Talk:List of Masonic Grand Lodges/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Proposed new inclusion criteria

It has been suggested on the WikiProject:Freemasonry talk page that this lists includes some very questionable entities... groups that are only tenuously "Masonic" in practice... and groups that in reality consist of littel more than two or three people with exaggerated claims and a fancy website. There seems to be a desire to (somehow) separate the wheat from the chaff.

The question is: Can we separate the wheat from the chaff without violating WP:NPOV? I think we can... by adopting an inclusion criteria that is similar to that used at the List of Freemasons article. In order for a body that calls itself a "Grand Lodge" (or "Grand Orient") to be put on this list, two basic criteria would have to be met:

1. Notability - The Grand Lodge must be considered notable enough for Wikipedia to have a stand-alone article about it. And an article should be written before adding the Grand Lodge to the list.
2. Sourcing - The Grand Lodge must be mentioned in at least one reliable source that is independent of the Grand Lodge itself (to substantiate that a) the Grand Lodge actually exists... and b) someone other than themselves agrees that it actually is a Grand Lodge.) This source must be cited at the time that the GL is added to the list.

Note... this will mean that, at least initially, a lot of the GLs currently on this list will be removed (Wikipedia currently has very few articles on Grand Lodges). That can be fixed by encouraging the creation of the necessary articles. It will also mean that some very legitimate Grand Lodges may never get listed ... if there are no sources to support an article on the Grand Lodge of X, then we would not list it... no matter how legitimate the Grand Lodge of X is.) However, this limitation would at least be NEUTRAL in regards to all the various factions and schisms in Freemasonry. It would not matter which branch of Freemasonry the GL fell into.

What do people think of this idea?... Thoughts, concerns and comments please. Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I can agree that this article is an albatross, but since we seem to be stuck with it, we may as well try to make it work. Your outline is good in principle, but I think it will fall down in execution. National bodies won't be mentioned for years because nobody can be bothered, or because nobody can understand the language of the necessary texts to write even a stub. There will be a bias towards English-speaking GLs, which is neither useful nor encyclopedic. Either we work an old-fashioned cleanup, checking everything on the list, or we start again with UGLE + CLIPSAS, and add others on merit. This still begs the question of the criteria we should use for inclusion as a GL. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration of this rather extensive project. Certainly it will be a lot of work. Yet I think the value of such a list is increasing, and the time is right: During the early days of the internet and Wikipedia, recognition issues weren't played out on this venue. Key sources of information for mainstream GLs were 1) Pantagraph Publishing's List of Lodges, 2) Bessel's list, 3) Virginia's Smith Lodge of Research's grid/list, MSA, and the reports of the COGMNA Commission on Recognition. Soon after, UGLE's list made it to their website, as did World Conference data, followed by CLIPSAS information, PHA and finally, the more routine appearance of websites for new (regular) and/or fringe groups. Today, the classic sources of information tend to lag more noticeably. Pantagraph is only updated after ten regular jurisdictions in the US send them a report that they recognize a new grand lodge, and that data comes to them only slowly. Bessel's web pages, a pioneer as he is on the topic, are nevertheless sporadically updated (he's a pal, and I mean no disrespect by this. The velocity of change has increased and he's only one man.) Yet in my experience, foreign jurisdictions seek visibility in those sources AND increasingly point to Wikipedia listings to hint at or explain their groups' validity, especially across the language barrier.

Thus, for two reasons, I support the contemplation of this Herculean task. First, I too, think a solid list would help weed out the chaff while supporting identification of valid but new grand lodges who seek recognition, by using reasonable criteria as previously noted. Further, I think that fair-minded US Masons, wherever they may come from, would benefit from helping to identify the legitimate, regular PHA grand lodges (even while unrecognized by some mainstream state GLs) as opposed to the spurious PHO GLs, the clandestine St. John's Grand Lodges, and the purely fraudulent mail order degree houses and scam artists. Far more than the mainstream GLs, Prince Hall groups are in a pitched battle against bogus grand lodges, and I don't mind helping them explain the difference. Further, I think we can maintain an NPV with a fair set of criteria like this.

There is a website, once mentioned in an earlier comment at the top of this Talk page, which may help us as a starter: List of Masonic Obediences (in French). And as a final suggestion to Blueboar's criteria list, I'd like to also require a declared number of lodges and of Masons, with supporting citations. Jax MN (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I do want to point out one benefit from having an all-inclusive list of everyone who even remotely claims to be a Grand Lodge... a benefit that is purely internal to Wikipedia. When someone writes a stub article about a tiny, non-notable masonic entity, it is very difficult to delete it... if you take that article to AFD, there is an immediate knee-jerk reaction by non-masons who say "Keep... Grand Lodges are inherently notable"... because they don't understand the difference between one Grand Lodge and another... they don't understand how schismatic Freemasonry can be, and they don't know how many tiny self-proclaimed "Grand Lodges" there actually are. As soon as you point them to this list, however, they begin to understand. They come away from this list with a better understanding of reality... that just because something claims to be a "Grand Lodge" it does not mean all that much. The non-masonic readers begins to understand that not all "Grand Lodges" are the same... and that some "Grand Lodges" are not all that "Grand". Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I like Blueboar's idea and am willing to work on the Grand Lodge of North Carolina article. I started it before, but lost interest when my Masonic Lodges of North Carolina got deleted by a bunch of Wikinazis. We need to agree that if GL articles are created and then nominated for deletion and they will that we all rush to protect said articles. Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't agree to a blanket statement like that, Eric... The decision to Keep or Delete (or merge) an article should be based on our WP:Notability policy and subsidiary guidelines (in this case WP:ORG), not our own desires... the determination is based on whether reliable sources that are independent of the subject exist to support the article. No sources, no article. Unfortunately, that might well mean that a specific GL will not merit an article... or that an article on a topic related to a particular GL (such as a list of lodges under that GL) should be merged. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yea, but if I speant dozens of hours researching and writing a GOOD article and then some pimple-faced, unemployed English major came along and said "Not notable! Delete! Delete! Delete!" and then I did not get the support of the people in the discussion, then I would NOT be happy. Eric Cable  |  Talk  15:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that is how anyone would feel. No one likes having their hard work disparaged. OK... sure, if you (or anyone else) wrote an article that is properly sourced, I would support it (although, depending on the specifics, I might !vote to merge... as opposed to keep or delete)... I just wanted to make it clear that I judge articles on their individual merits and would not treat any GL article as being "inherently notable".

