Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Le Droit Humain

I noticed that Le Droit Humain is completely missing from the article. Does it not deserve at least a mention? What about other lesser knowns, such as Moder Free & Accepted?Truther2012 (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This article is designed to give a broad overview of Freemasonry. It does not try to cover every aspect of Freemasonry in depth. That's what related sub-articles are for. Besides having an entire article devoted to it, Le Droit Humain is mentioned in several sub-articles... see: Continental Freemasonry and Freemasonry and women. Blueboar (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this why you removed the mention of Federations from the list of supreme organisations (GL and Orients). I think this article has to cover all aspects of Masonry, including LDHTruther2012 (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you are absolutely entitled to an opinion. All I am saying is that the consensus (up to now) has been for this article to take a broad focus... mentioning that Freemasonry is divided into two major divisions - 1) Anglo-American style Freemasonry and 2) Continental style Freemasonry ... and to leave the discussion of the various sub-organizations that fall within these two factions (such as LDH) to sub-articles.

That said, consensus can change, and it has been a while since we discussed this... so we should see what others have to say on the matter.

Perhaps you could outline why you think this general overview article should mention sub-organizations like LDH? Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess a better question is that why you think that LDH is a sub organisation? What are they sub of? Le_Droit_Humain article states that they are independent and specifically have a different structure from other orders, i.e. GL and GOs. Truther2012 (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

LDH falls under the broad umbrella of "Continental Style Freemasonry", and so is better placed in the article on Continental Freemasonry. I would object to mentioning the General Grand Chapter, Royal Arch Masons International in this article for similar reasons... even though it is independent of and structured differently from all other Anglo-American Style Gls and GOs, it falls under the broad umbrella of "Anglo-American Style Freemasonry". It is better placed within the article on York Rite Blueboar (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

In this case I think there is an opportunity to re-structure the article this way (Continental vs. English). Having said that, would Prince Hall not fall under "English" umbrella? Now it has its own category. But my second question was about removal of Federations as a form of a supreme body. It is neither a GL or GO, therefore deserves a mention. Furthermore, there is also a matter of National Lodges, which should not be bundled in with GLs. I think the third paragraph should read "The fraternity is administratively organised into independent Grand Lodges, National Lodges, Grand Orients, and Federations, each of which..." This way we would have covered the entire spectrum of supreme bodies. If you dont object, I will proceed with that edit. Truther2012 (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Article Structure

I propose to move around some pieces of the article:

1. "Prince Hall" does not seem to fit under general "Organisation" and perhaps deserves its own section
2. "Other degrees" deals mostly with Appendants and maybe it could be slightly edited as such
3. "Charitable efforts" do not seem to flow with ritual and Supreme being - separate section?
4. "Women" should really be part of "Membership requirements"

What do you think?Truther2012 (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Go for it (we can always revert what you did if we disagree... in which case we can discuss further)... Just to give you some background on why we made the choices we did in the past...

1. Prince Hall was discussed under "Organization" because it used to be considered a third "branch" of Freemasonry. However, that has changed recently (starting in the late 1980s). It is now generally considered firmly within the "Anglo-American" branch of Freemasonry. I can see a need to go into some detail to explain all this... but perhaps the best place to do so is in the History section.
2. I agree that the "other degrees" section needs some work... most of the editors who have worked on this page are from the US, and are most familiar with the way the "other degrees" are handled in those jurisdictions... which means that the current section does reflect a degree of unintended US bias. The problem is that, making the article less US-centric is actually a very complicated task. While the UK and US both strictly segregate the "higher" degrees into separate independent "Appendant" bodies... The UK does not have the same Appendant bodies that the US does. And the Continental jurisdictions do things completely differently (and just as inconsistently) it becomes a real mess to explain. Good luck.
3. We put "Charitable efforts" where it was due to an attempt to answer two questions in one section... "what do Masons do?" (ritual and charity work)... and "what do Masons believe?" (God, fellowship and charity)... but yeah, it could be done differently.
4. The topic of Women could be discussed in several sections... it relates to Appendent bodies, membership requirements, the differences between the Continental and Anglo-American branches, etc. It is complicated enough that we decided to give it its own separate section. Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll proceed with the changes all except "Women." You are right - could be more complicated than just membership.Truther2012 (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

"Critics of Freemasonry" - "Polical Opposition"

In the "Critics of Freemasonry" - "Polical Opposition" section, with respect to the Nazi regime, I think we should put: The depiction of the Nazi Bombers from World War II, and perhaps the afterlife as well, at the beginning of "Cronicles of Narnia: The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe" may have been Masonically inspired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.2.246 (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

How do you think a depiction of Nazi Bombers benefit a general article on Freemasonry, particularly Political Opposition section?Truther2012 (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you elaborate as to what you propose as far as afterlife and "Chronicles of Narnia"?Truther2012 (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah... the OP would have to first establish that a reliable source actually discusses this passage in the book and says it was Masonicly inspired (doubtful)... and then it would have to be established that this has something to do with political opposition to Freemasonry (also doubtful). So... Are their any reliable source for all this? Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Winterhilfswerk

