Talk:List of Freemasons/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Edit request from 67.49.236.63, 17 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Additions to "List of Freemasons"

Michael Bentine Comedian, comic actor, and founding member of The Goons Palm Springs Lodge #693 California. link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bentine source: Grand Lodge of California

Forest Bird Aviator, Inventor, Engineer Palm Sprigns Lodge #693 California. link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_bird source: Grand Lodge of California

67.49.236.63 (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: - can you provide a link or a more specific reference to a reliable source to confirm this? Thanks! Tim Pierce (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from IP99.141.250.125, 18 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} {{editsemiprotected}} Additions to "List of Freemasons"

Bob Etheridge US House of Representatives (D - NC) [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

.99.141.250.125 (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, done, thanks. Chzz  ►  15:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Request Edit

Both Bill Gates and, obviously, Benjamin Franklin, were Freemasons, but not listed here. They should be added to the list.

67.189.218.168 (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

HALF DONE... I have added Franklin (surprised he wasn't on the list already) ... Gates is doubtful, so please provide a reference. Blueboar (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Member of two lodges

I added one (Thomas Leavitt) and supplied a footnote, but discovered on further searching that the man was apparently a member of another lodge as well. Don't know the protocol for that, but here's the second cite as a member of St. John's Lodge, Saint John, New Brunswick.[8] MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

We don't really have a protocol for this... I think the lodge where the person was initiated (his "Mother Lodge") should be listed, if known. List other lodges if the person is regularly identified as being a member of those other lodges. The point here is to quickly substantiate that the person is/was a Mason... not to give their entire Masonic history. Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I was simply trying to be comprehensive and to respect the protocol of the page. MarmadukePercy (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Atatürk

Admins or who are in a interest of editing this page;

Your references about Atatürk is very silly.Reference 24[i can call it(Atatürk's part in book) an anti-Turkist text] is a very weak referenced book.As you can see here [9](everybody says different lodge) there are rumors about Atatürk.But they are rumors and not verified.

Reference 26 is not proposed properly and we cannot take it like a reference.And finally the about reference 25; these persons are anti-Kemalist(we call them like this in Turkey).They are talking thrash about Atatürk in order to lower his respect in peoples mind.

As you can see there is no reliable resources-references.If you've been read Atatürk's life, being Freemasonry is too wrong for him at any angles.Their principles are too different.You can say socialst for Atatürk but like i said liberalist things like Freemasonry are not his type.

By the way sorry about my bad English.

Thank you in advance for comments.~User:KazekageTR —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC).

If you look in the archives for this talk page, you will see that this has been discussed several times before. The simple fact is, there are multiple sources that claim Ataturk was a mason (at one point we had as many as six listed). That is enough for this page. Blueboar (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

[10] man; while you have this conversation.Why are you keep writing Atatürk on the list?What is your point with that Blue?~User:KazekageTR

And in this conversation, there is a very verified reference bud.Website of Turkish Masons(as you know.).[11].Atatürk is not in the list.And this list is made by first hand.We need solid references not mentions...~User:KazekageTR

As I said... this has all been discussed before. The consensus is that he should be listed. The references are considered good enough. Sorry you don't like that, but that is the way it is. Blueboar (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Kazekage, you can certainly attempt to change the consensus here -- however, considering the number of times it's been discussed in the past, your reasons will need to be quite compelling. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What if i prove it wrong.Is that works?~User:KazekageTR —Preceding undated comment added 20:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC).

Edit request from 81.141.146.215, 12 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Marco Bonnington-Carter, British Entrepreneur (currently unattached)

81.141.146.215 (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There is no evidence that this person is notable. Favonian (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Novangelus85, 5 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} R. H Macy Merrimack Lodge, Haverhill, MA

Novangelus85 (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: (see below)

Edit request from Novangelus85, 5 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} R. H. Macy Merrimack Lodge, Haverhill, MA.

Novangelus85 (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Macy was a member of my lodge. Merrimack Lodge in Haverhill, MA. If you watch the orginal Merical of 34th is diplomia was on camrea, it remains in the CEO's office to this day

Not done: Unfortunately, we are not allowed to simply accept your word for this... what we need is a reliable source that we can cite (See our policy: WP:Verifiability and the guideline WP:Identifying reliable sources). Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Benedict Arnold, correction

On the current version of the page, Benedict Arnold is listed as being expelled in 1781. Although it may be the case that Solomon Lodge in New York removed him from their lodge minutes, the cited source does NOT state that he was expelled by Hiram Lodge No. 1 AF&AM, New Haven, Conn. In my discussions with lodge historians (I am a brother of Hiram No. 1), I have been told that there is no evidence in the minutes that the lodge ever voted for Arnold's expulsion. Because the cited source does not state that Arnold was expelled from Hiram, I believe the entry to be misleading if not false, and believe the note of expulsion should be removed. Mockingale (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This will definitely require further research, but I will note that "expulsion" is generally not just expulsion from a particular Lodge, but rather expulsion from the Fraternity as a whole. It will of course depend on where the expulsion comes from, but usually it is from a Grand Lodge. Therefore, the lack of individual Lodge records means nothing, as the expulsion is binding on all Lodges where the memberwas on the rolls irrespective of jurisdiction, and would have no need of an individual Lodge's vote. The vote in NY may therefore have been purely symbolic.

For evidence that Arnold was never expelled, see Albert Mackey, Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, p. 105. The article cites a letter by W.B. George Frisbie, Secretary of Hiram in 1920, which indicated that Arnold likely remained a member of Hiram Lodge No. 1 until his death. Mockingale (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

However, there was no Grand Lodge in NY at that time. It was constituted in 1787, and Connecticut was 1789, so whichever GL had jurisdiction in 1781 might have the information in their proceedings. I am inclined to think it was Massachusetts, but there are two choices there as well at that time, I believe. If I have a chance, I'll try to do something with this. MSJapan (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hiram Lodge was originally chartered by the Grand Lodge of England through a Provincial Lodge in Boston. The Grand Lodge of Connecticut was not established until 1789, and Hiram did not affiliate with the Grand Lodge until some years later. In 1781 it was (probably) operating under the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, or whatever it was officially called at the time. It is possible that it changed its affiliation to the Grand Lodge of New York, but the status of various Grand Lodges in the United States following independence is a little complex. Mockingale (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Since the source given does not support the expulsion, but just another lodge's action toward a visiting Brother, I've removed the claim for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It would count as a primary source, so I don't know if it can be used... but I have seen a minute book from a lodge in Connecticut, open to the page where it makes note of Arnold's expulsion (it was on display a few years ago at Fraunces Tavern, here in NYC, as part of an exhibit of Masons and Masonry during the colonial era). I don't remember if it was from Hiram lodge... but it supports the idea that the expulsion was noted by more than just one lodge in NY. Suggest that we leave the note as to expulsion for now... and tag it pending a source. Blueboar (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think that unless you can cite to something specific which evidences expulsion from the Craft, the claim should be removed until evidence of the claim can be definitively cited. As discussed above, there was action taken by a New York lodge, which had no independent authority to expel Arnold and did not operate under the same Grand Lodge jurisdiction, to strike Arnold's name from its visitor records. I think the proponent of an additional fact about someone bears the burden of producing some persuasive evidence of that fact. Above I cited a Masonic publication which proposes that Arnold remained a member of Hiram Lodge until death and was not expelled, based on correspondence with the Secretary of the Lodge - I'd argue that's at least more persuasive than a memory of seeing a book once in New York which may have noted expulsion. Mockingale (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Mockingale here, Blueboar. Would you consider self-reverting? It's nowhere near a BLP issue, obviously, but it seems like something we should be careful about. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Give me a week or so to look into the details on the minute book I saw. If I have not been able to substantiate by then, I will be happy to remove the information as unsourced. Blueboar (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well... that didn't take long... I was able to contact the curator of the exhibit by phone today... and it turns out I was mistaken. The book I saw displayed was the minute book from Solomon's Lodge here in NY (which we have already discussed), and not one from Connecticut after all. I have therefore removed the note saying Arnold was expelled, as requested. I thank you all for your willingness to give me time to double check. Blueboar (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.30.246.186, 3 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} William, Edward et al were Kings of the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Ireland/Northern Ireland - depending on the exact date of their reign) - *not* just of Great Britain.