(suggestion... when starting a new article, I like to work on an initial draft of the article in my user space... that "saves" my work while I search for sources, establish notability, etc... Once I think the article is in decent shape, I copy and paste it into article space (take it "live"). Working on articles this way means that if the "live" article gets deleted for some reason... my work has not been completely lost. I can go back to my user draft and continue to improve it, addressing the concerns that caused it be be deleted.) Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Paul Bessel

Eric has asked who Paul Bessel is, and questioned whether he is a reliable source.

He is one of the more highly regarded Masonic scholars in the US. Probably his most important credential is that he was President of the Masonic Library & Museum Association from 1999 to 2001, and Librarian of the George Washington Masonic National Memorial, from 1995 to 2000. He is published (see here), but is probably best known for his very comprehensive website... arguably the "go to" source as far as on-line Masonic research goes.

Here are his full Masonic credentials. Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Eric Cable  |  Talk  17:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem. It is never wrong to ask when you have a question about a source. Blueboar (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

RGLE

RGLE being a small schismatic group, I was surprised to find a lot of foreign lodges which it claimed sprang from its loins. Picking my way down the list, the first is the Masonic High Council of Egypt, which has one lodge, it says on the RGLE website, and all references to this lodge trace back to there, NOT to Cairo, where the lodge is supposed to be. I propose to threat this as a Castle in the air. This, and any similar pipe dreams of RGLE will be removed unless somebody gives me a sound reason for believing they exist. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I do sympathize with what you are talking about... we have a similar issue with GOUSA here in the US... it claims to consists of several lodges, but when you dig deeper there is no real substance behind the claims. However, before we start omitting "bogus" Grand Lodges... we have to be very careful not to slip into Original research. WE may know that the claims of the MHC are "bogus", but we have to be able to substantiate that personal knowledge.

This goes to what I was discussing above... a core problem with this list is VERIFIABILITY. Anyone can create a website... anyone can claim to represent a large world-spanning Masonic entity with lots of subsidiary lodges, districts and grand lodges ... So how do you separate the wheat from the chaff... how do you substantiate the claims and separate the bogus from the legit?

The answer is to require reliable sourcing that is INDEPENDENT OF THE ENTRY... Primary sources such as self-published websites are not good enough... we need reliable secondary sources.

However... that causes a problem: if we do shift to requiring secondary sources, we need to do so with NEUTRALITY... we need to apply the standard to all the entries, no matter what faction or grouping they belong to... no matter how legit WE know the Grand Lodge is. And that will mean that some very legitimate GLs would have to be omitted from the list... because we can not find an independent secondary source to support inclusion. Blueboar (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

As this page will attract heavy traffic of passionate, opinionated readers, most of whom will not be experienced Wikipedia editors, should we include a clear summary of these rules, at the top, explaining how readers may effectively offer edits and admonish users to help us find bona fide original and secondary sources to cite? I think it may help us avoid pitfalls. Jax MN (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree with that. I think we have reached a consensus that some sort of rules are needed... the next step is to reach consensus on what those rules should be... but once we do that, I think we would all agree that we would need a clear statement (both at the top of this talk page, and in the introduction of the article) to make it clear what those rules are. Blueboar (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

There may be a point about omitting legitimate Grand Lodges, but I'm stumped for an example. I don't think we can use self-publicity as a legitimate source. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I really can't find any evidence of ANY Egyptian GLs outside of self-publicity. Bearing in mind that Freemasonry is illegal in Egypt, I propose to cross-check all of the GLS referenced by the RGLE site. This could take time. With RGL Virginia, I found they are no longer linked to RGLE, so I've used their own site and an Italian GL's reference to show they exist. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Freemasonry is illegal in a number of Mideast countries. However, that hasn't stopped creation and working of lodges. Nor has it stopped all working of lodges under foreign jurisdictions, for example, the GL of NY maintains lodges in Lebanon, one of the less anti-Masonic nations in that part of the world. (Compared to, say Saudi Arabia and Yemen.) I know of several groups, local grand lodges or foreign constitution GLs in hardline Islamic countries that specifically do not want publicity because of fear of terrorism. Until they are ready to announce themselves in even the briefest fashion, we should let them remain in anonymity. In other words, I don't believe in Masonic "outing." Jax MN (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Not the point. The GL is advertising itself, and springs from an organisation with a reputation for inventing grand titles, if not entire Grand Lodges. There were originally almost 50 GLs from this source, so far I've found two with a masonic existence outside the RGLE website - and as you say, there remains the question of whether an Egyptian masonic organisation would "out" itself. I don't believe it exists. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Last (I hope) update. Having picked through all RGLE referenced GLs, some probably only ever existed on the RGLE website. There were a few real ones in USA and Europe, which have ALL now distanced themselves from their mother GL. The RGLE website is NOT a reliable reference. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... We know that RGLE actually exists (the Grand Secretary of UGLE issued a letter warning UGLE members of its existence)... what is murky is the actual existence of all the other lodges and grand lodges they say are allied to them... ie all the members of the MHC. I would say that the RGLE website might be OK for statements about RGLE itself... but not for its allies. Blueboar (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You mean the "Masonic High Council the Mother High Council of the World of the Most Ancient and Honourable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons"? The main statement of the site is that the RGLE is some sort of world governing body. It is altogether safer not to believe anything published by RGLE. When you have a moment, try reading Masonic Info. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Recognized by the UGLE

Guys, I think one of two things should happen:

1) Add a column to the tables that says "Recognized by the UGLE" and check yes or not according to this site: http://www.ugle.org.uk/about/foreign-grand-lodges

OR

2) Change the opening paragraph to...

