Talk:List of Freemasons/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about List of Freemasons. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

OK, here's a predicament...

A notable actor X is a Mason. How do I know? He sat in my freakin lodge last night! Not only that, as Senior Deacon I investigated him and held his patent from Shakespeare Lodge No. 99 in London IN MY HAND! So... how do I cite THAT! Eric Cable | Talk 11:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you can't. We can not add someone based on personal knowledge, so the fact that you saw him in your lodge is irrelevant. As for his patent, Wikipedia would consider it to be an unpublished, primary source. We need need a source that the public at large could gain access to, and this is not the case with his patent. Blueboar (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I'll do... I wiil write an article about him visiting the lodge with a picture of him in his apron and have it published in the North Carolina Mason (the newspaper published by the Grand Lodge). Problem solved. Eric Cable | Talk 14:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would work (the NC Mason qualifies as a reliably published source). If I were the editor of the NC Mason, I would probably contact Bro. X and ask if he minded being featured in the magazine (English Masons don't like to "flaunt their Masonry" the way American Masons do... and consider it a "private" matter. He might not appreciate being "outed".)... but that is an issue for the NC Mason to decide, not us. If the NC Mason publishes your article, Wikipedia can cite it and add him to the list. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

UGLE is encouraging its members to be open about their masonry, at national and Provincial level. The only ones here who are wary of being outed are a few local government employees and the Catholics. Yer man will probably be delighted. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Fiddlersmouth (talk) is absolutely correct, although the list of professions where people have to be "careful" is a little longer. The Churches (including the established Church of England), police, and forces, are also examples of employers who are known to discriminate against masons on the payroll, which is why in England we have the rule of being open about our own membership, but not sharing information about other people's membership unless we know that they are happy with that idea. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 10:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

So it comes down to this... it's really up to Eric. He has a tough Masonic choice to make... does he write up something about Bro. X's visit and submit it to the NC Mason? My "mouth to ear" advice would be - caution... it would be brotherly to get Bro. X's permission first. However, that is a matter of Masonic courtesy , and has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Taking off our aprons and wearing our Wikipeida editor hats ... things are much simpler: if the NC Mason publishes something about Bro. X's visit (with or without his OK), then we can include X on our list (citing that article). Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Time to deal with "Bogus" Prince Hall Jurisdictions

William V. Banks was recently added to the (A-D) article... this may be controvercial. From what I have been able to gather, Banks was originally a PHA Mason... he was expelled, and formed his own Grand Lodge... and was expelled from that and formed yet another Grand Lodge (the "International Free and Accepted Modern Masons, Inc. and Eastern Star"). This is not uncommon in Prince Hall circles.

The addition means we need to reach a consensus on something we have been avoiding... whether to include or exclude those who are members of "Bogus" Prince Hall bodies (the term is not mine... see the Phylaxis Society's webpage for more on this).

It isn't an easy question. PH is not one unified thing, and it is even more fractured and schismatic than "mainstream" Freemasonry is. Some of the bodies that Phylaxis deems "Bogus" were founded due to honest differences of opinion within PH Freemasonry, and I think they should be dealt with in the same way we deal with the schism between Anglo/American and Continental Freemasonry (ie we don't take sides. and include members of all factions)... HOWEVER... some of these so-called Grand Lodges really are "bogus"... nothing more than money making scams, started by con men selling "Masonic initiations" for a fee. I don't think members of these bodies should be included. The problem is knowing which is which. As I said... not easy. Any ideas? Blueboar (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

No ideas. The Phlaxis Society has a narrow view on regularity that we cannot be seen to endorse - they include women's, co-masonry, and Memphis Misraim as Bogus. We could insist that everyone listed was ceremonially initiated in a ritually constituted lodge, which would rule out "masons on sight" and be a nightmare for proof. Unless we have some cast-iron definition of bogus grand lodges, and a solid method of identification, this is a minefield. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me, if the UGLE recognizes a Grand Lodge, then it is not a clandestine organization in the eyes of the UGLE, and that would be a good litmus test for our purposes.14:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

No, Using UGLE as a guide would be POV, and omit anyone in the Continental Branch. NPOV says we have to rise above that and not take sides in inter-GL battles over masonic legitimacy. However, I think we do want to omit the true scam artists. The question is... can we separate the wheat from the chaff? Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Alphabetizing members of the British Peerage

OK, for members of the Peerage with titles, should they be alphabetized by sirname, or title? FOr example, should James Hamilton, 1st Duke of Abercorn be put under H (where I put him), or A for Abercorn? Eric Cable | Talk 12:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Good question... Not sure what the right way to list Peers is. As one possible solution... In the lodge, would a Peer be addressed by sirname or title (ie as Bro. Hamilton, or Bro. Abercorn)? Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Your guess is as good as mine. Denslow has him listed under Aber... Eric Cable | Talk 17:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The answer is that it depends upon his rank in the peerage, but for a majority of peers he would be addressed by his surname. My own Lodge has two peers, both known as "Brother Lord Surname" when addressed, with their full title only appearing on formal lists. Dukes (including Royal Dukes) are different and would more commonly be addressed by their title (thus "Brother Lord Abercorn" in the example cited). I would suggest using the surname for purposes of determining alphabetical order; though with Dukes, perhaps also an entry at the title's alphabetical listing, referring the reader to the surname entry (as we already do under "Kent" for the Duke of Kent, for example). Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 18:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this to us lowly commoners on this side of the Atlantic :). SO, Marquess and below surname, dukes and above, by title (Duke of Wellington listed under W for example). Then I assume princes and kings by FIRST name, correct? So Prince William would be alphabetized by "Will.." NOT P for prince, C for Duke of Cambridge, nor M for Montbatten-Windsor...right? Eric Cable | Talk 16:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

We currently have Prince Michael of Kent listed under K. SHoudl he not be listed under M with a (see the listing in M under K?) Eric Cable | Talk 16:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I am finding a lot of names mis-alphabetized under these rules
I am fixing them as I go. Eric Cable | Talk 13:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Trying to make it more clear...