86.30.246.186 (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No need to be so precise here. The point of the biographical info is so that readers know which William, or Edward (etc.) we are talking about. We don't pretend to give complete "accurate" titles (that can be done at the bio article on the individual). Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Walt Disney

was not a Freemason, though he was a DeMolay. The only sources that claim he was a Freemason are conspiracy and evangelical sites which claim he was a 33rd. Reliable sources indicate otherwise. MSJapan (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, given that there was no citation (not even an unreliable conspiracy site), I have no objections to removing him from the list. We require citation even if we are sure the person was/is Masons, after all. Blueboar (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hiram Bingham

In addition, Hiram Bingham should be added to this list. He was a member of Hiram Lodge No. 1 in New Haven, Conn. In life he was a professor at Yale, a United States Senator, a Lieutenant Colonel of the U.S. Air Service, the Lieutenant-Governor and then Governor of Connecticut (for 1 day), and was famous for the popular discovery of Machu Picchu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mockingale (talk • contribs) 20:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Does he have an article here on WP, and a reliable source indicating his membership? MSJapan (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

He is listed as Hiram Bingham III. As far as reliable source, I'm not certain what sources you typically look to for confirmation of Masonic membership. I can look into it - there are some published historical materials by the lodge and the Grand Lodge which may confirm. Mockingale (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That should work. If it's not on the web, title, author, publisher, year, and page will be plenty. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have discussed Hiram Bingham with historians of the lodge and they have reiterated that Bingham was a member of Hiram #1, but I don't have a primary source to give you. Membership in Masonry hasn't always been so transparent :). Here's a link to the lodge history on Hiram 1's official website. This page states that Bingham was a member of the lodge. Hiram 1 Lodge History. Mockingale (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:NOR we can't use your personal discussion with the historians, and we are not supposed to use primary sources (lodge records for example) for something like this... what we want is a secondary source. However, the lodge website qualifies (even though it is self-published, it qualifies as a secondary source in that the author/webmaster takes his information from the primary records). Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

DONE. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

All Shriners are Masons, so a cite that proves a man is a Shriner proves he is a Freemason automatically.

All Shriners are Freemasons, but not all Freemasons are Shriners. Just like Scottish Rite, and York Rite a man MUST be a Freemason FIRST. So YES, Shriner=Mason, but Mason does not necessarily equal Shriner. Therefore, if a cite proves membership in the Shriners, then it also proves membership in Freemasonry.
My sources for this:

• "Be a Shriner Now: Roadmap". Tampa, Florida, USA: Shriners International. Retrieved 1/24/2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
• Hodapp, Christopher (2005). "12". Freemasons for Dummies. Indianapolis, Indiana: Wiley Publishing. Inc. p. 175-176, 228, and 230. ISBN 978-0-7645-9796-1.

Thanks, EricCable (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I will make the same point here as I did on your talk page. Having to qualify a citation by "going to a certain point in a video" is really not appropriate. The textual citations are much better. MSJapan (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page. Not really the point of this section of this discussion.-- Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Our job isn't to "prove" someone is a Freemason... but to provide sources that verify our statement that someone is a Freemason. It's subtle, but there is a difference.

It isn't enough that we know Shriners are all Masons... the cited source has to make that fact clear. The problem in this case is that the cited video does not do that well enough. A reader, (especially someone who is not familiar with Freemasonry) may still come away saying "OK, so Tyson is a Shriner... how does this make him a Freemason?" (on a non-related quibble... I could see a non-Mason coming away from the video with the impression that George Washington was a Shriner).

I think the video in question clearly verifies that Tyson is a Shriner... But I am less certain that it adequately verifies that he is a Freemason. It's a borderline case. If a better source exists, we should use that instead. Blueboar (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I just added to Tyson "A member of the Abba Shriners in Mobile, Alabama" (with a cite) and "(One must first be a mason before joining the Shriners.)" (with a cite). I really feel this is sufficient.  Eric Cable  |  Talk  17:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Appendant and Concordant Organizations in the Lede

I worked for several hours researching and writing the Appendant and Concordant Organizations section of the lede because I was told that it needed to be there and not next to a particular person on the list to not be Wikipedia:synth.
SarekOfVulcan said when he summarily deleted it without discussion that it appeared to be just there to support the position of one editor, presumably me. This is not a matter of one person's position. This is not a matter of opinion. The bottom line is that all of us editing this page who know the first thing about Freemasonry will all agree that if there is proof that a man is a member of the Shriners, Scottish Rite, York Rite, etc. then that proves he's a mason. This is not original synthsis. I am not making this stuff up. To say that is it would be to say that the statement "Barak Obama was at least 35 years old in 2008" is original synthsis. I found and cited all those points in the lede under the paragraph about proving a person is a Freemason. It helps the list. Thank you for your support. Eric Cable  |  Talk  21:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a list of Freemasons, so requires evidence that an entry is a Freemason. To say that an individual is a Freemason based on membership of another body is synthesis whether that synthesis is in the narrative or appended to the individual.

I would also say that the assertion only holds true where one is discussing regular Freemasonry. Other forms don't have the same clear separation of Freemasonry and appendant bodies. Given the lack of understanding of the separation amongst certain schools of thought it's useful to apply quite a significant amount of rigour to the assertions here.