We need a proper scholarly source that definitely states that the Winterhilfswerk was used for rearmament. Currently, the article cites Freemasons’ online magazine for this claim, which is definitely questionable. The WP article on the WHW doesn't mention it being used for such purposes. The program continued all the way to 1945, while German rearmament took place in the early 1930s. Mvaldemar (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Which of the three cited sources do you dismiss so casually as being a "Freemasons' online magazine"? Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Of the two internet sources, only http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/bernheim3.html claims that WHW was used for rearmament. It says on the main page that it is the "the oldest, most popular and famous Freemasons’ online magazine". The other online source (http://www.internetloge.de/arst/forgetd.htm) is much better (it describes the WHW more accurately), and if I'm not mistaken it doesn't mention anything about rearmament. Mvaldemar (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You have a point. Other refs to rearmament in connection to Winterhilfswerk seem to come from Bernheim's paper, where he is quoting a letter, and are all in connection to the forget-me-not. I've adjusted the text, thanks for pointing it out. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

At risk of pointing out the obvious, the article dedicated to Winterhilfswerk does not mention rearment at all. If anything it is fairly positive in tone. If anything, I would propose updating that article first and then maintain consistency here.Truther2012 (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not in the article for the simple reason that it's not mentioned outside comparatively recent masonic sources. Frankly, I find the idea that the invasion of Poland and France was funded by the Hitler Youth standing outside bierkellers with collecting tins ridiculous. It has all the characteristics of myth, and sidelines the darker propaganda and social engineering purpose of the program. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Initiation of Women

A recent edit shows that "GOdF now initiates women." No source is provided and I can't seem to find that information myself anywhere. If we cant provide a reliable source we should revert the edit. Further, there was a sentence about "Male lodges" in "Regular" (pardon the venacular) masonry. Are there any other? I've reverted that edit, but wanted to be sure. Truther2012 (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I've put in a reference from a contemporary news report. I referenced this earlier in the Freemasonry & Women section, and missed this allusion to the same decision. I'm keeping an eye on this, as the old guard are still trying to turn the clock back, which resulted in their last AGM being invaded by women wearing false beards. (It looked a bit like a scene from the Life of Brian.) I'm waiting for the dust to settle before making any additions. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Freemasonry and Women section needs work

The second paragraph of this section is very disjointed and confusing. It can be broken into three parts, which don't seem (at least to me) to directly relate to each other:

1. While women cannot join regular lodges, there are (mainly within the borders of the United States) many concordant bodies, such as the Order of the Eastern Star, the Order of the Amaranth, the White Shrine of Jerusalem, or the Social Order of Beauceant, which are open to Freemasons and their female relatives. These have their own rituals and traditions, but are founded on the Masonic model.
2. Starting in France and spreading to most of continental Europe, similar lodges with their own form of ritual admitting women were known as Lodges of Adoption. In twentieth century France these lodges became female only.
3. In 1935 the Grand Orient unilaterally separated itself from its ladies lodges, and in 1959 they adopted the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, working the same ritual as the men and in all respects acting as a lodge of Freemasons.

I think we may be trying to cover too many different things in one paragraph. Let's discuss. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The whole Freemasonry and Women section has been assembled piecemeal with no overall plan. Given links to the relevant articles, most of what needs to be said is there, it just needs assembled into an understandable order. Multiple timelines don't help either. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's be honest. The whole article has serious problems. I know that certain editors around here object to certain sources because of what they personally consider "biases" of those sources, like, for instance, multiple encyclopedias relating to "religion" in the broad sense with serious and substantial articles on the topic of Freemasonry, and presumably, although I haven't checked it directly, Encyclopedia Britannica and other sources. Those independent reference sources, which would presumably include well regarded college-level and better textbooks which substantively address this subject, are probably as per guidelines and policy our best sources to use as basic guides for content here, taking into account any biases they might either clearly have or which are indicated in reviews or other literature. Like with a lot of other topics, we would probably be best served by consulting such independent reference/text sources to determine what material to include in the main article here, and what weight to give it here. John Carter (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

From the Peanut Qallery: Looks like the current Britannica has 425 words on the subject. Also, some of the supposedly reliable and at any rate much-referenced sources are circular & redundant with a single incorrect original source --as is much discussed here for a decade now... Grye (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, like I said, that is only one source. I agree that the entire article needs work... but we might as well start that work by cleaning up the Freemasonry and Women section (since we are already discussing it). So... any suggestions on how to make the section not so disjointed and piecemeal? Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There are two parts to the issue: Membership (allow, not allow, co-, ladies only) and Satellite Organisations (OES, OOA, etc.). I think if we structure the section along these lines, it will flow a bit better. Otherwise, the info is all there. -Truther2012 (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I would be more in favour of a time-line oriented approach. First, the status of women in historic operative masonry, the English shut-out enshrined in Anderson's constitutions, and the continental work-around in Adoptive masonry. I think a brief mention of York MS 4 is in order here, together with the American adoptive organisations. Then the evolution of co-masonry in the 1890s, and how it spun off English womens' masonry. The French re-invention of Adoption, and how that spun off continental womens' lodges. Last paragraph on current relations with mainstream Grand Lodges/Orients. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, and this is a maybe, although I agree the section could use work, maybe the best thing to do is determine what material should be in this main article in the first place. The Encyclopedia of Religion ed. Eliade/Jones is one of the most highly regarded reference sources out there, having been the sole winner one year ofmajor award as the single best book of the year. Its article contains a "history" section of over two pages, which contains subsections on legendary masonic history and the historic period (presumably the verifiable history), and sections on Masonic teachings and famous Masons. The Encyclopedia of Secret Societies and Fraternal Orders, whose content can be found summarized here, has as its named subsections "Sources of Information," "The Origins of Freemasonry," "The Secrets of Freemasonry," "Masonic Calendars," "Speculative Masonry," "Masonry in the 18th Century," "Schism and Reunification," "Masonry in the 19th Century," "20th Century Masonry (General)," "Admission and Ritual of Freemasons," "20th Century Masonry Outside the United States," "20th Century Masonry in the United States," "Black Freemasonry," "False Freemasonry," and "Freemasonry and Mormonism". Taking all those which seem to me to fairly clearly relate directly to the "History of Freemasonry," that would leave "Sources of Information," "The Origins of Freemasonry," "The Secrets of Freemasonry," "Masonic Calendars," "Speculative Masonry," "Admission and Ritual of Freemasons," "Black Freemasonry," "False Freemasonry," and "Freemasonry and Mormonism". I would probably replace the latter with a broader "Freemasonry and Religion" section with link as well. I don't see a section on Freemasonry and Women there at all. That topic seems to be addressed primarily in a separate article on "Adoptive freemasonry" there, although we don't necessarily have to follow any single other source's lead. There are at least a few other well regarded reference sources out there which give the topic significant coverage as well, But like with a lot of other articles on very broad topics, like this one, I think it might make sense to try to determine what to include in the article first and to what weight, and then go on to the probably easier task of determining the content of those sections. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

