all self-proclaimed Masons in the world are part of a 'mainstream' group, whilst it may be true that these represent only half of all 'masonic' groups. Working on this List we've experienced again first hand that there are a plethora of small grand lodges outside of the 'mainstream.'
The question of proper weight remains. I don't want to disparage, but I want to describe. These words all seem to have baggage, and I wonder if we are not bending over backwards in trying not to offend, when our very size allows us - according to WP's weighting rules - to use words such as 'mainstream,' and to note our association with the premier grand lodges. Facts are facts... Jax MN (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The answer to the Jeff Long question is to provide articles describing the groups. In the meantime, some indication of the affiliations of these GLs is surely better than none at all.
All of Freemasonry is derived from the rituals of the first Grand Lodges. "Mainstream" Freemasonry's claim of lineal descent is clearly irrelevant in this respect, some line of descent can always be traced. Likewise, we cannot be seen to be taking sides in 19th century masonic politics. The 70% has been bandied around a lot, I haven't seen actual figures. "Our" association with anything counts for nothing without hard references - the only thing we can seriously cite in any explanation of "mainstream" lodges is exclusivity of recognition. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... it seems that the answer to "why are we listing the external orgs in the first place?" shifts depending on which geographical region we are talking about. We are listing them in the North America section for one reason (primarily a way to separate various Prince Hall bodies), and in the Europe section for a different reason (primarily to separate the "Anglo style" from the "Continental style" bodies). I think we need to think about this further. Blueboar (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Almost - There are more than a few masonic bodies that practice "Anglo" style masonry, but see nothing unmasonic in maintaining harmony with liberal and mixed Grand Lodges. These have also been flung out of the fellowship of the "regulars", and more will follow as more Continental bodies start to admit women. The rationale for the column is still about recording patterns of association to clarify the credo and self-perceived identity of each Grand Lodge. North America has a small but interesting group of Grand Lodges who split from the RGLE when they realised they had been sold snake oil. These also have their patterns of association, and only one is a Prince Hall body. I can't think of a way of "improving" the current column without making it more confusing, and I can't think of a single justification for removing it. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I do understand what you are saying. I have a few ideas on how to better explain the complex issue of Masonic connectivity, to make it clearer and less confusing for the non-masonic reader... However, my ideas are still in the formative stage. So... I am quite willing to leave things as they are for now. I will work on my ideas further, and will present them for comments and suggestions at a later date. Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Blueboar, any further thoughts on this? With this week's anonymous addition of a South American 'misto' grand lodge, among the traffic that regularly brings proper and improper edits to this page, the issue remains: how to list the large, well-connected grand lodges who are in the English-language amity circle without trampling on the POV of those subscribing to other circles, or operating alone. As I mentioned earlier, WP's own weighting rules allow that the majority opinion may be reflected in the article text without running afoul of NPV rules. At the present, the grand lodges that have a current or former affiliation to one of the Premier Grand Lodges are at a disadvantage in comparison to any meager jurisdiction that can show a website and an address, but perhaps will not list even a year of formation, number of lodges or members... My thoughts:
  • Just because we mention a schism, doesn't mean we are taking sides. Both sides of a schism may believe they are right.
  • If we use the term, we can define "Premier" as akin to a legal term of art. By using that word, we do not imply better, but rather, reflect their own terminology.
  • By not including this information we unnecessarily add to the confusion for the casual reader who may seek this article out because he expects it as a viable first resource.
  • While the oddball jurisdictions (what was your term, Fiddler, "wibbly"?) may enjoy their inadvertent moment, while we muddle through our majority POV confusion, I don't think any of these except the occasional nutter would begrudge our valid claim that there is an amity or origination circle now unmentioned.
  • Our naval-gazing here, and our self-deprecation toward our own groups, is overplayed. "Tyranny of the minority" comes to mind.Jax MN (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Should we mention GMGSNA?