Alphabetizing Rules for Members of the British Peerage
Rank	Example	Alphabetized By
King	King George VI	G for George
Prince	Prince Michael of Kent	M for Michael, not K for Kent nor W for Windsor
Duke	Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk	N for Norfolk, not T for Thomas nor H for Howard
Marquess	Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 7th Marquess of Salisbury	G for Gascoyne-Cecil, not R for Robert nor S for Salisbury
Earl	Robert Capell, 10th Earl of Essex	C for Capell, not R for Robert nor E for Essex]]
Viscount	William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne	L for Lamb, not W for William nor M for Melbourne
Baron	Peter Maxwell, 28th Baron de Ros	M for Maxwell not P for Peter nor R for Ros

Eric Cable | Talk 12:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

In the old (pre-split) version we listed some Peers twice... for example Prince Philip (aka the Duke of Edinburgh) was listed first under E (for Edinburgh) and again under P (for Philip). The masonic bio information was under P (for Philip), while the E (for Edinburgh) entry contained the notation: "see Prince Philip". I think we should continue this system of dual entries... our readers may not know which letter a Peer is "correctly" listed under, and so may expect to find the information under the "wrong" letter. We need to point them to the "correct" one so they can find who they are looking for. Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying put the main listing under thier 'proper' alphabetization (as described above) and then put "see also" under places where someone might look for them? For example, Prince Michael of Kent would be listed under P with a 'see also' listing under K. That makes sense to me, but it could get a little out-of-hand for those with numerous titles like Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Eric Cable | Talk 17:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would expect to find all Princes listed under P (for Prince), any more than they would expect to find all Dukes listed under D (for Duke) or Kings under K (for King)... but they might expect to find Prince Michael listed under K (for Kent). So under K (for Kent) we should have a place-holder entry, pointing readers to the full "correct" entry under M (for Michael).

Similarly, William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne might also be listed twice... a place-holder entry under M (for Melbourne) pointing readers to the full "correct" entry under L (for William Lamb). But we would not list him under V (for Viscount). Does that make my idea clearer? Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think you were suggesting listing dukes under D, etc., nor was I suggesting it, so we agree there. My point was some of those dudes have like ten titles "Prince ____, Duke of ____, Earl of _____, Viscount of ______, etc." To list under all of those titles might get a little out of hand. Eric Cable | Talk 19:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I just found a clever mnemomic to keep the order straight in your head: Do Men Ever Visit Boston? Eric Cable | Talk 19:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see how this can be tricky. I would say we should ignore subsidiary titles... unless the person was famous under one of those subsidiary titles (ie someone might reasonably look them up under that title).

Whoops - We may have it backwards - SEE Wikipedia:PEERS#Nobility

HOLD ON.... I just saw WP:PEERS and we may not be "correct"... that guideline says to alphabetize peers by title...not surname. It uses Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 7th Marquess of Salisbury as an example, and says he should be alphabetized under S (for Salisbury) - that's backwards to what we have. Blueboar (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Is that something that some wiki troll made-up, or the actual way things are done by say the British Government? I will investigate. Eric Cable | Talk 12:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Good Lord. So I just read this article: Coping with a title:the indexer and the Birtish Aristocracy (middle of left column of page two starts talking about sorting) and there seems to be no clear answer I can find there. In the middle of the left column on page three says "Peers' family names are, incidentally, found in Who's who, which has entry under the title (with reference from family name). Now a have a headache. I will keep looking. Eric Cable | Talk 13:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL... our colleagues over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility are fairly anal about such things. They probably got it right in their guideline. Personally, I don't really care how we do it (the important thing for me is to put place-holders at appropriate places, so people can find the information no matter which name/title they look under). However, there are those who do care... and as long as there is a WP "rule" about it, it is less of a hassle to follow the "rule". Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. We are covering all bases, which is good. However, if there is a WP "rule", then we may as well go with that in terms of locating the key data. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 13:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I have asked for someone from the Royalty and Nobility WikiProject to swing by and give us some advice. No need to decide this instant.

Eric... Don't let this bog you down. Please continue your efforts to add people, and simply put them where ever you think they should go... if it turns out they should have been placed in a different letter, we can always "fix" it later. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I hear ya. It does look like WP:PEERS is referencing the Chicago Manual of Style. As you may have read below, I have finished the letter A in Denslow and have moved on to B. So far I have 21 new name and I am only on 'Baker'. Eric Cable | Talk 14:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yikes. A labor of love. Blueboar (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Authors

We have a similar issue for authors who are well known by their pen names (for example, "Samuel Clemens" vs "Mark Twain".) Personally, I would opt for placing the bio information under the authors real name (the literary persona "Mark Twain" was not a Mason... the real person Sam Clemens was). So the masonic bio information would go with "Clemens" (in the A-D article)... while to help with searching there would be a second listing under "Twain" (in the E-Z article) - with a notation: "Listed under Samuel Langhorne Clemens at: List of Freemasons (A - D)". Blueboar (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. That seems the sensible way to me. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 15:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

OK DONE Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Fwiw and rather late in the day. For official and most non official purposes peers are listed/indexed by title not surname. For example the official roll of the UK peerage[1] or the listing of those attending a session of parliament [2] Garlicplanting (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Le Droit Humain

Um... Does anyone know if the UGLE recognizes Le Droit Humain? Seems like if they don't we should not include members (especially women) in our list. Eric Cable | Talk 12:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