ALR (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is one of "I know this is correct, so it is correct." Unfortunately, Wikipedia requires third-party sources, so anecdotal or personal experience/knowledge just doesn't work. Generally speaking this also applies to people who claim themselves to be Freemasons - many times it isn't true, and many times third parties who claim certain people are Masons are not correct either. I'd also point out that Chris Hodapp has made errors as well in his book, so ALR is correct in his assertion that standards need to be high here. Moreover, Eric, multiple editors have stated that your edits are improper, and to persist in re-adding them does indeed become a matter of supporting a position. Zeal and enthusiasm are good, but when you are unaware of the protocol and methods used in an article, to assume that you are correct in what you do in all circumstances is veering into overzealousness, which is not so good (as is tagging masonicinfo with an RS tag). The latter has the appearance of maliciousness, and I'm sure that's not your intent. The point of discussing things is not to put the article back to your version and then discuss, but rather to leave it as it was, and discuss why the addition is necessary or helpful. So let's sort this out rationally and then move on from there. MSJapan (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You say "I think the problem is one of 'I know this is correct, so it is correct.' Unfortunately, Wikipedia requires third-party sources, so anecdotal or personal experience/knowledge just doesn't work." But I'm not saying "I know this is correct, so it is correct." I cited the websites of the organizations in question. How is that me saying "I know this is correct, so it is correct"? I restored my work so people could see it for the discussion. As for adding {{RS}}, the template puts a question mark next to 'reliable source' for a reason. It's asking the question "is this a reliable source?" Which is quite different that your approach to the same question which is to delete it with nothing more than the comment "not good enough."  Eric Cable  |  Talk  04:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that none of those sites says anything about "reliable references to people being members of the appendant body indicate membership in Freemasonry." That was your addition, and that is, was, and always will be synthesis. As I said, you cannot use fact A and fact B to come up with fact C based on them, and that is precisely what you have done on at least two occasions in that lede. I have also indicated why we do not use appendant bodies as proof, as their recognition is not universal.

Don't jump right into the middle of something you don't understand, try to change it unilaterally, and then wonder why people have issues with your actions. A week of editing does not give you the experience to decide what is reliable and what is not. You are not contributing, but disrupting, whether that is what you choose to believe or not. If you truly think that it's a matter of knowing something about Freemasonry, why are you effectively coming to someone else's "meeting place" and causing disharmony? MSJapan (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Lede addition...

My comments are in italics.MSJapan (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Appendant and Concordant Organizations: Appendant Masonic organizations are groups that require a man to first be a Master Mason in order to join.

True.

In some jurisdictions appendant organizations that confer Masonic degrees beyond the initial three are referred to as ‘concordant’ .

There are typos in the refquote, but let's think about this: if certain people consider Shriners not to confer a degree because of how it is done, then one side or the other is wrong in their definition of an appendant body.

The point was that all concordant bodies are appendant, but not all appendant are concordant. Eric Cable  |  Talk  05:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Therefore, a reliable source that proves a man was a member of one of these organizations proves he was a mason.

Here is the synthesis, or at least original research. Who is saying that "a reliable source that proves a man was a member of one of these organizations proves he was a mason"? Certainly not the sources you mention. A source can only be used to say what it says. If the source says, "Shriner", then all we know is "Shriner" - to claim "Mason" may be factual, but not according to the source. That means we the editors are using Fact A and Fact B to arrive at Fact C, and that is not allowed.

It seems the original synthesis rule is too broad and too strict. By your argumnent, a cite that proves a person was a freemason does not prove he was male because citing the rule that freemasons (in most places most of the time) must be male would be "using Fact A and Fact B to arrive at Fact C, and that is not allowed." Eric Cable  |  Talk  05:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Um... You we do include a few women in this list... that's because we have reliable sources that say they were Freemasons. Wikipedia does not care what the rules in jurisdiction X or Y are about women... all we care about is whether a reliable source says she was a Mason. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

These organizations include York Rite, Scottish Rite, The Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine (Shriners),Tall Cedars of Lebanon, and others.

This is totally irrelevant, and overcited to boot. Appendant and concordant organizations are not given universal recognition by all GLs. Hodapp states this, as do others. So we cannot use these items as criteria, because their standing varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

The point of the cites (did you even look at them?) was that each one states they require thier members to be freemasons. The UGLE might not recognize a particular appendant body, but if the appendant body required membership from a grand lodge that the UGLE does recognize, how is that a problem? Eric Cable  |  Talk  05:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that unlike most of the Masonic organizations for women, Eastern Star also includes men who must first be Master Masons.

"Note..." is another pointer to original statements, and the role of women is not germane to this article, as there are no women Freemasons in regular jurisdictions.

I said what I said because I would not want someone to find a source stating that some woman was a member of OES and then assume that WOMAN was a Freemason, which would be incorrect. Eric Cable  |  Talk  05:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Therefore a reference proving membership in Eastern Star for a man also proves membership in Freemasonry.

No, it does not, because there is still the recognition issue. UGLE doesn't recognize OES, for example. Also, we see the same problem where you the editor are saying this, not the source.

DeMolay is a Masonic organization for boys ages 18-21. Proof of membership in DeMolay does not prove membership in Freemasonry.

True.

I'm also not going to buy the argument that you have done hours of research, because this shouldn't have taken you any more than 45 minutes. Moreover, had you asked someone, we could have saved you the trouble. In short, the source must state enough information to reliably show membership directly (which is why we usually ask for Lodge), and anything else is unacceptable. MSJapan (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, when I said 'hours' I meant exactly two and that was while having the TV on and listening to my wife complain about me spending time on Wikipedia. Eric Cable  |  Talk  05:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

*snerk* Gee, that sounds far too familiar... :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Last thing I have to say: I no longer care about this appendant body argument. You win. I will continue to review cites on the list and mark them {{rs}} and {{dead link}} as needed. Eric Cable  |  Talk  05:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Lance Kennedy

I know it's a self-published source, but the claim of belonging to University Lodge is backed up by http://www.linkedin.com/in/lancelkennedy. I've written to the Lodge to verify this claim, and to find out if they know of any reliable sources where we could verify it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good... No objection to adding him back if we have a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Napoleon

Ok, I'll bite -- why are we rejecting Tucker's analysis in AQC as a source? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Napoleon is a case where Masonic historians disagree. Some state positively that he was a Mason, others state just as positively that he was not. We have not really discussed whether (and how) to include people where there is such disagreement. If we include him, we need to add all sorts of caveats to account for the "not a Mason" viewpoint.

One solution would be to include a "Disputed" sub-section... but that opens the door to all sorts of POV pushing... we would have to demand the highest quality sources in such a section. Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that a detailed analysis in AQC was a highest quality source. :-) I've never seen anything this detailed for Thomas Jefferson, for example... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I would agree... AQC a very high quality source... unfortunately, so are books like Jasper Ridley's "The Freemasons" (Ridley states that although several of Napoleon's brothers were Freemasons, Napoleon himself was not). I don't object to including Napoleon and citing Tucker, but we would have to also include all sorts of caveats saying that there is debate on the issue, and not everyone agrees with Tucker's analysis. And I am concerned that doing this will set a precedent for including people where the debate is less "scholarly". Blueboar (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 87.50.38.195, 24 April 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Famous Freemasons. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. German writer, initiated at the Lodge of Three Roses in Hamburg [1771].