...Sometimes there will be only one Grand Lodge in a given area. More often, however, there will be several competing Grand Lodges claiming the same jurisdictional area, or claiming overlapping areas. This leads to debates over legitimacy. Not all Grand Lodges and Grand Orients recognize each other as being legitimate. The majority of Grand Lodges who usually recognize each other as legitimate are those grand lodges which are recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England which it lists on its website. This article, however, attempts to list them all, regardless of recognition or legitimacy debates.

I am willing to do #1, but I think #2 is better as it 1) maintains the neutrality of this article and 2) does what should be done to direct the general public to mainstream Grand Lodges. Eric Cable  |  Talk  18:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I do understand what it is you are trying to indicate... there is a network of mutually recognizing GLs that all hold to the same basic landmarks, and the goal is to have a way to indicate whether a GL is part of that network or not. The problem is that this network has no name, and so we are struggling to figure out what to call it.

I support the goal... but not the name you have given it. I have a problem with singling out UGLE, as if it were the sole arbitrator of who is in and who is out of this network. We could just as accurately call the column: "Recognized by Grand Lodge of Scotland" or "Recognized by the Grand Lodge of New York" or "Recognized by Grand Lodge of Saskatchewan" (etc).

Of course, if we base the column on Scotland, New York or Saskatchewan, the list of which GLs are marked with "YES" and which are marked with "NO" will be slightly different ... there are, after all, a few GLs that are recognized by UGLE, but not recognized GLoNY (and vise versa). My point is that using recognition by one of these other GLs would be just as legitimate as using UGLE. Blueboar (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If we accept that modern Freemasonry originated in the British Isles, that all regular lodges must therefore trace ancestry to one of the "time immemorial" GLs, and the three remaining GLs descended from the originals are pretty much singing off the same hymn sheet, then recognition by UGLE is a fair litmus test of traditional regularity. If some sort of disclaimer of the sort Eric suggests is included, lodges could be simply marked next to their name with, say, an asterisk and a common reference to the list. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

OK... let's use Italy to illustrate the problem... UGLE recognizes the Regular Grand Lodge of Italy, but most (and possibly all) of the US Grand Lodges don't recognize the Regular Grand Lodge of Italy and instead recognize the Grand Orient of Italy. UGLE is actually in the minority here. If we peg this on UGLE's list, we end up giving the reader the wrong impression: That RGLI is a member of the "regular" club, and GOI is not... when in fact the majority of the members of the club say exactly the opposite.

We need some way to indicate who is and is not part of the "club"... and yet also account for the fact that there are occasional disagreements when it comes to specific jurisdictions. We need a way to indicate acceptance within the broader "Anglo/US style" network, without favoring any single GL's list. I'm not sure how to do this (I am thinking on it) but a yes/no list based on UGLE is not the way to do it. Blueboar (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

There is some difficulty finding publicly accessible lists of recognised GLs. (So far, I've found Indiana, and it has nothing from Italy on the list.) Ideally, if there is a more comprehensive list from a US lodge, it would be possible to indicate amity as AB, A!B, !AB, !A!B, which could be accomplished with references, with a brief intro/disclaimer. More than two lists would have to be inclusive or exclusive ored, or the entire thing becomes unworkable. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you perhaps limiting your search to what you can find on-line. Every US GL publishes a book that lists which GLs it recognizes. If you write to the GL they will send it to you. Another source would be the annual report and recommendations made by COGMINA (which gives a good indication of the US and Canada taken as a whole).

As to your final comment about things being unworkable... that's sort of my point... there are enough variations between GLs as to who recognizes who, that using any single GL's list is by definition POV... the only way to be NPOV would be to have separate columns for every single GL ... and that is obviously unworkable.

What I think might be workable (and NPOV) is something more generalized, a broad scope colunm. Instead of having a narrow focus on who is and is not recognized by any one specific GL... we should have a broad focus on who is and is not recognized by multiple GLs within the broader "Anglo/US faction". Rather than a column for UGLE, and another for GLoNY, and a third for GL of Mass. (etc)... have a single column entitled "Recognized by multiple GLs within the broad network of Anglo/US recognition"... yes and no would be based on looking at multiple GL lists... not just one. If a significant number (not necessarily a majority) of Anglo/US style GLs recognize "GL of X", then we would mark "GL of X" with a Yes.