There are two reasons for the absence of such material from encyclopaedias. The dearth of reliable published sources leaves little to generate encyclopaedia articles from. Accepted English speaking masonic historians tend to be men from regular Grand Lodges (I can think of only two exceptions, and their interests lie in the sociological process in the rise of speculative masonry). Much of the available material is even more riddled with myth than the usual histories. The second reason is the regrettable attitude of Grand Lodges, that women's and co-masonry doesn't exist, and if they shut their eyes it will go away. Masonic sections in encyclopaedias tend to be commissioned from masonic historians who tend to be etc. etc. Out in the real world, the UGLE avoided being dragged into the sex discrimination act by a grudging acceptance that women's Freemasonry was regular in every respect but the sex of the participants. Co-masonry is still out. If I go to a Droit Humain meeting, or visit with the Eastern Star, I will be excluded. However, women's and co-masonry are here to stay, and continue to expand. The article would be incomplete without a mention. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

First, I think that the implicit generalization in the above comment, that encyclopedia articles tend to be written by Masons does not necessarily mean that the same applies in these cases. I have only the 1st edition of the EoR in front of me, whose article is written by William H. Stemper, Jr., whose status as a mason I honestly don't know. Its bibliography includes Jacques Chailley's The Masonic Flute: Masonic Opera, New York, 1971, Lynn Dumenil's Freemasonry and American Culture, 1880-1930, Princeton, 1984, Robert Freke Gould's History of Freemasonry, London, 1886-1887, Alex Horne's Sources of Masonic Symbolism, Trenton, N.J., 1981, Margaret C. Jacob's The Radical Enlightenment: Pantheists, Freemasons, and Republicans, Boston, 1981, Dorothy Ann Lipson's Freemasonry in Federalist Connecticut, Princeton, 1977, Roscoe Pound's Masonic Addresses and Writings, New York, 1953, James W. Stubbs' The United Grand Lodge of England, 1717-1967 Oxford, 1967, and Frances A. Yates' The Rosicrucian Enlightenment, London, 1972. Some of those authors are clearly female, so I would question whether they were members of Grand Lodges. And, FWIW, I am not myself sure that I would necessarily exclude such information myself. Acknowledging that I am myself not particularly knowledgable about "Black Freemasonry"'s official "status", as it were, or whether there were any black female masonic bodies, although I seem to remember from the Secret Societies encyclopedia some, it might make sense to keep women as a separate subsection or, maybe, include it in something like "expanded Freemasonry" (including women and blacks), or something else, Maybe. Like I said, I dunno, and those two sources I indicated are only two. There are others I have found as well, not all of which I've finished the lists for to be able to add to wikipedia here. But, I do think it might be reasonable in developing this article, like potentially a lot of other articles on topics which tend to only engage editors with strong feelings one way or another, to review the better independent reliable sources that do exist and see if we might be better and possibly less contentiously able to develop an article which might be, as it were, an "averaged-out" version of the more highly regarded material in the more highly regarded outside sources. But, believe me, the Eliade/Jones EoR being something whose article list I've been preparing for a few months now, at least, it might take me a while to go to all of them. I am trying, but huge monsters like that one tend to cause real delays in getting to others. John Carter (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The first thing I think we need to do is make a list of the various categories and sub-categories of "Women's Freemasonry"... because there are significant differences between them all... differences in ritual, in purpose, in goals, in history, and especially in the ways in which they are (and are not) "connected" to Men's Freemasonry. The Order of the Eastern Star is very different from Le Droit Humain. And both are very different from the Order of Women Freemasons. Blueboar (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think consulting the Encyclopedia of Secret Societies and Fraternal Orders reference source I linked to above is probably the first step in that process, along with any articles which might be in the old Encyclopedia of Freemasonry. The ESSFO contains a lot of information about a lot of groups, some fairly minor, but still evidently significant enough for inclusion there. I am still working on getting together a list of articles from it, even though I know full well it isn't necessarily reliable, because if nothing else the topics in it probably qualify as notable, and if noting else they give an indicator of what there is "out there" about the topic. But, unlike others apparently, I do still believe that we would be best trying to determine what topics to cover in the article first, and at what length, even if it is minimal in some cases, before getting together a possible List of women's masonic organizations or similar, which is what I think the point being conveyed by the post above, although I might be wrong. John Carter (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Jacob was one of the authors I was referring to. Her interest is the part that Freemasonry played in the Enlightenment. Gould is hopelessly dated. He constructed his own history of Freemasonry based on what he thought should have happened, sowing confusion for a century. Much of the subsequent material was distilled from Gould's monumental work. I don't see Cryer, Prescott or Cooper on the list, or any of the French language sources relating to continental Freemasonry, instrumental in the current form of women's Freemasonry. My comments stand.