Kind regards

Kim Lessing

87.50.38.195 (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 87.50.38.195, 30 April 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

I would like that Gotthold Ephraim Lessing is mentioned as a famous person that made a difference in the early 1800 th century. His is mentioned on a vast and very well documented page on Wikipedia

87.50.38.195 (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - I note that the Gotthold Ephraim Lessing article says he was a Mason, but that information is lacking a source in that article (I have tagged it to request a citation). We would be happy to add him to this list if he was a Mason, but we can not do so without a reliable source that says he was a Mason (and, unfortunately, other Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable ... we need a reliable source that is outside of Wikipedia). Blueboar (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Please Add The Following Puerto Rican Freemasons

Greetings,

Please Add The Following Puerto Rican Freemasons:

Eugenio María de Hostos, Federico Degetau, José Celso Barbosa, Jose de Diego, Luis Muñoz Rivera, Manuel Fernández Juncos, Ramón Emeterio Betances, Santiago Iglesias Pantin, Santiago R. Palmer, Manuel Zeno Gandía, Rosendo Matienzo Cintrón

Reference: http://www.granlogiasoberanadepr.org/GLSPR/Masoneria.html

WebPage of the "Grand Lodge of Puerto Rico"

Cordially,

Joshualeonricardo (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The source only has a list of names, with no other proof of membership, nor is there any claim to notability asserted in that article that would indicate they should be included. MSJapan (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

MSJ, I think we should take a second look at this... the reference given is the web site of the Grand Lodge of Puerto Rico (recognized by most of the US Grand Lodges and UGLE as regular). We include other Masons on this list on the basis of similar lists on other Grand Lodge websites (hell, the BC&Y website that we use for over half of our entries is just a list of names with no proof of membership)... so what makes this website different? As for notability, most of them have articles. Blueboar (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

On further review, the same site also claims Gandhi and Isaac Newton were Masons. The Grand Lodge of India denies the former [12], and the latter has no evidence to support it. Some of their other claims may be accurate, but 2 out of 10-12 is too high an error rate for my liking. Therefore, I think that without a third-party source, it is not possible to verify the claims made about other potential members strictly from the GLPR site alone because it does not meet RS. MSJapan (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah... yes, that does call into question the site's reliability. Never mind. Blueboar (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.231.148.194, 11 May 2011

I'm fairly certain that Jack Kemp (Bob Dole's running mate when he ran for president) is also a Mason, but I have no details as to what lodge. Another lodge brother having served at the Grand Lodge level advised me of his affiliation.

66.162.203.18 (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We need a lot more than "I'm fairly certain" or "I was told by another brother". Blueboar (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request, 15 May 2011

Although I personally believe that Suleyman Demirel was a mason, he presented a document saying that he is not a mason. Some say this document was fake, some say that the document is genuine. There is a conflict about this issue. Therefore his name should be deleted from the list. Here is one of the pages about the issue: http://www.sonsayfa.com/Haberler/Guncel/Masonlarin-Suleyman-Demirel-kavgasi-138319.html. There are many sources talking about this debate.

Unfortunately the source you give for questioning this is in Turkish (which most of us who edit this page can not read). This does not mean that the source is unreliable... only that this makes it difficult to accurately judge it's reliability against the the cited reliable source (which says that says Demirel was a Mason), ie how much weight to give it. Could you tell us something more about who/what sonsayafa.com is? Blueboar (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

sonsayfa is not a person of course. it is a web site giving news. that site is not an expert on freemasonry. the web site makes news about every type of topics. however the main point is there are many websites and books saying that Suleyman Demirel is not a freemason. I can give the names of these websites and books if required.

Not that this particularly helps, but: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sonsayfa.com%2FHaberler%2FGuncel%2FMasonlarin-Suleyman-Demirel-kavgasi-138319.html--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

A Question on Notability

If a person is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, especially one that has been rated as B quality or better, and there is undisbutable proof the person was a freemason, they should be included in the list, yes?  Eric Cable  |  Talk  13:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Depends... what do you mean by "undisputable proof"? If you mean "I have found a reliable source that says he was a Mason", then yes, we can (and should) add him... if you mean "I've done Original research, and can prove he was a Mason"... then no, we can't. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd also point out that article rating has nothing to do with anything - it's relatively subjective and somewhat mutable. Notability is per the relevant policy, and sources must satisfy the relevant policies and guidelines on WP which apply to them. MSJapan (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

We have a fairly clear consensus on the inclusion criteria for this list ... a) to show that the person is notable enough to be included, an article on the person should exist before adding the person to the list, b) to show that the person is a Mason, a reliable source (that explicitly states the person is/was a Mason) must be provided when the person is added to the list. I think that is clear enough. Blueboar (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

For example, William Polk... This source [13] is the Grand Lodge of North Carolina saying "this guy was our Grand Master from 1799 to 1802. Not good enough? Ok, this is confirmed by this source: [14] (page 114). Finally, there's this:[[File:William Polk Col Sig.jpg]] which is where to good folks at the Hiram Lodge, No. 40 in Raleigh made me a copy of their two-hundred and eleven year old charter which bears the man's signature. If this is not "undisputable proof" then I'd like to know what is. Eric Cable  |  Talk  23:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is some evidence that there were two relatively prominent people named William Polk living in North Carolina in the 1790s (ie some evidence that Col. William Polk was not the same man as Grand Master William Polk), I would say that those sources are exactly what we would want.... go ahead and add him to our list. (Note... we don't require proof... we require reliable sources... which you have.) Blueboar (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the only surviving painting of Colonel William Polk is hanging in the NC Grand Lodge with the caption "Grand Master William Polk" so I think we're safe on that. Eric Cable  |  Talk  01:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I half expected you guys to say "concluding someone was a mason because they were Grand Master is orignal synthesis and therefore not good enough." That would make as much sense as saying "concluding someone is a mason because you have proof they are a shriner is original synthesis." No, I haven't gotten over that. Eric Cable  |  Talk  01:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between belonging to the Shrine and being a Grand Master. For example, a person might demit from their blue lodge and yet remain a member of the shrine ... but to be elected Grand Master you need to be a Mason in good standing. Blueboar (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

smacks forehead Eric Cable  |  Talk  02:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Eric, if your whole reason for continuing to edit the page is just to be POINTY, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for some admin intervention, and while you may be being facetious in your earlier comments, I most certainly am not, and I do not see any implied humor therein. So, you can either admit you were wrong and drop the Shrine thing once and for all, or leave the page. You know what the criteria are for inclusion, and there is no need to have a long conversation over each one just so you can be "right". MSJapan (talk) 07:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That is a bit of an over reaction, MSJ. Eric has not been editing the list in a pointy or disruptive manner. Sure, he made a slightly pointy comment here on a talk page, but we all do that from time to time... that's allowed as long as long as you don't push it too far (which he hasn't). Blueboar (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Boar, you're the man. Eric Cable  |  Talk  19:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

MSJapan, why do you think you are the owner of this page? Why is it that YOU get to decide what the standard for inclusion is? If an admin were to intervene, I might have to ask them the same questions. It is not my goal to be disruptive here, but if I were to die tomorrow, I would ask them to put the following on my headstone: “The insistence that proof that someone is a Shriner does not prove they are a mason is insanity.” Peace. Eric Cable  |  Talk  19:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Eric... now you are the one overreacting by making things personal. MSJ was hardly the only one to give you essentially same answer on the Shriner issue. We understand you are not happy with the consensus... No need to push it. Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, let me be clear. I am not arguing about the Shriner issue. Those of you who 'control' this list have made your decision. What I said above was a snide comment and nothing more. I have no delusions that you gentlemen will change your position on this, even though, in my opinion, it’s an incorrect position. MSJ made it personal when he threatened admin intervention. That’s all. Have a good day. Eric Cable  |  Talk  20:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mattmullins55, 23 May 2011

Adding professional baseball umpire Matthew Z. Mullins (1985- ) Grand Lodge of Arizona, Orient of Arizona, Valley of Phoenix