If we keep it generalized, I would argue that we would include both the RGL of Italy and the GO of Italy as being in the broad network... both would be marked as "Yes" in the column... thereby presenting the reader with an accurate picture of the broader factions in Freemasonry as a whole, rather than the narrow factions within the Anglo/US branch. Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, Earlier today I modified the North America table to in make states/provinces, etc. a separate column because it was driving me crazy. In the process I added anchors to the "Outside Organizations" table at the bottom and added links from the main tables to it. Now, when a reader sees "CGMNA" next to a listing they can click on it and it takes them to the list at the bottom for an explanation. So maybe we (I) could add UGLE to the table at the bottom with the explanation like "Grand Lodges noted above with UGLE are recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England." with the link to http://www.ugle.org.uk/about/foreign-grand-lodges. Adding the UGLE to the list would NOT be a mountain of work (because I have som e tricks up my sleeve). If someone gets me a list of Grand Lodges recognized by the Grand Lodge of Scotland I could add it as well. This would yield a result of a reader looking at the list and seeing that some Grand Lodges have a number of items in thier outside organizations list while some Grand Lodges have few or none. Eric Cable  |  Talk  18:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I think Blueboar's suggestion is excellent, if either of you can access the resources. A screed of columns for different GLs would be cumbersome to read and maintain. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I am going to go off and work on a draft version of what I have in mind (it will, I hope, make more sense when you see it). Drafting will probably take a few days (I won't be continuously on line), so please be patient. I will let you know when done... and then we will be better able to compare our visions on how to proceed and (hopefully) reach a consensus. All I can say now is... I strongly oppose highlighting any single GL's list of recognition. Blueboar (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand you strongly oppose highlighting any single GL's list of recognition and I understnad that anything you oppose will never happen because you are after all the self-proclaimed Grand Secretary of Wikipedia with life tenure (insert smiley face). What I was suggesting was adding UGLE to the already existing far right-hand column if applicable. With regard to your rewrite, try to keep the table code in multiple lines per item like it current is. Makes for easier editing later. Eric Cable  |  Talk  16:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Nah... You can be Grand Secretary (and do all the mundane work)... I've appointed myself Grand Master! (insert smiley). Seriously... we are all on the level here... and that means we are all entitled to disagree with each other. When editors disagree (as we currently do) the key is to turn to other editors and try to form a consensus. If there is a consensus to do things as you envision, no problem... I may not like it, but I would respect the consensus. All I ask is that you do the same (which, I think, you would).

As for my draft... Actually, I am considering something more drastic... a fundamental reorganization of the entire list. For example, instead of having each section group GLs by continent, I am thinking of grouping them by "recognition network" (although I am not sure if that is the right phrase to describe what I am talking about)... If this works the way I think it will, it would mean we no longer need a column for the various "external organizations"... as each organization would be grouped in its own separate section. I think this will resolve several issues we have been discussing... but I have to draft it up it before I know for sure (and I have to play with it a bit before I present it to everyone else to see if you like it or not). Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Svenska Kvinno-Frimurareorden i Finland

I removed this after not locating a reference to a Grand Lodge of this name. The paper reference supplied was to the number of lodges, and I get the impression that Swedish Women's Freemasonry in Finland is a description, rather than the name of a GL. Anybody know anything different? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed re-organization

In the sections above, we have been discussing various ways to indicate "recognition networks" without giving undue weight to any single Grand Lodge's list of who is and is not recognized. I mentioned that I had some ideas (I think I have come up with a concept that works) ... and that these ideas involves a complete restructuring of how the page is organized... but since I was having difficulty explaining what I had in mind, I said I would go off and create a user-draft version so everyone could actually see what I was talking about. I can now present an initial version... see: User:Blueboar/drafts - Grand Lodges (rewrite)

It is obviously not complete... but it is now far enough along that it should give you a rough idea of what I have in mind.

Please NOTE: what I am presenting is not set in stone... it is an early stage concept. If you like the concept we can move on to discussing specifics about it. If not... no problem... we can try to find some other solution.

I welcome comments, suggestions, and criticism. Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

At first glance I think you're doing a lot of work to make it "perfect" when perfection in this case is not going to be achieved. First of all calling one group "Mainstream" seems to fly in the face of what you're been trying to do. Won't some Grand Lodges be listed twice? For example wouldn't the PHA GL of North Carolina be listed under "mainstream" and PHA? I think the list the way you're going at it will be confusing, especially to non-Masons. Eric Cable  |  Talk  19:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure it works as a main list. If I was looking for the Grand Orient of Utopia, and didn't have a clue as to affiliation, I'd be a bit annoyed at having to scan a pile of lists. I also need to point out that Droit Humain has not rejoined CLIPSAS - do they get their own table?

Answering own question, why not? And why not have these useful lists either stand-alone or appended to relevant articles, and linked to the last column of the geographical list? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I like your work, Blueboar. One unconventional way to weed out the non-serious organizations is to default sort jurisdictions by verifiable date of grand lodge founding, a bar which would be difficult for the fraudulent groups to pass. Not a problem for unrecognized but regular groups. (Some would quibble over my phrasing here, thinking these are mutually exclusive characteristics. They're not.) Maybe not as convenient as alphabetical, but it would highlight the distinction. Also, to Eric's point, I think the most extensive use of this will be by Masons. By weighting this toward groups that have demonstrably more lodges, references and a longer pedigree, I would maintain that it is still fair, according to Wikipedia:Weight. I further have no problem listing the PHA GLs among the other US GLs, if we put in a note for the ten southern holdouts that don't recognize PHA at all. In my experience, those other 41 jurisdictions in the US that do recognize PHA grand lodges do so with some, but not all; and that those still unrecognized simply haven't asked. Jax MN (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

In regards to the PHA GLs ... the problem is that it isn't just the southern holdouts. PHA recognition is very complex... While most of the "Mainstream" GLs have decided to recognize any PHA GLs that are recognized by their respective "Mainstream" GL... some have adopted different rules that give different results. Some of the "Mainstream" GLs have gone ahead and simply recognized all of the PHA GLs as a block (regardless of what the local state "Mainstream GL" says)... Others recognize the PHA GL in their state... but not the ones in other states (or only recognize some of the ones in other states). It's all in flux right now, and every year it seems to change. That's why listed them as a "sub-network" ... they are generally (but not universally) recognized as being within the mainstream network... but there are enough significant disagreements when it comes to the specifics of who actually recognizes who, that listing them in a sub-section was the only way I could indicate their status and still maintain a Neutral Point of View.