A timeline approach to the subject would clearly show the categories of women's masonry, and their interrelationship with each other. A full breakdown would expand a necessary paragraph into a sub-article, covering material already pointed to in the link to the main article. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

We already have a separate sub-article... which also needs work. Blueboar (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Mine do as well, because, unfortunately, despite the opinions of editors who might not unreasonably be seen to have a POV as per WP:POV on the topic, they are among the sources which are relied upon, and, honestly, I have to say that independent opinions count for more than possibly prejudiced ones of self-declared members. However, if you can produce better sources, or were to help prepare articles on those sources, which probably qualify as notable, that would be another thing entirely. Also, you seem to be addressing only the sources themselves, not the content based on them, and that is flawed logic as well. So, evidently, I am to assume that because editors who might be driven by a clear POV regarding a voluntary organization which they made an effort to join of their own accord, the content of an article in one of the most highly regarded reference sources on the planet, the one which one "Book of the Year" from a major publisher when it came out, are more reliable than it and its successor (which I don't have in front of me)? I do not believe anyone familiar with policies and guidelines would necessary make that case without proof, which I don't see here. My comments which have been oft-repeated about the POV of the article, and, unfortunately, about some of its most devoted editors, individually and collectively, stand as well. John Carter (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, you seem to have formed your own POV about me. My membership, or otherwise, of UGLE has nothing to do with my opinions on women's masonry. If anything, they directly contradict the stance of my own Grand Lodge, so please do me the courtesy of treating me as a wikipedian. I can show how Gould perpetuated Preston's myth of a schism in 1751, made up his own biography of Dermott, and buried the failings of the first, sainted, Grand Lodge. Knoop actually studied mediaeval manuscripts, updated the foundation data, but didn't dare contradict the great man. Prescott isn't a mason, but has produced the best contemporary work on origins. Cooper and Cryer have their blind spots, but are essential reading if you actually want to understand this stuff. I wouldn't start from a mass-market pot boiler that has obviously never heard of modern masonic research. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's remember that our goal here on this page is to craft a short, simple, and clear summary of the topic of Women and Freemasonry... no more than a few paragraphs. A lot of the stuff you two are discussing is important to discuss... but it would be more appropriate to discuss it at the linked article on Women and Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Ta Daa! Alright, it's not perfect, but it has some sort of structure, and has almost everything I think we need, albeit cut back to bare bones. Refs could do with tweaking. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Accuracy problems in relation to Islam section

I removed an entire paragraph which was nothing more than bigoted, prejudicial anti-Muslim hyperbole. I tried editing it but I was reverted, with MSJapan claiming I injected weasel words, ignoring the fact that the entire section is already filled with them. I took a second look and the sources used are terrible and do not fulfill the standards of WP:RS and WP:V -- most of the section is original research. I suggest bringing in a few Islam experts so they can have their say on this nonsense of Islamic anti-Masonry being "antisemitic". Laval (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, unless anyone can prove the Saddam's regime was opposed to Freemasonry on religious grounds, it makes no sense to include that under "Islam and Freemasonry" considering Iraq was a secular socialist state. The sourcing of that claim was terrible, with a single Washington Post article that mentions Freemasonry only in passing. You want to insist including these claims? Then show sources that conform properly to WP:RS, WP:V, and stop using primary sources -- see WP:OR. Reverting editors who are trying to fix these issues is poor form when you're pushing original research and anti-Muslim bigotry. Laval (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not prejudicial anti-Muslim Hyperbole... it's a solidly sourced account of Islamic Anti-Masonry. We can perhaps discuss whether there is a better way to phrase the information, but the information itself is important to understanding Muslim opposition towards Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning Fringe Freemasonry and scams?