They certainly don't. Having been browbeaten into a grudging semi-acceptance of women's masonry, mixed lodges are still beyond the pale, and masons will be excluded or suspended for attending DH lodges. However, I don't see this as a valid reason for an encyclopaedia to also exclude DH. In many ways, they take masonry a lot more seriously than UGLE, with a year between degrees filled with compulsory study and papers to submit. Just because our old guard are still stuck in the 19th century, this is not a good reason for Wikipedia to follow suit. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I see your point and do not disagree with it. However, I thought we had a long-standing "policy" for this list that a person had to be a Freemason in the eyes of the UGLE to be included on this list. Eric Cable | Talk 14:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the policy needs changed. Excluding most of continental Europe and important figures like Annie Besant seems arbitrary, and more importantly, partisan, which is not part of the larger editorial policy. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, you'd need to take that up with Blueboar and MSJapan who seems to make all the rules around here. Eric Cable | Talk 14:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't make the rules... we all set the rules together, by group consensus. (If it comes across that I set the rules, it's simply because I have been around long enough to remember the various consensus discussions we have already had, and have been vocal about maintaining those consensuses.)

Oh, I'm just busting your balls. Eric Cable | Talk 11:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I can tell you that there was NEVER a consensus that inclusion on this list should be limited to "people who are Freemasons in the eyes of the UGLE". The list already includes many Masons from GOdF and similar "Continental style" bodies, for example.

As for the inclusion of members of Female and Co-Masonic bodies. We certainly never reached a consensus to intentionally exclude them (much less have any policy to do so). However, to be honest we never really reached a consensus to include them either ... The simple fact is that we have avoided the discussion.

So, let's have that discussion now... Personally, I would set exactly the same inclusion criteria for everyone... male and female... a) the person must be notable (determined by having a WP article), and b) we must cite a reliable source that supports inclusion (ie we must add a reliable source that says they are/were a Freemason, and do so at the time of inclusion). This would mean that someone like Annie Besant probably would qualify for inclusion (she has an article... and there are certainly many reliable sources that say she was a Freemason). Whether that would be true for other Women Masons and Co-Masons, I don't know. Blueboar (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This could be a very short discussion. Notable and initiated into a sensible lodge are the only criteria we can apply. Recognition by any specific jurisdiction isn't an option. Arguably, if a notable person goes through a recognisable masonic initiation with a fringe lodge, it makes it more notable. Similarly, UGLE doesn't recognise "Masons on sight", but there will be few volunteers to weed them out of the list, which action would trivialise the views of the GL that made them masons. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If we stick to the two criteria of notability and verifiability, I seriously doubt that we will have to worry about members of fringe groups all that often. And we can always discuss the particulars and reach a case specific consensus if needed. Blueboar (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's the Thing: Those of us who are Master Masons in a lodge that would be considered a "mainstream" lodge i.e. one that would be recognized by the UGLE would be expelled if we were to converse on the secrets of Masonry with a "clandestine" Mason or sit in a "clandestine" lodge. I know that my Grand Lodge would consider Le Droit Humain clandestine. It seems odd that we don't consider proof that someone is a Shriner good enough (per argument with MSJapan) but will include someone that most mainstream Masons would consider clandestine. Eric Cable | Talk 11:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec)BUT... Wikipeida is not a Grand Lodge... it is not bound by Grand Lodge rules. It is bound by Wikipedia's rules... one of which is the requirement that we take a Neutral Point of View. That means that we have to put the issues of recognition between Grand Lodges (and the various factions of Freemasonry) to one side. We must base what we say on reliable sources and not our own POVs (or the POV of any particular Grand Lodge).

This goes both ways... We (ie Wikipedians) don't exclude someone because Grand Lodge X considers him/her to be irregular. Nor do we include someone because Grand Lodge Y considers him/her to be regular. WE base inclusion/exclusion on reliable sources, no more, no less. As long as reliable sources say person P is/was a Mason (regardless of whether any particular Grand Lodge agrees with that assessment or not), then we should include him/her on the list (assuming notability).

Now... that leaves open the question of whether any particular source should be considered reliable or not. THAT is a different issue... one that has nothing to do with the schisms and faction politics of the Craft. Blueboar (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

We have "quasi-Masonic, imitative of Masonry, or regarded by the Grand Lodge as irregular or incompatible with the craft" (UGLE rule 176), so I'm in big trouble if I join the Order of the Eastern Star, never mind DH Plato lodge down the road. Arguments about Shriners aside, we cannot base our definition of a mason on who threw teddy out of the pram in the 1860s/70s. In other words, we have to acknowledge that Deraismes and Besant made a significant contribution to something, and if it wasn't freemasonry, I don't know what to call it. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You can't join Eastern Star? What Grand Lodge are you under? Eric Cable | Talk 14:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hold on... In the case of Eastern Star, approval by a particular GL is actually irrelevant. There is a fundamental difference between OES and LDH... The women who join OES do not claim to be Freemasons. And, as far as I know, no one else claims that they are Freemasons either. So women who are member of the Eastern Star would NOT qualify for this list.

