Talk:History of Freemasonry in Belgium

Belgium Low‑importance

	Belgium portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Freemasonry Low‑importance

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

Low

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

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

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

Reference improvement needed

There's a great list of references (notes), and a long list of bibliographical entries. The problem is that, for the most part, the references do not list which pages from each cited book are used for the article.--Vidkun (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion... women

The article contradicts itself... it declares unequivocally that the first women's lodges in Belgium were started in the 1900s. However, earlier in the the article is a list of five lodges of adoption (women) founded in the 1780s... presumably they had women members. OK... I supposed one could argue that Belgium was not yet called Belgium in the 1780s... but I think it a bit disingenuous to say that there were no women Masons in the country before 1900. Perhaps it would be more accurate to phrase the 1900s era foundations as a re-birth of mixed Freemasony? Blueboar (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No confusion. Lodges of adoption were linked to craft lodges, but were never allowed to use craft ritual, ergo cannot properly be called masonic lodges, and their members certainly would never be referred to as masons. BTW, the article seems to have been edited down from a translation from French Wikipedia, Franc-maçonnerie en Belgique which is as yet untagged. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]