Two questions... 1) Should this article mention esoteric "Fringe" Freemasonry (groups like OTO and Golden Dawn)? ... these groups grew out of Freemasonry, and often claim to be a form of Freemasonry (although not recognized as such by anyone else). the BC&Y website has a good page on this that we could use as a source. 2) Should this article say anything about outright "scams" (individuals or tiny groups that offer bogus "Masonic" degrees in an attempt to scam money from the unwary)?
I could go either way... part of me wants to warn the reader that terms like "Freemasonry" and "Grand Lodge" are not copyrighted or trademarked... and so anyone can use these terms and claim to be "Masonic". I think the reader should be told that not everything that claims to be Freemasonry actually is Freemasonry. On the other hand, both are complex issues, and explaining it properly (and neutrally) would be somewhat difficult. Discussing it may just confuse the reader unnecessarily. Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd say we should. Even if they are Masonic in the name only, they should be referenced. At the very least, a candidate considering a "scam" group will have access to this information. Plus, some of them could be simply misunderstood. Truther2012 (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they should be mentioned. It isn't our place to judge whether these groups, which include a lot of NRMs, which claim to be Freemasons are or are not Freemasons. Also, for such matters, we would not count the opinion of the Catholic Church of Rome that the Old Catholic church is not "Catholic" per their definition, and, similarly, I cannot see any reason why we would trust the word of one extant Masonic body about what is and is not "true" Masonry. However, if reliable sources independent of modern Masonic bodies say that these groups are not Masonic, or if reference sources relating to broad "Masonry" do not discuss them at sufficient weight in content related to Freemasonry to provide clear evidence that they meet WEIGHT requirements, that would be a different matter entirely. John Carter (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of a proper term for this. Fringe sounds POV and Scams, well, who knows... The lowest common denominator that passes NPOV filter would be unrecognised. Any organisation that cannot claim recognition with either regular GLs or CLIPSAS is indeed unrecognised. There could be multiple reasons for the lack of recognition: secrecy, irregularity of conduct, number of members or plain illegality. While we probably wont have enough reliable information to properly classify these organisations, it will be very easy to determine whether or not they are recognised. What do you think? One great example would be that Michael Jackson's doctor's lodge... --Truther2012 (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well... the usual term for lodges that do not have a charter from a Grand Lodge (and the individuals who belong to such lodges) is "clandestine"... does that term work for spurious self-created grand lodges? Blueboar (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't really use clandestine this side of the pond, UGLE preferring irregular. As this term has its own problems, and most one-word descriptions of the phenomenon are possibly libellous, Fringe may be the safest option. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Calling someone "clandestine" implies illicity, which some of these organisations may not be. Some people may take offence to "fringe", thus making it non-neutral. "Irregular" brings us back to regularity conversation - people will start throwing all kind of GOdF, DH, etc into that bucket. To me, it is pretty clear-cut which organisation is "recognised" and which isn't. We can also try something as simple as "Other". --Truther2012 (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 September 2013

I request you eliminate the period after the closing parenthesis in the sentence before the last sentence of the first paragraph of the United Kingdom subsection in the History section. WolterH (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done:. See the style guide at Wikipedia:MOS#Sentences_and_brackets. RudolfRed (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Regularity and Branch Names

I believe this has been discussed here a number of times. "Regularity" is a relative term. Lodges within each branch of Anglo-American and Continental masonry consider themselves "Regular" within their own structure. Thus, we cannot call either of them "Regular" without possibly violating WP:NPOV. I believe it has been agreed for the purposes of this article to stick to calling the branch stemming from UGLE - Anglo-American and from GOdF - Continental. If you dont have any objections, I will proceed reverting some of the recent edits.Truther2012 (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

We know that what we refer to as the Anglo-American branch of Freemasonry refer to itself as regular - but do the Continental branch refer to itself as such? If so, provided a reliable cite can be found, there should be no trouble explaining it in the article. WegianWarrior (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

A lot depends on whether you are using the word "regular" descriptively or as a Name... both Branches use the word descriptively ("Cumquat Lodge No. 1234 is regular in its practices.") but only the Anglo-American branch uses the word as a Name for itself. ("Regular Freemasonry dominates in the United States.").

The same could be said of the word "liberal" but going the other way. Both branches use the word descriptively ("You should be as liberal in your charity as your ability permit")... but only the Continental branch uses the word as a Name for itself ("Liberal Freemasonry is dominant in France"). Blueboar (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Both branches accept Anderson Constitutions as the foundation of Masonic Law. Anderson Constitutions explicitly defines what a regular lodge is… “A lodge is regular if it works in conformity to the rules of its granted constitutional patent.” Regularity is a tool to determine one’s relationship to others. Calling oneself “Regular” does not make it so. Only others can consider you as such. For instance, there are a couple of GLs out there that actually call themselves Regular GLs, if UGLE were to remove recognition, would they be forced to rename themselves? On a separate point, Continental is not the same as Liberal. Liberal is merely sub-branch of Continental along with Adogmatic, Traditional, etc.Truther2012 (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You are still missing the point... perhaps a different example will help to clarify. Think about the word "patriots" and how it is used in the context of the American Revolution. Now... from an English perspective, those who stayed loyal to the Crown were certainly patriots... while from an American perspective those who supported Independence were patriots. So, the word patriot can equally be used descriptively for two mutually exclusive groups. However, as a name the word "Patriots" refers to only one of those groups... those who supported Independence... those who stayed loyal to the Crown are given the name "Loyalists" (or, less neutrally, "Tories").

That's what is going on in Masonry with the word "regular"... descriptively, the word applies to everyone, since everyone is "regular" from the perspective of their jurisdiction. But as a name it is only applied to one group. Blueboar (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I get it. And I think we should acknowledge that Anglo-American does call itself Regular. I particularly like how it is done on the Anglo-American article. At the same time, for the purposes of an encyclopedically-neutral article and to properly distinguish one from another, we should stick with Anglo-American vs. Continental. We should also include a line that clarifies that calling oneself Regular does not make it so.Truther2012 (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