LDH, on the other hand, does claim to actually be Freemasonry... the women who join it claim that they are actual Freemasons... and others (depending on who you ask) either agree or disagree with that claim. That fundamental difference is important. That makes inclusion/exclusion of LDH members a WP:NPOV issue. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Charlie Chaplin

After reading Blueboar's note on removing Chaplin I thought about it and confirmed that Chaplin is NOT listed in Denslow. Now considering when Denslow was written relative to Chaplin's career, it seems to me that Chaplin was notable enough that if there had been sufficent evidence that he was a Mason, Denslow would have listed him. I therefore would say that without a very good cite it is logical to say Charlie Chaplin was NOT a Mason. Eric Cable | Talk 15:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup... In addition, Chaplin isn't listed by the BC&Y website, nor by any American GL websites, nor by the UGLE website (I checked there because there was an outside chance that he could have been initiated in England prior to moving to the US)... surely at least one of these would have listed him if he had been had he been a brother. The only masonic website to list him seems to be the Regular Grand Lodge of Serbia... and while that website might be considered reliable for Serbian Freemasons (it's iffy), it is definitely not reliable for American/British Freemasons. Blueboar (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

He's not in the updated 10K either. MSJapan (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Glenn Miller

I noticed that YOKOTA Kuniteru added Glenn Miller to the list. That got me to thinking that when you consider when Glenn Miller's music was popular in relation to when Denslow was published, he would be listed in Denslow. I therefore checked and Miller is NOT listed in Denslow. I then looked at the cite YOKOTA Kuniteru used, Saint Andrew Lodge 228 [3] in Insch Scotland. It is a website of a lodge which we typically don't allow AND if you look at the header paragraph on their page you can see the text was copied from our Main Page which might cause a circular reference issue. I therefore fear that Miller, cool dude that he was, will need to be deleted until we can get a better cite. Eric Cable | Talk 15:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Not in the updated 10K MSJapan (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I would agree... While a google search (here) turns up a lot of local lodge websites that include Miller on their "Famous Masons" lists... none of those webpages support the inclusion with details such as what lodge he might have joined, or when. And I note that the websites we do tend to trust (such as the BC&Y website) don't include him. So, I would say take him out... at least for now. Blueboar (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. I will direct YOKOTA Kuniteru to this conversation. Eric Cable | Talk 12:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Surely the header paragraph of the Saint Andrew Lodge 228 is copied. So YOKOTA Kuniteru has checked all revisions of List of Freemasons (E–Z) and then confirmed that Revision as of 14:26, 22 October 2013 by YOKOTA Kuniteru was the first addition of Glenn Miller. And Revision history search on List of Freemasons: Revision history did not find the addition of Glenn Miller.[4] So the Saint Andrew Lodge 228 would list Glenn Miller by neither List of Freemasons nor List of Freemasons (E–Z). But so far, the better way is the deletion of Glenn Miller from the List of Freemasons (E–Z). YOKOTA Kuniteru (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for understanding. Eric Cable | Talk 15:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Should female freemasons be included?

As above. Should members of female masonic lodges be included in the list? I was about to ad Hedvig Eleonora von Fersen.--Aciram (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

See Droit Humain discussion above. Neutral POV demands that we accept female Freemasons as valid if we know they have definitely been initiated. If you have the reference, please add her. If, however, she was only a member of a lodge of adoption, this by its own admission is not "real" freemasonry. We have to have a proven link to a mainstream lodge. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I see. I am myself ignorant in this subject: the reference I have say that she was a member of a lodge of adoption which was linked to the mainstream Swedish lodge: this adoption lodge was as I understand created by contemporary leader of the mainstream Masonic lodge in Sweden, Charles XIII of Sweden (then Prince), who created his consort Hedvig Elisabeth Charlotte of Holstein-Gottorp, to be the leader of the female adoption lodge of the Swedish mainstream lodge in Sweden. She was herself acknowledged as freemason by her consort and are known to have referred to masonic subjects to him in their private correspondence, and him to have spoken of it to her, which as I understand freemasons could only do to each other. The other four women members were Sophie von Fersen, Hedvig Eleonora von Fersen, Ulrica Catharina Brahe and (though this is regarded as less certain) Christina Charlotta Gyldenstolpe. I am too ignorant, I am afraid, to decide more than what I can read from that (it is not the main topic of the reference), but perhaps it is more clarifying to you. In any case: there is a Category:Freemasons; should this be used for members of the adoption lodges, or should a new category for them be created? --Aciram (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The ladies in Lodges of Adoption would not have described themselves as Freemasons. Perhaps a new category is in order. We could perhaps put a list at the end of Rite of Adoption, which would probably be fairly short, but would include the Empress Josephine. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought Josephine suppressed the Freemasons which is big part of the stroy behind The Magic Flute. Eric Cable | Talk 12:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Um... no... I think you are confusing your Empresses... the Magic Flute was inspired (or so people say) by Austrian Empress Maria Theresa (who was firmly against Freemasonry and suppressed it) and her son, Emperor Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor (who was actually somewhat pro Freemasonry, and may even have been a Freemason). Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Maria Theresa.... you're absolutely right. I was mis-remembering. Eric Cable | Talk 16:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, maybe a new list for women is in order. Eric Cable | Talk 12:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of a separate list for members of various Rites of Adoption (and I agree that it would be best to start off with it being a section within the Rite of Adoption article... we can always move it to its own list article when we have enough verifiable people listed to merit a Stand Alone List). Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a good opportunity to bulk out that article, because we really have very little on OES, Queen of the South, or Amaranth included in there. MSJapan (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The question is... is OES (and similar groups) a "Rite of Adoption"... or are they something else? Blueboar (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Knowing a good deal on the history of OES and having read the description of Rite of Adoption, I don't think OES belongs there. Eric Cable | Talk 18:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Any list will be fairly short, and I think should be kept separate from OES, since they arose independently of each other. Rite of Adoption needs work. It seems to be a translation of the French Wikipedia article, and conflicts with everything else I've read on adoption, which I've slotted into Freemasonry and Women#Lodges of Adoption. I haven't replaced the grades in the Rite article as a reminder to myself to sniff out another reference to them, but I admit, this is WAY down the to-do list. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