The idea of a "sub-network" also worked for the various Mexican GLs... which are recognized by most US and Canadian GLs... but not recognized by the three UK GLs. Blueboar (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Heh. These treaties are always in flux. Respectfully, your emphasis may be a little off, here. These matters move very slowly, but they do move. I would rather not gum recognition facts up by attempting to, 1) summarize a present case snapshot of the recognition map, nor to, 2) legitimatize a partial step toward full recognition as anything other than a tepid mid-way point. You've heard of jurisdictions that "recognize but don't offer intervisitation," correct? Really - How silly is that, eh? It's a stop on the way to full recognition, that's all. Now, I grant that this may be more of a problem of structure and syntax, versus legalism. If so, by all means, make use of sub-networks, but I think we can provide as much clarity by leaving matters of specific recognition to the GLs themselves, while we paint with a broader brush. Mainstream, PHA, Canadian conference and Mexican conference GLs should all be listed in the mainstream list. That's how almost four fifths of the US jurisdictions see it. The rest is detail that may be found in the Pantagraph, or from a specific grand lodge. Jax MN (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: You've heard of jurisdictions that "recognize but don't offer intervisitation,"... No, I have never heard of that before. Could you give me an example? Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: ...Mexican conference GLs should all be listed in the mainstream list. That's how almost four fifths of the US jurisdictions see it.... but it's not how the UK Jurisdictions (and probably others) see it. That's the problem. We can't favor a US POV over a UK POV (or vise versa) and maintain a Neutral POV. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I am beginning to think that we simply can't indicate recognition in a way that maintains NPOV. No matter how we try to do it, we end up giving undue weight to particular viewpoints. Perhaps it would be better to scrap the idea of indicating recognition completely? Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I don’t think scrapping the idea completely is needed. I would suggest leaving the format as-is. Then change the header of the far right-hand column from “External Organizations” to “Affiliations and Recognition.” Then add an acronym to the bottom list for any Grand Lodge who publishes its list of recognition. Then add the acronym (with a link to the bottom) to each recognized grand lodge in the list. For example, add GLBC&Y to the list at the bottom and then add the GLBC&Y note to the far right-hand column to each GL listed here [1]. In doing so you are maintaining neutrality because you are 1) merely stating the face a certain GL is recognized by another GL or member of some other organization such as the CGMNA and 2) only including Grand Lodges at the bottom who publish their lists. You could also include a statement at the bottom that says “Note that individual Grand Lodges of U.S. States are not included as it would make the list to cumbersome, not all state grand lodges publish their list of recognition in easy to access format, and finally membership in the Council of Grand Masters of North America (CGMNA) usually indicates mutual recognition. Eric Cable  |  Talk  15:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: CGMNA... The first problem is that while membership in CGMNA usually indicates mutual recognition... it does not always indicate mutual recognition (there are members of CGMNA that don't recognize each other).

The second problem is that using CGMNA to indicate "Affiliation and Recognition" actually misrepresents what CGMINA is and does. All CGMNA is is a yearly gathering of Grand Masters to discuss issues of mutual concern. It most definitely does not determine "recognition or affiliation". It does not issue any statement as to who is recognized or not recognized. Yes, sometimes it makes a recommendation in support of granting recognition (or witholding/withdrawing recognition). However, that recommendation just that... a recommendation. It is absolutely not binding on any of the GLs. Each GL determines who it does and does not recognize completely on its own, and is free to accept or ignore the recommendation of CGMNA as it chooses.Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The right-hand column of the list could simply be called Comments and then list CGMNA as appropriate with a link to the CGMNA comments at the bottom where CGMNA could be defined as you state above, UGLE could indicate "Recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England" GLS could indicate "Recognized by the GL of Scotland", etc. So in that aspect, if we say CGMNA all we are saying is they are a member of that organization. Eric Cable  |  Talk  16:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If we want to indicate "recognition or affiliation" in a column, without any POV... each GL listed would have to have over 100 separate notes indicating which other GLs recognize it and which do not. Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

You keep bringing this up in your well-intended efforts to make the list perfect. However, if we indicate that the Comments (far right-hand column) are "incomplete" then we could include a disclaimer in the header of the Comments section (at the bottom) saying "Not every mutual recognition Grand Lodge relationship is listed for the sake of space, blah blah." Eric Cable  |  Talk  16:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Responding to several comments, and breaking my answers into paragraphs, I think this is do-able, and need-ful, even if hard. First, to answer Blueboar's query, I looked to see if I happened to have my copy of Pantagraph, where I'd last read of this situation. I sometimes have it in my car. Sadly, I left it at home today. Until I can reference it, I'll do this by memory. At least one of the jurisdictions that recently moved to "normalize" relations with their PHA counterpart in their state has Recognition but not Dual Membership as their policy. They may go so far as to preclude intervisitation for the time being, but I will have to check on that. For them, essentially, the big breach in the dam has been made, but some clean-up has to be finished by future action of another grand master. Meanwhile, many of the French jurisdictions maintain what they consider to be a lower level of cooperation, defacto recognition, while still disallowing intervisitation, dual membership, or other aspects of a full blown recognition agreement. Remember that theirs is the language of diplomacy, and Frenchman relish nuance. Therefore, Recognition ain't always recognition.