If one branch refers to themselves as regular what's wrong with us using the common name for them, ref WP:COMMONNAME? And where would that put the Swedish Rite, which is in amenity with the Anglo-American branch but not part of it? WegianWarrior (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the other branch can call themselves 'regular' as well, as the term is descriptive in nature. Plus, regularity does depend on one's POV. 'Anglo-Am' and 'Continental' seem to be less POV-ish. Same goes for 'liberal': some GLs on the Continental side consider themselves 'conservative' (a-liberal). In a nutshell, I think we should use the most neutral generally accepted terms. Btw, if the Swedish Rite is in amity with Anglo-Am, they are clearly in that camp. None of the rites or GLs are really "part" of either branch. Truther2012 (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Other branches of Freemasonry can, and do, refer to themselves as more regular than the regular lodges. They accept the term, though, and Grand Lodges seeking to reinstate a compulsory religious element in their territory describe themselves as regular. The "Liberal" assignation refers to the freedom of conscience enshrined in the Strasbourg appeal, and the constitutions of its signatories. The lodge/Grand Lodge itself may have political beliefs slightly to the right of Ghengis Khan, but will still defend your right to be an unreconstructed Marxist. I have issues with describing the two camps in geographical terms, but as they are also accepted nomenclature, I can live with it. I MUCH prefer regular/liberal. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I recognize that this could be an infinite discussion. It would be nice to find a NPOV source that clearly defines which is which. Yes, geography isn't much better (there is more than Continental masonry on the Continent), but at least it removes the concept of regularity from discussion. As far as "Liberal" is concerned this source maintains that "liberal" refers to membership, and "adogmatic" - to Supreme Being. I could swear I've seen this classification before, but cant find another source at this time. (I will introduce this at the Continental discussion)Truther2012 (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Having trawled a few French sites, libérale does not appear on the GOdF website, but is well represented on the blogs and pages of its members. The daughter GO in Ireland describes itself as Liberal and Adogmatic. Definition is not a strong point, but my trusty Chambers dictionary defines liberal, inter alia, as not bound by authority or traditional orthodoxy, which is a pretty fair description of how this branch see themselves. Interestingly, while defining their hidebound opponents as regulars, they frequently put the term in quotes. This is an interesting sample LesDeviors, containing the following rhetoric -Il nous revient de jeter les ponts vers la société du futur, de travailler les utopies de demain à partir des difficultés de la société d'aujourd'hui et de mettre nos rituels et nos pratiques d'équerre avec cette exigence. Deuxième horreur, conceptuelle celle-là, pour les "réguliers" ! Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Fiddlersmouth, here is a link to GOdF calling themselves Liberal. Also, I would not put too much weight on quotes in French, as they usually denote a term. I guess, in the absence of a truly NPOV and academic source, “calling themselves and each other” is good enough of a convention. Truther2012 (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I came across this website on French Freemasonry, which is referenced in a number of articles here. According to the site, French (Continental) masonry is divided into three groups: Regular, Traditional and Liberal. If that is indeed the case then the original assertion of "calling themselves and each other" no longer holds water. Once again, my concern is that "Continental" is not the same as "Liberal" and "Regular" branches appear on both sides of the schism. Thoughts? --Truther2012 (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

That may be a start. Can we get a breakdown on the differences? My French is not that great. MSJapan (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we also bear in mind that their breakdown nowhere mentions la Grande Loge Nationale Française. It's a list of friends of the GOdF. Yes, we need further analysis, because nothing in masonry is simple, but the basic split is in which GLs/GOs recognise each other. There are two main camps - and the debate is about preferred nomenclature. BTW, MSJapan, the site is in English. The breakdown, from what I can infer, the Liberals are adogmatic, and admit atheists, traditionals adhere to the old French ritual, and insist on some form of monotheism, some only admitting trinitarian Christians, Regulars have the religious requirement plus the Anglo ritual, ie they have deacons and wardens rather than the deaconless French rite. Just a sketch, hard to reference, and pretty technical, especially for non-masons. Arguably it should be somewhere in the Continental article. Sometime. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Essentially, this is a POV situation... every mason will think "My branch" is regular and "that branch" is not. We need to get beyond this attitude. I think WP:POVNAMING applies ... it does not really matter what labels UGLE or GOdF (or any other Masonic organization) apply to themselves - what matters is the labels that are applied by external reliable sources. The question is whether any exist? Blueboar (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

As long as members of GOdF and friends are referring to the other camp as "réguliers", it can't be POV. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

MSJapan, unfortunately the site does not explain the differences, but rather state that there are three sub-branches within Continental masonry, one of them called Liberal and another Regular. This appears to be new information to this discussion. As such, I find it difficult to refer to the entire Continental branch as Liberal and we no longer have a non-Anglo-Am reference calling Anglo-Am Regular. Fiddlersmouth, yes, since GLNF is absent from the list, we can only assume that the entire site is dedicated to Continental. Blueboar, I think this information suggests this being beyond POV - they are not calling "their" branch Regular (while I'm sure considering it such), but rather "a branch", which is different from Anglo-Am. I was originally satisfied with Fiddlersmouth's source calling Anglo-Am "réguliers", but now I am concerned that they might have been talking about a Continental branch. At least, it appears clear now that "Liberal" label cannot be used to describe the entire Continental branch. --Truther2012 (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Remember... we are not using the word "liberal" as a description for the Continental branch... we are saying that "Liberal Freemasonry" and "Adogmatic Freemasonry" are alternative NAMES for "Continental Freemasonry". Names are handled differently than descriptions. Per WP:NPOV we should note any alternative NAMES for the subjects of articles on wikipedia... if a significant number of sources use that NAME. But if only a few use these NAMES, then we should not mention them (per WP:UNDUE).