So... getting back to the original question... yes notable female MASONS can and should be added to this list (assuming we can verify membership). But we need to be clear as to what makes a woman a MASON. To get us past the "Regular" vs. "Irregular" POV, we can not base our inclusion on who recognizes who... I think we have to base it on what degrees she took. If she took the same three craft degrees as are offered in male only Freemasonry, then she qualifies for this list. If she took some other degrees... degrees that may be similar to (or inspired by) those three craft degrees - then she does not qualify for this list. She might qualify for a related list... but not this one.
Does this work for everyone? Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Works for me, but as demonstrated above, occasionally needs spelled out for non-masons. Perhaps a note in the lead of the list might help? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the principle you're proposing Blueboar, although (at risk of pedantry) would point out that she doesn't need to have taken the "three craft degrees" in order to be included in this list - she only needs to have taken the Entered Apprentice degree in order to have become a Freemason. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 05:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Not the point - the adoption rite that Hedvig Eleonora von Fersen joined had degrees with the same names, but very different ritual to male masonry. One version of the Apprentie ritual had a life-size papier mache tree of life and a mechanical snake with a working jaw, which I have yet to locate in our lodge store cupboard.

There are two questions here -

* Do we include female masons? Yes, as long as we can document a recognised Masonic initiation.

* Was Hedvig Eleonora von Fersen a Freemason. Probably not, although she definitely participated in some version of the Rite of Adoption.

Von Fersen probably needs documented as such, and we will sooner or later be confronted with a group of American ladies whose initiation belongs in the realm of masonic myth, but that is another problem for another day. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is the point, and that it is very clear. Someone who has cavorted with a papier mach tree and a serpent has manifestly not taken the EA degree. It's a question of the ritual, not the name. I can call my house a banana, but it remains a house, not a piece of fruit. The list is for those who have taken the Entered Apprentice degree (and, in most cases, subsequent degrees also), and not for those who haven't, even if they have engaged in something imitative of Masonry or hijacking its terms and titles. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 15:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Working on the B's from Denslow

Please see Talk:List of Freemasons/Archive 6#Working on the A.27s from Denslow...
OK, I have been working on the B's in Denslow. Eric Cable | Talk 15:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If BC&Y cites Denslow...

Hi. Seems to me if the BC&Y website cites Denslow as it's source, then shouldn't we just verify the listing in Denslow and then just cite Denslow? Eric Cable | Talk 16:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, first there is WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT: If we got the information from BC&Y, we should cite BC&Y... not the sources that they cite.

Second... why bother? Do you not consider BC&Y reliable? Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it best, not only for Wikpedia but for all academic work, to cite the original source if possible? If I look at a BC&Y listing and they cite Denslow and I confirm that person is listed in Denslow, then wouldn't it make sense for me to cite Denslow on our list here or anywhere else? Eric Cable | Talk 13:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Put it this way... I would say that Denslow and the BC&Y website are equally reliable. It isn't wrong to switch from one citation to another when they are equally reliable... but it isn't really necessary to do so.

So... while I certainly don't object to your switching the citation for these entries to Denslow, I don't think it is in any way necessary that you do so. I don't think the change of source is really an improvement... or at least not enough of an improvement to make the effort worthwhile.

That said... if you really want to make the effort, have fun. Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Data Overhaul.

I am in the midst of a massive overhaul of this list because frankly, it looks pretty, but it really is a hot mess.

There are the obvious things like alphabetizing errors and no comma after the dates, etc.
There are less obvious problems like non-standardization of things like "This person was the 9th Governor of North Carolina" instead of "This person was the Ninth Governor of North Carolina."
There are a LOT of {{Verify credibility}} and {{deadlink}} tags that need to be added and fixed.
Dates are a mess. I am correcting them all to be day month year (10 December 2013) which is a Wikipedia standard. I am also adding the day and month for dates where we only have the year.
Consolidation of references. Some references, like BC&Y, are referenced a two dozen times differently when there should be <ref name="????"> being used.
Lots of references are simply [http://www.???.com] instead of proper {{Citation citations. I am fixing that. (yes, I am going through all 500+ cites on the list one at a time.)
Finally, I think we should come up with a Manual of Style for this list and stick to it. For example...

Instead of...

Major General Sir Allan Adair, 6th Baronet, GCVO, CB, DSO, MC, JP, DL (3 November 1897—4 August 1988), was a British Army general who served in both World Wars. Household Brigade Lodge No. 2614 and appointed Assistant Grand Master of the G.L. of England in 1953.

I think it should read..

Allan Adair, 6th Baronet (3 November 1897—4 August 1988), British Army Major General who served in both World Wars. Household Brigade Lodge No. 2614 and appointed Assistant Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of England in 1953.

I did a similar overhaul a year ago mainly for alphabetizing errors, but I am a lot better that all the technical wikipedia stuff now. Eric Cable | Talk 13:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Huge project... but if you have the time and energy to see it through, Go for it! Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

A few thoughts on the style... I would not bother listing all the awards and honors (GCVO, CB, DSO, MC, JP, DL, etc.)... that sort of stuff is irrelevant to their Masonic membership, and can be left to the bio article. Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleting Gerry McCann

I don't care how much Jahbulon-13 screams and yells his rantings that Masons secretly run the World. The bottom line is there is no article for Gerry McCann. No article, no inclusion on this list. Eric Cable | Talk 13:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree... although I think the lack of any reliable source is an even more compelling reason to exclude him from the list. To put it mildly... McCann fails both of our key inclusion requirements. Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been trying to find a copy online of the source he gives, with no luck - and the book is "currently unavailable" - to see if the source J-13 refers to cites any reliable sources. Given the overall 'feel' of their website, I'm inclined to believe not... WegianWarrior (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