I've negotiated these treaties. All they are are letter agreements setting forth terms of mutual cooperation. There is no definitive set of terms that the treaty must contain. The problem for those of us trying to write Wikipedia entries about this is that there is no universal agreement on the definition of terms such as Masonic "regularity," "irregularity," "recognition," "clandestine," "bogus," "amity," etc. It makes communication between some jurisdictions difficult, too, because of preconceptions on both sides as to the meaning of these words. It takes a while for a good grand secretary or foreign relations leader to get the hang of it.

A third example: Whether or not UGLE recognizes a grand lodge or not is not the same as whether they understand them to be Regular. All 51 jurisdictions in the USA (I think) recognize the "Grand Orient of Italy," while the UGLE does NOT. Instead, the UGLE recognizes the "Regular Grand Lodge of Italy." (Names in English, for convenience here.) US Masons, if asked, may give a mis-mash of responses as to whether they think the RGLI is regular or not, but when it comes down to it, GL officers will describe the RGL of I as "regular, but non-recognized" rather than declaring that they are clandestine. Such would be tantamount to declaring that UGLE recognizes clandestine grand lodges. There are several other examples I know of where UGLE doesn't recognize a group, but they wouldn't take negative action about any of us in the US who do. (Conversely, there ARE groups that are considered irregular and clandestine by UGLE, to the point where they would reconsider recognition of a group already in their camp that chooses to make a treaty with such a disfavored organization. The UGLE is more quick to act on this in cases of English and French speaking GLs. I know of some of these two-steps-away problems with Spanish-speaking lodges, but no one in the UGLE has seemed to take action about it. So, I'd frame this club of mainstream GLs more broadly to this end: This is a group among whom we can all correspond with at least a basic level of mutual respect for each other's existence, and we have a pretty good idea of how we each handle the common-to-us Standards of Recognition. Even if some southern jurisdictions, both traditionally black or traditionally white will mis-use the terms and call each other irregular, this is not the same from the truly bogus groups discussed earlier on this Talk page. From this rather large group of grand lodges come the ones we as grand lodges choose to Recognize. And that, to my earlier point, is what should be left to their individual offices to communicate.

Finally, to Blueboar's last comment, not quite right: CGMNA does not make (positive) recommendations about recognition. Instead, its Commission on Recognition investigates to its own satisfaction whether a group meets the standards of recognition previously accepted by CGMNA, and reports on those findings. You are right, though, that a big fat column would be needed to attempt to note all recognition treaties. And I think that means you and I agree that that specific item is outside the scope of this list. Best regards to you all, Jax MN (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

External Organizations

I have been trying to figure out why the "External Organizations" column is unsatisfactory... and perhaps the problem is that the purpose of the column is unclear. It was not intended to be about "recognition or affiliation". But that got me wondering what it's purpose actually is... and in trying to answer this, I hit a snag... While belonging to one of these external organization does imply some degree of cooperation and coordination between Grand Lodges... the purpose of each of the different organizations (what they are cooperating and coordinating about) is not the same from one organization to another.

To make an analogy... what we have done may be similar to creating a list of nations, and noting which are members of the EU, which are members of OPEC, which are members of NATO, etc. All of these organizations imply cooperation and coordination... but the purpose of that cooperation and coordination is very different for each organization. We end up comparing apples to oranges. Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

To use your analogy..if you had a list of nations and had a column titled "Notes" then you could put NATO, OPEC, EU, etc. in that column and at the bottom the the list define each term. Easy peasy. Eric Cable  |  Talk  17:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

A notes column would also assist with cases like DH or GLNF, whose current status is more complicated. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we're on the right track. Now to see if it can be accomplished. What are you thinking, regarding what our top-level headings will be, versus secondary, versus tertiary? The old list has the top level as "Continent" Is that your plan, then, to keep this structure, with Africa as the first section (alphabetically) and within it, subsections for CLIPSAS, then Mainstream - call it "Standard US/UK Masonry". The "Mainstream" moniker is so often used to compare/contract our club of grand lodges to the Prince Hall Association (PHA) lodges. Hypothetically, if I could, I would call them out as Mainstream too, while using a third level categorization to describe their particular club (PHA, CGMNA, etc). But "Mainstream" is already a loaded word. Didja know that some of the PHA grand lodges call us "George Washington Grand Lodges?" Interesting take, but also politically loaded. Hmmm... "Standard US/US Masonry." "Standard Masonry"... I don't think any group is using that word... It's counterpart in the Grand Orient of France world is "Cosmopolitan." Jax MN (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomenclature is a bugbear of this project, since there is no general concensus anywhere. The first problem here is designating the mainstream style of masonry while maintaining neutrality. Standard/Mainstream are both words linked to local normality - Liberal Freemasonry is Standard in quite a few countries. What about "US/UK Regular"? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can't use "regular"... that is the single most POV term is all of Masonry. Blueboar (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Having established that regular is nobody's property, but the liberal masses don't want it, I think its qualified use is perfectly acceptable. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It would require several paragraphs worth of "qualifying". Also, uninformed readers will wonder why GLs that have the word "Regular" in their names (like the "Regular Grand Lodge of England") are not included in the "US/UK Regular" section. Yet more qualifying. Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

For arguments sake, here are four broad families of grand lodges, each of which I think would approve of this terminology, and which, I believe, would provide us a workable family identifier for all the lodges on our List of Grand Lodges:

• UK/US Standard Grand Lodges (including the three premier GLs of England (UGLE), Scotland and Ireland, the 51 mainstream and 37 PHA GLs in the US, and the jurisdictions that many of these, in turn, generally recognize globally.
• Continental Grand Lodges (in the orbit of the Grand Lodge of France (GLdF), multiple nations)
• Cosmopolitan Grand Lodges (in the orbit of the Grand Orient of France (GOF), multiple nations)
• Non-aligned Grand Lodges (including PHO organizations, and the groups that don't fall into the other three categories.