So there are two real questions here... 1) Do sources use the terms "Liberal Freemasonry" and "Adogmatic Freemasonry" as NAMES to refer to what the majority of other sources call "Continental Freemasonry"? 2) If so, do they use them as NAMES for the entire branch, or do they only use them as a NAME for a segment of the Branch? The same two questions should be asked in regards to other terms like "Regular Freemasonry (or "réguliers"). Are they used as alternative NAMEs, and if so to what do the NAMEs apply? Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

There will always be confusion as our nomenclature covers two different phenomena. We use Anglo-American/Continental or Regular/Liberal to distinguish between the two great blocs of mutual masonic recognition which exist in the world. While there is a vague homogeny between the Anglo GLs, the continental flavour contains a much larger spectrum of masonry, from adogmatic mixed masonry to trinitarian male-only. Within this spectrum there are GL's that the UGLE would have no hesitation in recognising as regular were they not in amity with the GOdF and other liberal bodies. In other words, there is an open volume of the sacred law in a lodge full of male theists who are forbidden to discuss religion and politics.

In terms of Amity, therefore, we have the Anglo-American's mutual recognition of regularity contrasted with the Liberal GO's and those who recognise them. (Complicated by those American GLs who recognise the GOdF that the UGLE hasn't seen fit to fall out with.) In terms of practice, there are regular lodges on both sides of the divide. Perhaps the question we should be asking is "How do we classify Continental Regular GLs?" Fiddlersmouth (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that’s exactly the question we are asking – what’s the proper NAME for the branches. Everyone (at least here) recognizes that all these GLs and GOs are regular within their own amity systems. The challenge that I present here is this… If only a section of Continental branch calls itself Liberal, can we call the entire branch Liberal? Further complication is that the majority of sources that use Liberal nomenclature are Anlgo-American (and also use Irregular and Clandestine quite interchangeably). If we recognize that, it seizes being an WP:NPOV and thus WP:Common Name. The same could be argued in reverse as it applies to Anglo-Am and Regular. As far as division within Continental is concerned, I think, at this point we have two somewhat neutral sources that call sub-branches Liberal/Traditional/Regular/Adogmatic (we had similar discussion on the Continental TP), and as soon as I have an extra minute I will make the appropriate edit on the Continental page.--Truther2012 (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Fiddlersmouth, are you saying that there are Anglo-Am GLs out there that recognize Continental GLs? If so, that would be a very valuable addition to the Regularity article. Do you have any sources? -- Truther2012 (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that "Liberal Freemasonry" is used much by the Anglo-American branch (they tend to use either "Continental Freemasonry" or the more biased "Irregular Freemasonry")... "Liberal Freemasonry" tends to be a self-identification used by (at least a segment of) the Continental branch. The same applies to "Adogmatic Freemasonry"... it's a self-identification. But we keep ignoring the real issue... forget how the various factions of Masons refer to themselves and each other. Let's examine what reliable non-Masonic sources call the various factions. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The moment we get that one (non-Masonic) source, all this will be settled, at least for a while. However, based on our current sources, I dont think we can call the entire Continental branch Liberal (i.e. "Continental or Liberal"). In the Continental article saying that it is "sometimes called Liberal", IMO is still acceptable. --Truther2012 (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem with non-masonic sources is that the technical and political differences between different persuasions and rites of masonry generally don't mean a thing to non-masons, and are often mis-interpreted. I'd love to find one that covers the differences between Anglo and Continental, but I think they are a bit like rocking-horse manure. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

OK... here is my summation: We have masonic sources that use these names as self-identifyers when discussing their own particular branch ... but each name has POV problems, and there is no universal agreement on what they apply to. I am beginning to agree that the only way out of this is to omit all of the self-applied alternative names in this overview article... and just use "Anglo-American style" and "Continental style" (not as NAMES, but as neutral descriptions). We can mention the alternative names that each branch uses for themselves in the sub-articles on the respective branches... where we have more space to go into the nuances, and subdivisions in each branch... and where we can explain the disagreements over labels in more depth. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Ça va. (Works for me) Fiddlersmouth (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Not to beat the dead (rocking?) horse, but do we have any sources for the two descriptions? Otherwise, I think, they are the most neutral (and descriptive). Btw, lately I was thinking of the term Latin as well. I know it has been vettoed on the Continental page, but it does seem even more descriptive as it seems to be prevalent in non-Endlish, ie Latin countries... But that's just a sidenote. --Truther2012 (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Membership numbers

This article really needs a breakdown of membership counts. There is already some of that in the opener (UGLE 250k, US 2m, Scotland + Ireland 150k), but a table with a couple of countries will really make it stronger. Anyone has any good sources?Truther2012 (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You have exactly pinpointed the problem. There was an earlier discussion at Talk:Anglo-American_Freemasonry#Majority. The national/regional organisations are easy to find, numbers of individual Freemasons are not always available. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah... sourcing is the issue. We can only give numbers if a source gives numbers. Blueboar (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

We can probably start something and slap "Incomplete" badge on it, while we search for more numbers and sources. This will also encourage others to contribue. Heck, it looks like we already covered 40% of membership by the above references.Truther2012 (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