That's all well and good BUT there still is no article specifically about HIM. Why are willing to bend on one of the bedrock inclusion requirements for this person? Eric Cable | Talk 16:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not - I'm mainly curious as to why it's so important for a group that is at the very least borderline conspiracy theorists to prove that McCann is/was a Mason. WegianWarrior (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The last page that got protected for excessive vandalism! 166.137.244.110 (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Jack Churchill

Someone please help me determine if Jack Churchill aka "Mad Jack" was a Freemason. I just learned about him and he is my new hero. This crazy guy carried a longbow, sword, AND his bagpipes into battle throughout WWII. Someone who was Scottish and that much of a bad ass just HAD to be a Mason. Let's find the proof. Eric Cable | Talk 04:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Eric - I ran a story on Mad Jack in our Lodge Newsletter (it gets distributed far and wide) including into the US and Europe, I asked a question on the Keystone Medal once and got an answer in 12 hours from someone in the UK I'd never heard of. I've done some digging and can find no evidence he was a Freemason. Melbournemason (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That's what I figured. I guess he was too buys being a bad-ass to be a Mason. LOL Eric Cable | Talk 19:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter

Special Ceremony Honoring President Carter

On December 1, 2014 President Jimmy Carter was made an Honorary Ambassador of Hasan Shriners and Shriners International. Here are some pictures from that ceremony.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.964122600281732.1073741835.158786077482059&type=1

This information includes 43 pictures of Jimmy Carter becoming an Honorary Ambassador of Hasan Shriners and Shriners International. This information does not prove Jimmy Carter is a Mason, but I figure the editors, who work on this page, should have access to this information. It is okay with me if you delete this entry after you save a copy of the information for future use. Sponsion (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Carter was definitely not a Mason. He was honored by the Shriners because of his work to support the Shrine Hospital, but never actually joined. Blueboar (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding 37 names under Letter B

Added the following 37 indivuals all of whom are listed in Denslow.