I note that under "notes" we currently list the Grand Lodges that "belong" to the Conference of Grand Master of Masons in North America (COGMINA) (offical website here... although, in fact, this is nothing more than a yearly conference of Grand Masters and not an association of Grand Lodges at all. Given that Grand Masters on the left side of the pond change every year (or two... the term of office depends on the jurisdiction), while Grand Secretaries tend to stick around for many years (getting re-elected to multiple terms), I am wondering if it wouldn't be more appropriate to list the Conference of Masonic Grand Secretaries of North America (CMGSNA) (official website here) instead of GOGMINA. It is arguably the more influential of the two. Blueboar (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

All other things being equal, the Grand Secretaries site is more informative and lists members. It looks like a better option from this side of the pond. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Or perhaps both? Blueboar (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Both probably the best option. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The name of the organization is a matter of convenience in the case of COGMNA. It is common that three or four of the ranking officers each year attend, often with the grand secretary. The jurisdictions pay dues for the body, not the grand masters themselves as in a private association. COGMNA is viewed by the North American jurisdictions as the superior body, even if the secretaries have more quiet influence; if polled, the secretaries en masse would not object to the notion that the Conference of Grand Masters remains the superior body. While 'legislation' as it were is more advisoral in nature when coming from either of these bodies, that is a function of the fact that binding legislation must be ratified at all times by the sovereign vote of the individual states (~District of Columbia, Canadian provinces) while in session at their annual or quarterly communications. Hence, COGMNA and CMGSNA are diplomatic and advisoral bodies. Additionally, COGMNA's highest ranked participants (the grand masters) are often 'short timers', seeking to fan their influence and bring back word of commonality between foreign jurisdictions and themselves as chief diplomats. Word of COGMNA decisions often helps sway debate back home, where it occurs. Jax MN (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Just a quibble... COGMNA does not (and can not) make "decisions"... it makes "recommendations". The individual Grand Lodges are free to totally ignore those recommendations if they wish to do so. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Bulgaria and Moldova

I have reverted a recent series of edits that significantly increased the number of lodges and the number of members for two GLs in Eastern Europe (one in Bulgaria, the other in Moldavia). It is quite possible that Freemasonry has grown in these countries, and that the new numbers are an accurate update. The reason I reverted is that the sources (which reflect the older, smaller numbers) were left in place... we would need an updated source to support the updated numbers. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Regular Grand Lodge "Europa Unita" (Marea Loja Regulara Europa Unita)

I have to question this recent addition... It is (apparently) a newly founded (2016) Grand Lodge located in Romania... but I can not find any reliable sources to support this claim. It does have a webpage (http://www.mlreu.org/index.php/en/) but I find no indication that it has an existence beyond its webpage. The problem is that anyone can create a webpage... having a webpage does not mean there is any substance behind it. I think we need a bit more. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree. We probably should post a standard rule of inclusion here on this web page, for those seeking to add a new group. Jax MN (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Gran Logia de Quintana Roo

Just bookmarking the absence of the GL website at present. Their Facebook page still points to the dead site, so may be a temporary aberration. If it doesn't re-appear, status needs re-assessment. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree Blueboar (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Masonic Grand Lodges. 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) 16:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on List of Masonic Grand Lodges. 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) 07:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Concerns over clandestine groups included

Folks, I see this has been discussed before, but it's concerning that this list includes several groups not recognized by actual Masonry. Almost anyone can start a "grand lodge" as a private company and start selling membership, and that is what these "clandestine" groups have done. These groups do not follow actual masonic ritual and are considered fraudulent[1], therefore should not be included on this list. I recommend having a more realistic criteria for inclusion, such as being recognized in a regular masonic jurisdiction such as UGLE.

64.66.210.131 (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

We have discussed this before (see the archives)... Wikipedia has to remain neutral on the issue of masonic regularity, and can not choose which jurisdictions are regular and which are not. Every Grand Lodge thinks itself regular... and every grand lodge maintains a list of other GLs which it deems irregular. No two lists match. So who's list do we use? To keep the truly fraudulent ones out, the consensus was to include any grand lodge that has a verifiable physical address.
As a side note... the term "clandestine" does not really apply to a Grand Lodge... You can have clandestine lodges (defined as a lodge operating without a warrant, charter or dispensation from a grand lodge) and clandestine Masons (those made masons in clandestine lodges)... but not a clandestine grand lodge (since all grand lodges are self-created). Blueboar (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ykJN6rMccY
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Masonic_Grand_Lodges/Archive_3&oldid=963503113"