Mattmullins55 (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done: All people on this list need 1) their own wikipedia article (so you'd have to make one, and be sure to show how/why the person is notable), and 2) some sort of reference verifying that they are/were freemasons. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Since when do "all people on this list need their own Wikipedia article"? Wikipedia requires notability, but Wikipedia is not all-inclusive and all notables do not have articles. kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 23:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

We reached a consensus on this a while back (you will have to search through the archives for it). The idea was to make it clear that we are not listing every Freemason... ever. We don't want non-notable people listed. And by far the easiest way to determine whether a person is notable or not is to see if there is already at least a stub article about the person (ie if the person's name is blue-linked, we can assume notability... and if it goes back to being a red-link, we know an AFD determined that the person is not notable). It isn't an uncommon inclusion criteria in list articles, especially those where inclusion is potentially contentious (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists) discusses this). Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the concept but the rule is just simply too strict as stated - being in Wikipedia isn't the test of notability. It can't be - you have to be notable first. If you're notable you can be in Wikipedia, eether as an article, or as a list entry, or both; it's just logic. Nevertheless if the consensus is that notability comes first, then an article, and then. only after both of those, a list entry, I bow to the requirements of the List Requirements Cabal.  :) kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 02:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 46.12.16.226, 20 June 2011

Physicist and Mathematician David Brewster was a freemason.

46.12.16.226 (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done:... we would need a reliable source to add him. Blueboar (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Richard Dreyfuss

Mr. Dreyfuss was recently added with a reference to Chris Hodapp's blog. Normally, I would call Hodapp a good reference, but in this case, he is not... Hodapp says he got his information from a recent addition to the Wikipedia article on Dreyfuss (an unreferenced addition, as it turns out... one that has subsequently been removed). This sets up a "circular reference" (Wikipeida cites Hodapp, who cites Wikipedia). Without a proper citation he is essentially repeating rumor.

I don't find the idea that Dreyfuss was made a "Mason at sight" all that surprising, but we need confirmation and a solidly reliable source before we can actually say he was. Especially since we are dealing with a living person. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

We should probably remove him from the list for the time being. I did a quick Yahoo search for "Dreyfus Mason on sight" and "Dreyfus Grand Lodge of DC" and found no references to this event other than 1) an invitation to members of the Grand Lodge of DC to attend a special event with Dreyfus as the special guest and 2) Hodapp's blog. It seems that something happened, but until we have more reliable references to exactly what happened, we should remove the listing. --Taivo (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... I guess you are right. Per WP:BLP, we should not repeat rumor. We can always return him to the list when/if we get confirmation. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It's ironic, but if Bro. Hodapp had not been so honest about his source, we would have accepted his word without much question. --Taivo (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... but that's why I consider his blog to be reliable. He does cite his sources. Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently there is now photographic evidence here of Bro. Dreyfuss wearing a Masonic apron. Bro. Hodapp is no longer quoting Wikipedia in this matter. --Taivo (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent... then I have no more objection to citing his blog. Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Shaquille O'Neal

Shaq is listed as a member of a Prince Hall lodge in Pomona, California, but if this report is correct, then he was not already a Master Mason, else he would not have needed to be made a Mason on sight. --Taivo (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There was a lot of controversy over when and where he was made a Mason, but I'm inclined to go with Hodapp. PeRshGo (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hodapp is correct. MSJapan (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree... I will also note that the info about Shaq belonging to a CA lodge was unsourced... I have corrected the entry and cited Hodapp. Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

edit request

CJ Langenhoven was a member of Cango Lodge 2088 EC in Oudtshoorn. Kingstonp (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It would not surprise me at all. If you can provide us with a source, we would be happy to add him. Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 108.83.205.6, 8 July 2011

I Am a Freemasons in Raleigh,NC my name is Defphone Bundy Please add to list lodge name is New Born of Selma,NC 108.83.205.6 (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jnorton7558 (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the failure of the GNG requirements, I can find no reference to said lodge in said place, and it is somewhat suspicious in that it has no number. MSJapan (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Maxgold211, 9 July 2011

Please add my Grandfather Dr. Maxwell Gold, Master of Masonic Lodge No. 225 http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-08-20/bay-area/17505383_1_wrestling-chiropractor-active-duty

Maxgold211 (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Not Done... please don't take this personally, but I question whether your grandfather would be considered notable enough to be added to this list. I suggest you read Wikipedia's WP:Notability and WP:Notability (sports) guidelines. We essentially require that the people on this list have their own stand alone Wikipedia article before we add them. Blueboar (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 46.246.253.148, 14 July 2011

The Baron Eames was a freemason as stated to his article.--46.246.253.148 (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

46.246.253.148 (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done - While the bio article does say he was a Freemason, the information is not cited to a reliable source. I have requested a citation at that article. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 46.246.253.148, 14 July 2011

There are many people who appear in references 311, 313 and 315, have an entry to wikipedia and are not in the list can someone put them?--46.246.253.148 (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

46.246.253.148 (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done - Lodges aren't cited in the archives on ref 311, so those other people cannot be added. Our reference requirements need a Lodge citation at minimum, and not one of those men has a Lodge joining date, which the Lodge should have. As for 313, many of those people don't meet the GNG, and many of those that do don't have usable sourcing. Ref. 315 is not in English, so I have no idea who those people are, or why they are notable. MSJapan (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As for references 311 and 313: If they are not so reliable they must be deleted from the article. As for reference 315: If you see, it is split in two areas. The first is about Serbians and the second about non-Serbians. I went and checked that all non-Serbians have an entry in Wikipedia and only three Serbians have NOT an entry in Wikipedia.--46.246.253.148 (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.246.178.119 (talk)

Lacking Professionals

There are many people who are known only because of being freemasons e.g. Charles Radclyffe, John Mylne. Why aren't they in the list?--46.246.253.148 (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Radclyffe is notable for being a peer more so than for being a Freemason (in fact, there's no citation for that), and Mylne was an actual stonemason who died 50 years before modern Freemasonry was even organized. Therefore, neither qualifies for the list. MSJapan (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• But there are more. Those were simply examples.--46.246.253.148 (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Post a list and I'll go through them. MSJapan (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I found many from time to time in categories such as Hermetic Order of Golden Dawn, Hermetism, Occultism etc. If you go in this categories you will find many of them.--46.246.253.148 (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, I remebered one now: James Anderson!--46.246.253.148 (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh... good catch on Anderson... I'll add him. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If you see in Anderson there is a category named People known for their contribution to Freemasonry, and is exactly what we are looking for.--46.246.253.148 (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.195.186.211, 18 July 2011

Another Famous Mason that is not currently on your List. 32nd degree Prince Hall Mason, became US president candidate for 2008. His name is Barack Hussein Obama."