Jérôme Bonaparte (15 November 1784 – 24 June 1860), The youngest brother of Napoleon I and served as Jerome I, King of Westphalia, between 1807 and 1813. Grand master of the Grand Orient of Westphalia.
Joseph Bonaparte (7 January 1768 – 28 July 1844), Elder brother of Napoleon Bonaparte, who made him King of Naples and Sicily (1806–1808), and later King of Spain (1808–1813, as José I). Appointed as grand master of the Grand Orient of France by Napoleon in 1805.
Louis Bonaparte (2 September 1778 – 25 July 1846), Brother of Napoleon and King of Holland (1806–10). Appointed Deputy Grand Master of the Grand Orient of France in 1805.
Lucien Bonaparte (21 May 1775 – 29 June 1840), Brother of Napoleon and a member of the Grand Orient of France.
Thomas Bond (May 2, 1712 – March 26, 1784), American physician and surgeon. In 1751 he co-founded the Pennsylvania Hospital, the first medical facility in the American colonies, with Benjamin Franklin. Deputy grand master of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania in 1749.
Nicholas Bonneville (13 March 1760 - 9 November 1828), French bookseller, printer, journalist, and writer. Also a political figure of some relevance at the time of the French Revolution. In 1788 he published a book entitled The Jesuits driven from Freemasonry and their weapon broken by the Freemasons (translation). His theory was that the Jesuits had introduced the history of the life and death of the Templars into the symbolic degrees, and the doctrine of vengeance for the political and religious crime of their destruction.
Ballington Booth (July 28, 1857 – October 5, 1940), Officer in The Salvation Army and a co-founder of Volunteers of America. Member of Montclair Lodge No. 144, New Jersey about 1899, and later Charter Oak Lodge No. 249, New York City. He was past grand chaplain of the Grand Lodge of New York and member of York and Scottish rites as well as the Shrine.
Edwin Booth (13 November, 1833 – 7 June 1893), Famous 19th-century American actor who toured throughout America and the major capitals of Europe, performing Shakespearean plays. Founded Booth's Theatre in 1869 in New York. Brother of John Wilkes Booth. Honorary member of the Masonic Veterans Association of New York.
Solon Borland (21 September 1808 – 1 January 1864), Newspaperman, soldier, diplomat, Democratic United States Senator from Arkansas and a Confederate officer during the American Civil War.
Józef Boruwłaski (1739 – 1837), Polish-born dwarf who toured in European and Turkish courts. Raised to the 3rd degree in the City of Chester, England on 15 November 1783.
Sir Alexander Boswell, 1st Baronet (9 October 1775 – 27 March 1822), Scottish poet, antiquary and song writer. Ex-officio provincial grand master of Ayrshire and master of Canongate-Kilwinning Lodge No. 2 in Edinburgh.
John Boswell (1532?–1609), 3rd Laird of Auchinleck. Considered by some scholars to be the first recorded non-operative Freemason. Present at a meeting of the (operative) Lodge of Edinburgh on June 8, 1600, and like his operative brethren, attested to the minutes by his mark.
Murrough Boyle, 1st Viscount Blesington (c.1645–1718), First Grand Master of the Ancients, 1756-60.
Giovanni Bottesini (22 December 1821 – 7 July 1889), Italian Romantic composer, conductor, and a double bass virtuoso. Initiated June 20, 1849 in the Bank of England Lodge No. 263, London.
Karl Böttiger (8 June 1760 – 17 November 1835), German archaeologist and classicist. Initiated in the Lodge of the Golden Apple, Dresden, on November 8, 1781.
C. A. Bottolfsen (10 October 1891 – 18 July 1964), American politician from Idaho. 17th and 19th Governor of Idaho. A member of Arco Lodge No. 48, Arco, Idaho and a past district deputy grand master. Knight Templar and Shriner.
Thomas Boude (17 May 1752 – 24 October 1822), The brick mason for Independence Hall in Philadelphia. First secretary of St. John's Lodge in Philadelphia which laid the cornerstone of the hall with Benjamin Franklin as grand master. Boude later became deputy grand master of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania.
Elias Cornelius Boudinot (1 August 1835 – 27 September 1890) Cherokee attorney, politician and military officer.Delegate to the Arkansas secession convention, Boudinot served as a Colonel in the Confederate States Army, and was elected as an Arkansas representative in the Confederate Congress. It is believed that Albert Pike conferred the 32° on him in 1886. He died 27 September 1890 and was buried with Masonic honors by Belle Point Lodge No. 20 of Fort Smith, Arkansas.
Louis de Bourbon (15 June 1709 – 16 June 1771), Count of Clermont. Elected Grand Master of France Dec. 2, 1743. It was during his grandmastership that the name was changed from the "English Grand Lodge of France" to the Grand Lodge of France."
Thomas E. Bourke (5 May 1896 – 9 January 9 1978), United States Marine Corps general who, during World War II, commanded Marine artillery units at the Battle of Guadalcanal, Tarawa and Leyte. At the end of World War II, he commanded the 5th Marine Division in the occupation of Japan, and the Fleet Marine Force, Pacific.
Augustus O. Bourn (1 October 1834 – 28 January 1925), American politician and the 36th Governor of Rhode Island. Raised 18 May 1860 in What Cheer Lodge No. 21, Providence.
Sir Mackenzie Bowell (27 December 1823 – 10 December 1917), PC, KCMG English born Canadian politician. Fifth Prime Minister of Canada. Raised in St. Lawrence Lodge No. 640 of Montreal in 1864. On 4 february 1897 he affiliated with Eureka Lodge No. 283 (Grand Lodge of Canada in Ontario.), at Belleville, and was later a charter member of Moira Lodge No. 11 at Belleville.
Oden Bowie (10 November 10 1826 – 4 December 1894), 34th Governor of Maryland. Member of Centre Lodge No. 108, Baltimore.
Henry L. Bowles (6 January 1866 - 17 May 1932), United States Representative from Massachusetts.
William Augustus Bowles (1763–1805), also known as Estajoca, Maryland-born English adventurer and organizer of Native American attempts to create their own state outside of Euro-American control. Was "admitted an honorary member" of Prince of Wales Lodge No. 259, London on 20 January 1791. He was made "Provincial grand master to the Creek, Cherokee, Chickasaw and Choctaw Indians" by the Grand Lodge of England.
Frank Llewellyn Bowman (21 January 1879 – 15 September 1936), United States Representative from West Virginia.
Sir Leslie Boyce (9 July 1895 – 30 May 1955), K.St.J.Australian-born British Conservative Party politician. Lord Mayor of London between 1951 and 1952. Senior grand warden of the Grand Lodge of England in 1948.
James E. Boyd (9 September - 30 April 30 1906) Irish-born American businessman and politician. seventh Governor of the Nebraska. Member of Capitol Lodge No. 3, Omaha.
Jean-Pierre Boyer (1776 – 9 July 1850), One of the leaders of the Haitian Revolution, and President of Haiti from 1818 to 1843. He was grand commander of the Supreme Council AASR of Haiti, 33°. Frequent visitor to Somerset Lodge No. 34, Norwich, Connecticut.
Frank W. Boykin (21 February 21 – 12 March 12), United States Representative from Alabama. Scottish Rite, Shriner, and Eastern Star.
Emerson R. Boyles (29 June 29 1881 - 30 November 30) Member of the Michigan Supreme Court from 1940 until 1956.
James S. Boynton (7 May 1833 - 22 December1902) was an American politician and jurist. Served briefly as the 51st Governor of Georgia. Member of St. John's Lodge No. 45, Jackson, Georgia.
Paul Boyton (29 June 1848 - 19 April 1924), Irish showman and adventurer. Known as the "Fearless Frogman".
John Bracken (22 June 22 1883 - 18 March 1969), PC 11th Premier of Manitoba.
Hugh Henry Brackenridge (1748 - 25 June 1816) American writer, lawyer, judge, and Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice. Member of Lodge No. 45, Pittsburgh.
Theophilus Bradbury (13 November 1739 - 6 September 1803), U.S. Representative from Massachusetts. Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
William Bradford (14 September 1755 – 23 August 1795) Second United States Attorney General in 1794–1795. Member of Lodge No. 2, Philadelphia.

Eric Cable | Talk 20:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Freemasons:Manual of Style

The following could be a manual of style for List of Freemasons.

Guidelines for Inclusion in the list

We have established two requirements for inclusion in the list.

There must be an existing article on the English Wikipedia on the person in question
There must be reliable sources that establish the person was/is in fact a Freemason.

Basic Format

* [[name]] (date1–date2), text.<citations>

Asterisk
Single space
Name including wikilink to article of the person.
1. If the article name includes a parenthesis, use a barred link such as [[William Polk (colonel)|William Polk]] instead of [[William Polk (colonel)]]
Single space
Vital Dates:
1. left parenthesis
2. Birth Date
3. {{spaced ndash}}
4. Death Date
5. right parenthesis
comma
single space
Post-nominal letters (if any) (see below)
Description (see below)
Citations (see below)

Dates

Dates should entered as d mmm yyyy that is to say 5 May 2013
If the person is still living, simply leave a space inplace of the death date.
If year only is known, then list year only. Check the person's main article.
If date is 'circa' then place c. before the date in question.
If date is unknown, place ? in place of the date in question.
Dates should NOT include references or citations. These facts are (presumably) cited in the person's main article (and if they're not they should be)

Post-nominal letters

Numerous notable Freemasons, especially in the United Kingdom, are entitled to display post-nominal letters. Within List of Freemasons these should be listed after the comma following the vital dates, and before the primary text. The templates Template:Post-nominals, Template:Post-nominals/AUS, Template:Post-nominals/CAN, Template:Post-nominals/GBR, or Template:Post-nominals/NZL should be used as applicable.