Jax MN (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This is very much from the synoptic perspective of the "Regulars" (UK/US standard) who, to be fair, are more or less singing from the same hymn sheet. Outside of this club, the differences between Continental, Cosmopolitan and Non-aligned are fuzzy. The French have a three-fold classification:-

• Regular/Traditional - the form of ritual, traditional being the Modern's/French form.
• Masculine/Progressive - Male only or other permutations.
• Dogmatic/Adogmatic - Do you really need a Great Architect?

Somewhere in this mess we also need to fit the mixed rite and Egyptian/Memphis-Misraim GLs. The main problem with classification is probably going to be the grades of acceptance within mainstream UK/US GLs. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Fiddler makes a good point... before we can settle the issue of what to name the various factions that exist in Freemasonry, we have to settle the issue of where do we draw the lines between these factions. The problem is that "where to draw the lines" depends on who you are talking to. Different groups of Masons use different criteria when drawing the lines between "us and them". In the UK and the US, Masons tend to use Recognition (and its sub-criteria of Regularity) to define "us and them"... the French, on the other hand use Ritual and Practice to define "us and them". These different ways of dividing the world overlap... but they are not the same. Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Taking a step back

We started the discussion (several weeks ago) to address the concern that this list includes small non-notable (and potentially fraudulent) GLs. More importantly it presents them on an equal footing with the larger, very notable GLs... as if they are all equally "legitimate" (Note - I'm using the word "legitimate" in its broadest sense here - not meaning "regular" or "recognized"). The goal was to separate "the wheat from the chaff".

I think we reached an agreement that the way to resolve this issue, and achieve the goal was to change the inclusion criteria... to require that..

1. An independent source be cited (to establish that someone other than the entity itself agrees that the GL exists and actually is "a Masonic Grand Lodge")...
2. An article exist on the GL (to establish that it is a NOTABLE Masonic Grand Lodge).

Are we still in agreement on this?

If so... I would suggest that we start by bringing the current list into sync with those new inclusion requirements. Once we remove the GLs that don't meet our new inclusion criteria, we may find that there is no longer a need for further reorganization... and if there is, we may have a clearer picture of how to reorganize. Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not keen. As I previously pointed out, leaving GLs off the list until an article appears will bias the list towards the interest areas of our editors. As Blueboar pointed out, having the wibbly little GLs coralled here is some sort of protection against more useless stub articles. Most importantly, making the list inclusive will avoid endless arguments about notability.

However, I think having an external reference is essential. Simply using this, I have already removed a number of entrys. With the caveat that we need a comments column, I believe at the end of this exercise we will have an article close to what Eric had in mind when he posted on the project talk page. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. And just for the record, my concerns have been with how we achieve the goal of separating "wheat from chaff"... not with the goal itself. Blueboar (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

GO USA

I simply can't find ANY external reference that states that the Grand Orient of the USA has any existence outside of its own website, and other websites doubt its physical existence. In other words, I can't confirm anything outside of the GL's own assertions - NO reliable references were found. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK, it's defunct. I think masonicinfo has something on it, but that's about it. MSJapan (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... It certainly used to have a real existence (something like four extremely tiny lodges, located in various cities around the US). However, I had not considered that it might have gone defunct once Grand Orient de France withdrew recognition (back in 2011). I note that Chris Hodapp has not mentioned them on his blog since 2011 (see here)

OK... I concur... we do need some evidence that they still exist, and are more than just a website. I will also remove the short paragraph on them that we have in the Continental Freemasonry in North America article. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sources

OK... I think we need to further discuss sourcing... and what sources are appropriate for which bits of information:

1) First, we need to cite sources to establish that the GL actually exists ... Fiddler has been working on this (thanks and keep going) by adding citations in the NAME column. However, I think we need to go a step further... and establish some form of legitimacy (NOTE: I'm not talking about regularity or recognition here... I am talking about establishing that the GL is more than just a scam website). To do that, I think we need a citation to a third party... something other than the GL's own website. Here are our choices:

• First choice - Scholarly/Expert sources (Lodges of Research, respected experts like Paul Bessel, etc.)
• Second choice - Media, governmental, and other non-Masonic sources.
• Third choice - Websites of other (independent) GLs... and Parent Bodies (such as CLIPSAS, PHO National GL, etc.) The key here is that the other GL or Parent Body should itself be considered a "legitimate" entity by third parties (ie more than just a website making unsupportable claims).

2) Once we establish that the GL exists and is considered "legitimate", we then need to be able to cite things like the date of founding, how many lodges and members it has, etc. I think we can use a GL's own website for that.

To give an example... I note that (currently) we support the inclusion of the Grand Lodge of Colorado with a citation to its own website ... I think we should replace that citation with an external source (such as Bessel's website, a newspaper article that mentions it, UGLE's list of recognized Grand Lodges, or something from COGMINA, etc.) ... however, once we do that, we could cite the GLoCO website to support the info in the other columns.

Thoughts or concerns? Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

This was my original plan, before I realised how many broken links and malformed references there are in the list. At the moment, I'm working my way through just fixing stuff, and finding a link to the GL website where there is no reference. References can get tightened up when we have a better starting point, probably in a few days when my eyes have uncrossed.