99.195.186.211 (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This one we would definitely need very solid and reliable sources for. Blueboar (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a Mason, no sources supporting it.--13:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 46.246.173.61, 23 July 2011

Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, Thomas Dundas, 2nd Earl of Zetland, George Robinson, 1st Marquess of Ripon, Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, Prince George, Duke of Kent, Henry Lascelles, 6th Earl of Harewood, Edward Cavendish, 10th Duke of Devonshire, Roger Lumley, 11th Earl of Scarbrough, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, Henry Herbert, 4th Earl of Carnarvon, Edward Bootle-Wilbraham, 1st Earl of Lathom, William Amherst, 3rd Earl Amherst, Oliver Russell, 2nd Baron Ampthill

46.246.173.61 (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You know, if you create a user name, and log in and edit for a while, you could add these yourself. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This means yes or no?46.246.173.61 (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to. Can you put them or if not you somebody else.--46.246.173.61 (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No, because there is no citation available as such, and I personally don't want to do the legwork to find the citations for somebody who doesn't want to do it themselves. MSJapan (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I am essentially feeling the same way. 46.246.173.61, please remember that we are volunteers here. If you can't be bothered to do some basic research, why should I do it for you? Since the page is semi-protected, and you can not physically edit it, I am more than willing to edit on your behalf ... but I am not going to do your research for for you as well. You have to make it easy for me to add the name... by doing the research yourself and providing the citation at the time that you make a request. If someone else wants is willing to do it for you, fine. That's their choice. So... it remains neither yes, not no... someone might make the additions, but I'm not. Blueboar (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik

As this has come up twice already. Even from sources, there is no direct proof that Breivik was a Mason. Apparently somebody found a Grade I (definitely Swedish Rite, and some sort of equivalent to Entered Apprentice, maybe?) book that was apparently his and dated 2008. No proof given. As I am not very well-versed in Swedish Rite, I have no idea, therefore, whether one is a officially a member at Grade I, or if one is not a member until completing to a certain level. I would deduce that Breivik never got past Grade I if that was all that was found, and as it would be three years old, it is in fact likely he is no longer a member (if he ever was). I keep saying I'm going ot learn more about Swedish Rite, but never quite get the info. Maybe this is a good impetus.

Anyhow, I digress. Another source says that a spokesman for the political party Breivik was formerly affiliated with said Breivik was a Freemason. This in the same article where said party "lamented" Breivik's prior membership and made sure to point out a lack of activity and that nobody associated with Breivik. In short, this is a great example of why we need solid sources, because it's phrased exactly like a "don't blame political ideology, blame the Freemasons" argument, especially since nobody can attribute anything to anyone. MSJapan (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Appears to be a debate at the moment over whether a unique article is justified, so any discussion may be moot.

Notwithstanding that, one of the sources listed suggests a statement from the GL confirming membership but little activity.

Whilst it's not germane to his notability a literal interpretation of the policies would suggest inclusion, although a more substantive reference to the GL statement would be useful.

ALR (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A comment I came across (while not RS) indicated he had been expelled prior to the incident. There's also a question of whether he progressed high enough for member status (a candidate isn't a full member), so I think the best thing to do at present is to set it aside until a reliable source gives enough information to make a substantive judgment. MSJapan (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

All I will add is that there is now a fairly lengthy article aboout this guy:Anders Behring Breivik

Honestly, I think any research that can be done that eventually proves this jackass is NOT a mason would be a service to our fraternity. Maybe we should start a new article/list, or add a section to this one, entitled "NOT Freemasons" Eric Cable  |  Talk  15:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

While that may be a service to the fraternity... our job here is service to Wikipedia and its readers. To do that, we need to find reliable sources that a) verify whether he does/did or does/did not have some sort of Masonic connection? and b) if so, what is/was it? I agree that until we have solid sources (and not just repetition of rumor) we should hold off on including him. Blueboar (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

OK... I think we may have a reliable source... The fact that the Norwegian Order of Freemasons has issued this statement, condeming Breivik's actions and announcing that he has been excluded (ie expelled) indicates that he clearly was a member. We do include other expelled Masons on the list (noting the fact of the expulsion)... so I don't see any justification for not including Breivik (as much as I would like to). Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Frederick Booth-Tucker

 Completed I am compiling a bibliography and see that Frederick Booth-Tucker wrote Freeman of Shanghai in 1922 or 1928. This is not evidence in itself that Booth-Tucker was a freemason but his book could be reviewed to verify this. The OCLC records are:

• 11072293 (1928?): St. Paul, MN; Chicago, IL; Evanston, IL; Atlanta, GA; Winston-Salem, NC; New Haven, CT
• 250359440 (1928): Berlin, Germany
• 34607726 (1922?) with the title Freemen of Shanghai: New York, NY

--Marc Kupper|talk 23:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He likely was not, as he was a senior member of the Salvation Army (and therefore highly involved and heavily traveled), but the prohibition of membership in all other organizations (including, but not specifically, Freemasonry) was after his time, in 1925, so it can't be ruled out. There seems to be a lot of conspiracy theory-type stuff on the two groups, but not much else solid. MSJapan (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I found the book on Google Books at vfwOAAAAQAAJ. It turns out this book is about Mr. and Mrs. Albert Freeman. I don't know if Google includes 100% of the words in its index but at least in the parts I could search the book does not mention mason, masonry, freemason, nor freemasonry. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 46.246.217.178, 28 July 2011

Can you please add Dr. Walter Fleming and William Conlin or Florence, the founders of the Shriners? Thank you! --46.246.217.178 (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

46.246.217.178 (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems like it would be a no-brainer but it's not clear which of the sources in the Florence article confirm that he was a Mason. We need reliable sources for this article. Fleming's article has a source and so he was added.

• William Conlin or Florence, co-founder of the Shriners

--Marc Kupper|talk 22:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Reference found and added. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Should excluded members, or those who have disavowed masonry, be on the list?

Anders Behring Breivik has been excluded (expelled) from Freemasonry. Should he be retained on this list, deleted, or like List of Scientologists should we have a "Former members" section?

• Talk:List of Freemasons/Archive 1#Famous and infamous must have been written before Benedict Arnold and Anders Behring Breivik were added.
• Talk:List of Freemasons/Archive 2#Kenneth Noye, British criminal, discusses removing an expelled member from the list provided a reliable source could be found that he had been expelled.
• Talk:List of Freemasons/Archive 2#Members of P2? discusses not listing members as their lodge was declared to be irregular. It's not known if anyone was not included or removed from the list because of this. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Charles Finney is currently on the list though apparently asked for dismissal which was granted. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

First, a few notes on those specific cases, because each is different... There is debate as to whether Benedict Arnold was expelled or not (and by whom), so he should be listed. As for the members of P2... a lot depends on when they became members. Someone who joined the lodge before it's charter was revoked should probably be included. Those who joined after it had its charter revoked should not be on the list, as they are/were not legitimate Masons (and given the rumors and conspiracy theories that have been attached to P2, solid sourcing is needed to determine if someone was a member pre-revocation or not). As for people like Noye and Breivik... if there are solid sources that they were Masons (and in these two, I think there are), they should be listed. Although we should also note that they were expelled.

Second... an important point... While many if not most of the editors who contribute to this list are Masons, we should not be contributing as Masons... we should contributing as Wikipedians. Our job here is to neutrally list notable people who were/are Freemasons, the good and the bad, and not just those who bring credit to the fraternity.

That said... each case really needs to be examined individually... based on the sources. Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget Winston Churchill and Oscar Wilde as well, who both demitted.