A quick look through our articles on Grand Lodges working according to the Swedish Rite indicates about 50K brethren working that rite. WegianWarrior (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I have just noticed that our estimate of 6 million Freemasons is based on a UGLE document, which presumable excludes women, co-masonry, and anybody remotely associated with the GOdF and their friends. Perhaps the words impossible to estimate might fill the void. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that its the only reliable source we have that gives an estimate. The estimate may or may not be correct (I note that UGLE does not say "6 million regular Masons", so they might well have counted GOdF and the like)... but our statement that the Fraternity has been estimated at 6 million is an accurate statement (6 million is the UGLE's estimate) Or to put it another way... It's an accurate statement, in that this is the estimate given by UGLE. However, to make it clearer who is giving the estimate, we can attribute. Blueboar (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I propose to start building a table with counts by country (with references). Based on what we have so far, it will look like this...Truther2012 (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Country / Jurisdiction	Regular	Liberal	Other	Total
England	250,000	???
US	2,000,000	???
IrelandScotland	150,000	???
Sweden	50,000	???
Canada	88,000	???

Please do not confuse the Swedish Rite with Masonry in Sweden... the breakdown for the Swedish Rite is something like: Danish Order of Freemasons 10K, Swedish Order of Freemasons 15.2K, Norwegian Order of Freemasons 20K, Grand Landlodge of the Freemasons of Germany 3.5K, Icelandic Order of Freemasons 3.4K. In addition there is continental/liberal/irregular/whatcacallit lodges working in Sweden and Denmark. WegianWarrior (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, can you update the table and maybe add the sources? My intent here is start building this resource. Thanks! --Truther2012 (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Truther... Before you do this... Have you seen our List of Masonic Grand Lodges article? We already have a chart broken down by jurisdiction... and that resource includes a box for membership numbers... please add to that before you start adding to this (already long) article.

I really don't think a chart with membership broken up by jurisdiction will be useful for this article... the only reason we mention any numbers (in the lede) is simply to illustrate the fraternity (as a whole) is very large and notable. We used UK and US numbers to do this because we were able to find reliable sources that gave an estimate for them (and could not find a source for all of Freemasonry world wide). The intent wasn't to highlight those jurisdictions or to omit others... we simply used what we could find to illustrate a point.

The ideal for this article would be to give single a world wide estimate... or perhaps a break down by continent (ie X million in North America, Y million in Europe, Z thousands in South America, etc.) combining both traditions. The problem is that we have not been able to find sources to support such a calculation. If you can find sources, go for it... but I have been looking for several years now, and my suspicion is that the sources simply don't exist. It does no good to say "under construction" if there are no sources that would allow us to construct. Blueboar (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the list, and it does seem to encompass what I envisioned to the most part. Now that I see it, I recognize that including essentially the list of every country will unnecessary clutter this article. But we could use that list to estimate the total number, as most of the numbers on the list seem sourced. --Truther2012 (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Anglo-American and Continental Majority / Minority

The first paragraph of the Anglo-Am vs. Continental section speaks a lot about where each branch is present and how dominant it is. Some of the "majority/minority/domination" claims seem rather subjective. I don't think anyone would argue that Anlgo-Am is prevalent in UK and North America and Continental in France. But beyond that, I dont think we have any reliable source to suggest which one is which. I propose cleaning up that section. --Truther2012 (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I would say we could safely add anywhere that was part of the old British Empire (like India and Australia) as being regions where Anglo-American style is dominant.

As for the rest of the world... yeah... things are not quite so clear cut. Here's the problem: there actually are sources (both Masonic and non-Masonic) that talk about which style dominates in various parts of the world... but they are all obsolete (early 20th Century). They don't take into account the significant growth of Anglo-American style bodies over the last 50 years ... especially in South America (I think there is a good argument for saying that the term "Latin Freemasonry" applied to the Continental branch is obsolete) and Eastern Europe (post Cold War).

Unfortunately, while we want to give accurate, up-to-date information on where the various branches predominate, and where things are in flux ... that is difficult to do when Grand Lodges (in both branches) tend not to publish their membership numbers. Up-to-date sources are lacking in this area. Blueboar (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I find the whole "UGLE recognizes X GLs and there are Y members in CLIPSAS" to be the strongest argument in the overall "world domination" narrative. Beyond that (especially without well sourced membership numbers) everything else seems like opinion. Once I get to it, I will start cleaning up (only "majority"/"minority"). --Truther2012 (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

New lead

I've simplified the lead paragraph. The data on membership has been moved to the body. I've slimmed the rest to the simplest definition of freemasonry I could manage, with nod to major jurisdictional differences. Anything that needs referenced will be added to the body of the article (if it isn't there already) - we won't get it back to FA with a pile of references in the lead. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I have trimmed further... removing some of the details that are better discussed in the body of the text.

As long as we are working on the article, I would like to suggest we continue and do a more extensive rewrite... section by section. I think the current article goes spends too much time explaining details that may obsess those of us who are Masons, but which I think are too complex for an overview article, aimed at the general public. We should keep our audience in mind.

Our goal here is to give relatively simple answers to the basic questions: 1) what is Freemasonry? 2) where did it come from? 3) what do Freemasons do? and 4) what do fans and critics say about it (and why)? The details that underlie the simple answers should be fleshed out in sub-articles. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The piecemeal construction of the article, as stated by other editors, has left an unsatisfactory patchwork. In other words, if I was going to write a definitive overview of Freemasonry, I wouldn't start from here. I don't mind chipping away at this over a few weeks, but any supplementary axe-wielding would be most welcome. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)