Description

This should not be a large paragraph. It should first include why the person is/was notable, and secondly things that are of specific relevance to Masonic membership.

Why they are notable

Short and to the point. We do not need every reason the person is notable. Give the "most notable" reason they are notable. For example, in the case of Theodore Roosevelt simply stating 26th President of the United States is sufficient. We do not need U.S. Cavalry Officer, Medal of Honor recipient, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, 33rd Governor of New York, 25th Vice President of the United States, and 26th President of the United States.

Masonic Information

When possible, give the names and locations of any known lodge memberships. If known, give the dates, lodge name, and location of when he received his Masonic Degrees. Also, give any significant Masonic accomplishments such as being the Grand Master of a state, etc.

Citations

We do not need to cite the reasons for notability as that is (presumably) included in the person's main article. Please include inline citations for all Masonic details.
Citations should be given using the Template:Citation, Template:Cite web, Template:Cite book, Template:Cite news, Template:Cite journal, or Template:Cite AV media templates.
If using a source already in use you should utilize ref name tags.

What to do and not do

Do not include titles or ranks in front of the person's name
1. This:[[John Smith]] (birth date - Death Date), Major General of the British Army...
2. Not This:Major General [[John Smith]] (birth date - Death Date), British Army officer...
With the exception of #Post-nominal letters do not use abbreviations except...
1. U.S. or US for United States
2. U.K. or UK for United Kingdom

Peerage

Members of the British Peerage (and other countries for that matter) should be alphabetized as such:

Alphabetizing Rules for Members of the British Peerage
Rank	Example	Alphabetized By	See also
King	King George VI	G for George	None
Prince	Prince Michael of Kent	M for Michael, not K for Kent nor W for Windsor	None
Duke	Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk	N for Norfolk, not T for Thomas nor H for Howard	Under surname
Marquess	Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 7th Marquess of Salisbury	G for Gascoyne-Cecil, not R for Robert nor S for Salisbury	Under location (Salisbury)
Earl	Robert Capell, 10th Earl of Essex	C for Capell, not R for Robert nor E for Essex]]	Under location (Esssex)
Viscount	William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne	L for Lamb, not W for William nor M for Melbourne	Under location (Melbourne)
Baron	Peter Maxwell, 28th Baron de Ros	M for Maxwell not P for Peter nor R for Ros	none

Note that suitable See Also links should be added when applicable. For example, Prince Michael of Kent should have his main listing under M, could have a see also link under K.

Also, many peers and royals have multiple titles. For example, Prince William (who is not a Mason but should be) is also the Duke of Cambridge, the Earl of Strathearn, and the Baron Carrickfergus. These people should be listed under their senior-most rank, in this case Prince.

Comments

That's my two cents. Eric Cable | Talk 12:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Bravo. My only criticism is the inconsistency in the peerage. Why refer to Dukes by their titles and the lower ranks by their family names? Few people know that Melbourne's real name was Lamb, and fewer yet care. The rest is sound stuff. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to find the citation, but I am pretty sure this is the alphabetization method used in Burke's Peerage. Seems like I also read it in the The Chicago Manual of Style. I am reminded of a quote from the Dowager Countess in Downton Abbey: “"If I were ever to search for logic I wouldn't look for it among the English upper class." Eric Cable | Talk 15:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

In that case, quibble over. Well done. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Also note the "See also" column above. That will help. With the example of Melbourne, under M we would have 2nd Viscount Melbourne. see William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne with a link to his main listing under Lamb. Eric Cable | Talk 13:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding 46 Names to Letter V

I have gone all the way through the letter V in Denslow and am adding the following names all contained therein:

Eric Cable | Talk 15:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Ancestry are publishing list of names

According to an article in the Telegraph and other newspapers, "A secret archive containing the names of two million Freemasons has been made public for the first time on the genealogy site Ancestry."

Membership records from 1733 to 1923 -- mainly in Britain and the British Empire --- have been digitised and published on the family history website Ancestry, the company said.

See: Was Titanic inquiry scuppered by the Freemasons? Esowteric+Talk 17:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but this is really the lowest form of journalism. The Great and Good were often Freemasons in the 19th Century, as were ordinary tradesmen. However, you don't have to be a mason to cover up your colleague's incompetence, our civil service are still doing it. The Jack the Ripper stuff is now old and tired, and should be decently buried, with a footnote that Warren's investigations were impeded and he was persecuted out of office for his liberal politics. "Two million", "secret archive", "pinch of salt". Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Enockah bp Enockackah bp (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Paginating the page does not help searching, it does the opposite

Having two pages for names does not help searching, is it not possible to search with a browser in two pages. If the list does grow two much, it could be better to find another way of reducing the page size.

Possible solutions to page size are:

Remove footnotes moving those to the personal page. In such case, we could add some badge (similar to the wikiquotes one saying there are quotes of him), with that extra info, leaving this page more clean.

Use another classification (not alphabetical), like profession (scientific, political/military). With this classification we have multiple pages, but it makes more sense to search there.

El Hoy (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Not to dismiss your concerns, but more for your information... all of your concerns have been discussed before... please look through the archives to see why we do things the way we currently do. Blueboar (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank You{smiles]

Thank you, most humbly.I could have not looked correctly.Many thank yous .87.188.189.142 (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Razu