The issue is this, I think: Is it appropriate to include "ex-members" (for whatever reason) on this list, because in a sense, it portrays them as something they are not (namely, members). In a sense, it's POV for saying only that Churchill was a member on the "good" side, but it's also POV to put Noye in there as a member to show a "bad" side. The reader is going to have an association with a name no matter what we do, so I think the most accurate way to do it would be to indicate membership status where necessary. That way, we aren't "hiding" information, but we are also not skewing it either. MSJapan (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If the entry makes it clear that the person was expelled (or resigned), then we do not "portray them as something they are not". We are simply stating the verifiable facts... They were members at one point, but then they were expelled/resigned and thus ceased being members. Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You do, and I do, but look at the Breivik entry that was put in, and a lot of the other nonsense that gets put in. MSJapan (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a question of editing, not inclusion/exclusion. I think the current entry is fine. Blueboar (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It’s unfortunate, but at the end of the day when you have a fraternity the size of Freemasonry you’re bound to have a few despicable individuals may their way in, and they’re the ones people will talk about. Heck, I can think of three we talk about all the time. PeRshGo (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Montfort?

OK, I want to add Joseph Montfort but there is not a wiki article about him (I'll get around to creating it). He should be included on the list because he was "The First-The Last-The Only-Grandmaster of America". He was apointed "Provincial Grand Master of and for America" on Jan 14, 1771 by the Duke of Beaufort, the Grand Master of the GLE. He granted charters to a number of lodges in North Carolina who later went on to found the Grand Lodge of North Carolina in 1797 (Some of them are still active). So, I guess my question is, does there need to be a wiki article first, then add him to this list, or can he be added to the list first? Thanks! Eric Cable  |  Talk  16:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

PS... see (http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WMKP7_Joseph_Montfort_Halifax_North_Carolina) and (http://www.grandlodge-nc.org/montfort/Joseph%20Montfort%20Award%20Historical%20facts-rev%201.pdf) Eric Cable  |  Talk  16:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeremy Gridley had a similar title granted (prior to that time, though I don't recall from which group in England) as Grand Master of North America, so you may want to re-evaluate Montfort's notability if it is going to be based solely on a title. Activity of Lodges he chartered isn't terribly relevant to him; not only due to WP:NOTINHERITED, but because there are plenty of nn GMs who have chartered lodges still in existence (case in point: we make a big deal out of Paul Revere, but also out of MA, how about Robert Tomlinson? As 2nd GM, he had to have chartered Lodges, but there's hardly any data available on him). As a general rule, GMs are not notable solely for being GMs (and yes, there are exceptions, but not many, because a lot of times, the historical GMs were known in the community for something as well), because we want to avoid having to create articles for otherwise nn people in progressive GL lines in particular. Before you write the article, make sure he has some other claim to fame. MSJapan (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I checked WP:N and WP:PEOPLE and don't see where Masonic grandmastership, nor "having data on the person," is a qualification for notability on Wikipedia. Paul Revere qualifies as notable based as he "has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

This article starts out with "This is a list of notable Freemasons" though unfortunately it does not define if "notable" is Wikipedia's definition of notable or if people notable within Masonry, but perhaps not Wikipedia, could be added to this list. However, at present each of 535 people listed are also wikilinked to articles about that person and so I believe it's safe to assume that "notable" is the Wikipedia definition. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the way to go here is to start off with a short section on Montfort and the colonial NC lodges he created in a Grand Lodge of North Carolina article. This could be the seed for expansion as you find more information. I do agree with MSJapan on inclusion. It is certainly premature to add Montfort now... and if being a Provincial GM (even one with a fancier than normal title) is all we have, I am not sure its enough. We do have to be careful of fancy Masonic titles... they sound impressive... but they don't always mean much. From what I know of colonial Masonic history, Montfort's title did not mean that he had jurisdiction over all 13 colonies and the Canadian provinces. I am positive that he had no authority over the Provincial Grand Lodge of New York (Moderns)... of which Sir John Johnson was Provincial Grand Master from 1767 through the outbreak of the Revolution. Blueboar (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Marc, I think you misunderstood what I was writing, because you just entirely agreed with what I was saying. My point was that being a GM alone does not make one notable, and that seemed to be what you were implying by saying that Montfort was a GM who chartered Lodges that formed GLNC and still active today and leaving it at that. Nevertheless, it appears we seem to agree that inclusion is predicated on meeting the relevant notability guidelines. MSJapan (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

MSJapan, I'm sorry, I automatically indented as I was adding a new item to this thread in response to both EricCable and you. For EricCable, please make the article on Joseph Montfort first following the usual Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If that's done right then it will be easy to see that the person is notable. You have already found decent evidence that he was a freemason meaning at that point he can be added to this article as he would then pass the rather simple test for inclusion on this list which is "This is a list of notable Freemasons." As Blueboar noted, your research to create an article on Joseph Montfort likely will run across sources that also allow for creation of a Grand Lodge of North Carolina article.

MSJapan, I was also responding to you as nearly all of your response to EricCable was about Grand Mastership. You seemed to state that there were some conditions or exceptions where Grand Mastership would qualify someone as notable. Even in your second message (in response to mine) you imply that GM has some bearing on notability or at least that's how I read "being a GM alone does not make one notable." I was saying there are no exceptions and that Grand Mastership in itself is irrelevant as far as Wikipedia notability goes. I never said nor implied that "Montfort was a GM who chartered Lodges that formed GLNC and still active today." I have no knowledge nor opinion at all on that subject. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

A follow-up for EricCable. I checked a number of references for Joseph Montfort and found nothing other than references to the Joseph Montfort Award. Google Books gets a number of hits but so far it's a challenge to find sources that are independent of the subject writing in detail about the subject so that it passes WP:N. Specifically, we are looking for someone independent of Masonry writing about Montfort. I did learn that handsome tablet was erected February 13, 1911 by the Joseph Montfort Memorial Association which was a Masonic group. In this book he is referred to as Joseph Montford which also recounts a Masonic effort that resulted in them locating his grave, and them moving his body to a Masonic cemetery. I did not search further to see if there's material available under "Montford."

This book seems to be independent of Masonry, has a page on the guy, and also mentions that a "fake house" has been constructed at the site of his original house. We'll need multiple sources like this - particularly as the guy does not seem to be known of outside of Halifax and NC Masonry. --Marc Kupper|talk 10:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Also check out William Denslow's 10,000 famous Freemasons... has an entry on Montfort that could be used for both information and notability. 68.165.92.195 (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As it's not independent of the source we can't use that one for notability. We need detailed articles on the guy from people outside of Masonry and ideally, outside of North Carolina. In a nutshell from WP:N, we are looking for "those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time." Montfort seems to be failing this test. He only seems to be mentioned in by those promoting one of their own (Masons or Halifaxers) and those doing comprehensive surveys of Masonry or North Carolina. He never did anything to cause the world spotlight to cover him over a period of time. On the plus side, a case could be made for notability as there are many trivial coverages. Ideally we have independent/detailed coverage. WP:PEOPLE offers a number of loopholes for those that fail the general test. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Why wouldn't Denslow be considered an independent source in an article about Montfort? He has no direct tie to Montfort. Blueboar (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Denslow was a Mason writing about other Masons meaning a lack of independence from the subject. Plus he was doing a comprehensive survey of lodges and writing about everyone that caught his attention. I would not consider that an example of "attention by the world" that we are looking for. I consider Denslow a reliable source of information about a subject but not one that could be used to establish that the subject is notable. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

More on this, please see Wikipedia:Notability#cite_ref-4. I would consider Denslow to be a "directory" of famous Masons. This directory was constructed from the intersection of lists masons and Who's Who plus its supporting directories. Also see Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 12#Independent+non trivial? Debretts, Whos Who etc. Near the bottom of that thread is mention of wording that, at the time, was at "WP:COI#Notability and saliency" that excluded Who's Who. The text was there in 2 May 2007 and then deleted as it was stuff that belonged in WP:N. The main issue seems to be that Who's Who's definition of "notable" is more inclusive than Wikipedia's. Thus mention in Who's Who is not automatic proof of notability for Wikipedia. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

However, Masonic researchers do work independently on their own time - they are not funded by Grand Lodges (even if they work there), the books aren't published by Grand Lodges (10K Famous Freemasons was published by a Lodge of Research and much later by a Masonic publisher).

I think there is some confusion here... I am not saying that merely being mentioned in Denslow is enough to say that someone notable... I am saying that Denslow might contain a biographical fact that would indicate the the person was notable. For example, if Denslow notes that X was a General in the Union Army during the Civil War... that information (ie that X was a General) is what makes the person notable. The fact that Denslow and X were both members of the Masons is irrelevant to that fact... Denslow is a reliable source for the fact that the person was a General. And Denslow is an independent source on X when it comes to X's Generalship. Blueboar (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Denslow credits the the York Rite with "paying the salary of the author and his staff of The Royal Arch Mason magazine for the many hours they have spent working on these volumes." Even with that, I'm personally satisfied with using his work as a source of biographic information. Sorry, yes, there was some confusion as the thread was initially about if Montfort is notable. When Blueboar wrote "Why wouldn't Denslow be considered an independent source ..." I thought he meant inclusion in Denslow a source for notability. It looks like we are in agreement that inclusion 10,000 Famous Freemasons is not itself proof of notability. Inclusion could be used as part of the evidence for someone's notability but someone using that route would need to be fairly persuasive.

I looked at the Joseph Montfort entry in Denslow and one item that strikes me as being potentially notable under WP:POLITICIAN is "member of the colonial assembly." It appears he served in the lower house of the Royal Colony of North Carolina Assembly. There's indirect mention of him such as in the footnote of a Virginia assembly proceedings. I was unable to local a roster of members, voting records, etc. for the assembly itself. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, then that pretty much solves the problem, because if Denslow found it, it's got to be extant, and there's got to be something on NC colonial history someplace. MSJapan (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all for all the responses and comments. First of all, I think the answer to the question "Does one need to have their own article before being listed here?" has been answered as "yes" which is what I figured and is reasonable. As for Montfort's notability, as Mark says he was a state(colonial)-level politician and that for the most part satisfies WP:POLITICIAN so I don't think notability on him is going to be a problem. As for creating a Grand Lodge of North Carolina article, that's about #3 on my current wiki "to do" list. Cheers. Eric Cable  |  Talk  15:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete The Article

This article is nonsense. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was not a freemason. There is no acceptable source about it. This article must be deleted because of Wikipedia's guidelines such as verifiability. The people in this article is here just because of some rumours. This is not a provable article. You can give information about freemasonary but you can not write spurious things about people. This article must be deleted as soon as due to policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.162.134 (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

We have plenty of sources that say he was, so no, we cannot delete the information. MSJapan (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, we require (and have) sources for every entry on the list. This list is as well cited as any article on Wikipedia - indeed, it is better referenced than most. There are reliable sources to show the masonic membership of everyone on the list (including Ataturk).Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 12:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You gave 3 referance. One of them is dead link. The other one is a website that we cant trust reliability. The other one is a book. Let me ask, how can this article be in an encyclopedia? For another example, you wrote Shaquille O'Neal and its referance is a blog(Just a picture). This is an encyclopedia, you cannot give referances as sites. This article shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.187.158 (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

We can fix the dead link... and the book would be enough for inclusion on its own. You say that the "polices and guidelines of Wikipedia" indicate that the article should be deleted, oh? which ones? Certainly not our core policies of WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutral point of view. They both indicate that well sourced material should be included.

If you can come up with policies and guidelines to support your arguments, you are welcome to nominate this article for deletion at WP:Articles for deletion. However, my understanding of the "policies and guidelines of Wikipedia" is that they indicate the exact opposite... that we should keep the article (and the entry for Ataturk) as being well sourced. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 46.246.218.161, 3 August 2011

Can you please add the Duke of Kent, the current grand master of the UGLE? Well, I have not a citation but this is like asking me for a citation that Prince Hall was a freemason. It is like asking me for a citation that Wasington was a freemason. Thanks!

46.246.218.161 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel strongly that there should be no exceptions. I'll just note that we actually have a citation for George Washington. And we should have one for Prince Hall (don't know why Hall doesn't have one yet... I know he has a bio page at the BC&Y website that could be used).

That said, a citation for the Duke of Kent should be easy to come up with (he is probably mentioned on the UGLE website), so... I will be happy to add the Duke of Kent (with citation) when I get a chance... I'll be away from my computer most of today... please be patient (and if another editor wants to take care of this sooner, that would be appreciated). Blueboar (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done with pleasure. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 22:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 46.12.66.253, 1 August 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Roger Lumley, 11th Earl of Scarbrough, was the Grand Master of the UGLE from 1951 to 1967. Can you please add him.--46.12.66.253 (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

46.12.66.253 (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: Although other articles on Wikipedia show that he was a Grand Master, this list requires a citation to add a person. Please respond with a citation from a reliable source and I'll be happy to add him for you. Cheers, — Bility (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Citation found: [15]--46.246.218.161 (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I confirm that. The specific citation info is:

"Obituary: Lawrence Roger Lumley, 11th Earl of Scarbrough, K. G., P. C., G. C. S. I., G. C. I. E., G. C. V. O., 27 July 1896-29 June 1969"

Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London

Vol. 32, No. 3 (1969) p. 687

The author is listed as "R. L. T." - it's not clear who this is, so it can probably be omitted. Likely a staff writer, huh?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done  Chzz  ►  20:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 46.246.250.52, 10 August 2011

Can you please add Samuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers? Well I have not a citation but it isn't hard to find one if I wasn't so buisy I would find it myself. Thanks!

46.246.250.52 (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: Again you want us to do your research for you? We are busy too you know... So, ask again once you find time to supply us with a source. We will consider making the addition once you do so. Until then, no. Blueboar (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean again bro?--77.49.154.248 (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I mean that the requesting editor (46.246.etc) has made repeated requests, and each time he has been told the same thing: "please give us a source with the request." Per WP:BURDEN, it is up to the editor who wishes to add material to an article to supply a source for it if requested. He knows this, we have discussed it before... but he continues to make repeated requests without giving us a source. Thus the "Again". Blueboar (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Geolocation, geolocation, geolocation. If you have time to spend on Wikipedia, you have time to spend finding a source. MSJapan (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree Eric Cable  |  Talk  16:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

For the Record: I am NOT this guy, nor am I 92.45.162.134 above. :)  Eric Cable  |  Talk  16:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean geolocation?--77.49.154.248 (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, there is your citation [16]

Third paragraph--77.49.154.248 (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a source (which is a step in the right direction) ... unfortunately it's not a reliable source. Keep digging. Blueboar (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)