My only concern is with the age of Paul Bessel's stuff. I don't mind using it, but I think it needs checked. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

RE: "...and finding a link to the GL website where there is no reference." That's really what I was addressing... I don't think we should cite the GL's own website in the primary column... only for the supporting info like foundation, number of lodges etc. If the only source we have for the existence of a GL is its own website, we should probably discuss removing it from the list. But if you want to do some preliminary citation format fix work before getting to that, I fully understand. I will follow along and try to help out. Blueboar (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The thinking is simply that the GL's site gives some sort of confirmation of existence, and can be mined for other data. I was saving the external reference for the second pass.

Reason number two is that a couple of our old references looked like legitamate URLs for the GLs they were describing, but turned out to be weird Japanese sites. I have no idea why a string of high class Japanese knocking shops would want to cybersquat the Grand Lodge of Armenia, but it started me checking everything. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow... now that's a GL with unique landmarks! Blueboar (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Returning to this little exercise after fixing computer, I'm re-evaluating. Deleting the Grand Orient of the USA was a bit of a wake up call. What I am now trying to do is to double-reference each Grand Lodge. Ideally, one of these will be the GL's own website. I reason that the site is useful as a data mine for other editors/researchers, and future failures are useful diagnostics of a disappearing entity. Failing this, I'm using a Bessel reference. Both, I now realise, need backed up by an external reference that isn't derived from Paul Bessel or Wikipedia. If I can't produce evidence of actual lodges (plural), or some sort of recognition by a major GL or a group of minor GLs I can nail down, I think it has to go. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent removals

Fiddler, I applaud your continued work on improving this list... but I suggest going a bit slower. Removing a GL from the list can be very controversial.. so I would like discussion (or at least explanation) here on the talk page before a grand lodge is actually removed. I think it is important to have a record of consensus... and something to explain why a particular grand lodge was removed. It is also important to give others a chance to question or object to the removal if they wish to do so.

My request is inspired by your recent removal of several of the smaller "Prince Hall" type GLs in Alabama and Alaska, All were sourced to Paul Bessel's page (which I consider a very reliable source). I don't necessarily object, but I do question whether they should have been removed. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bessel website is not currently being updated. I get a lot of circular references obviously taken from there or this page, with little else to back them up. I'm pretty certain the Sons of Solomon have folded as a corporate entity, some of the others don't have a verifiable presence in the state I've removed them from, although they do exist elsewhere. Yes, I'm being ruthless, but I'm trying to be thorough, checking every mention of each small GL on the web. If we can't verify that a GL exists, meets masonically, and has more than one lodge, it really shouldn't be here. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Further to the above, I've just removed three supposed GL's in Arizona. One dates back to 1925, but at present none have either an address or a telephone number. Surely complete invisibility is grounds for deletion? If we discuss each one, this exercise will take all year. As it is, it will probably take weeks. I intend to do a couple of states a day, which should be adequate space for objections, and might stop me going mad from boredom. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I think your reasoning is sound... again, I don't necessarily object to the removals... but I still think it is important have some record on the talk page of which GLs you are removing, and an explanation of why you removed them. I think taking the time to explain each removal will actually forestall unnecessary arguments and discussions... as everyone will be better able to understand exactly why the "Most Worshipful Hooha Grand Lodge of Foobar" is being removed. Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Duly noted, and thanks. I'm a bit perplexed by the phantom Grand Lodges. My best explanation of how they came to be on Bessel's list is historical incursions from other states that are still seen as a potential threat by the regular GLs, even though the "bogus" GL responsible has ceased to exist/pose a threat. I noted in passing that Illinois`are still sore about an incursion from outstate King Solomon GL back in 1904. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The explanation of how these entities came to be on Bessel's list is simple... he was being as comprehensive as possible. If an entity existed (at the time he was compiling his list), he included it. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

OK... looking at some of your edit summaries, I have to ask... what is wrong with "corporate presence"? Blueboar (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

"Corporate presence" means the organisation has registered as a fraternal organisation or a charity. Some of these which I have left in, re-referenced, are under scrutiny and likely to have their status revoked. If there are no actual lodges attached, the GL could be anything from speculative territorial invasion to a simple tax fraud, or worse. Bogus companies are much more complicated than bogus Grand Lodges, and a great big legal quagmire we should really avoid. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I want to make sure that you are aware of the background as to why so many PH grand lodges are not registered as a Fraternal Order or charity (but are instead registered as corporations, with an "Inc." after their names). It has to do with Federal and State tax laws, and the limitations they set on the type of "charitable" activity an entity can engage in.

Back in the days of segregation and (overt) racial prejudice, most insurance companies and banks would not do business in the black community. The PH Masons wanted to help their communities by filling this void, but they could not do so if they registered as a "Fraternal Order" with the tax authorities. By intentionally not registering as a "fraternal order" under the tax code - and instead incorporating as a "for profit" company, they could sell insurance and make small business loans.

In other words... in at least some cases, being an "Inc." can itself actually be evidence of charitable (Masonic) activity in the community. Of course, there are those who have figured out that they can use the good reputation attached to the name "Freemasonry" to make themselves money (and a few of these incorporated GLs are outright scams)... I just wanted make sure you to understand that having an "Inc." after the name does not necessarily equate to "bogus freemasonry". Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, thanks for that. I wasn't really paying much attention to whether the body was fraternal, charitable, or simply Inc, simply that it appeared in business directories. This was quite useful a few weeks ago in tracing the doings of RGLE offshoots in the USA. Some never were, some had folded, some had dumped RGLE and formed their own associations. These, however, had other traceable activities that were obviously masonic. When a GL has a business address and no other footprint, the careful thing to do is remove it. Anybody, after all, can call themselves a Grand Lodge - even if they have never been a Freemason. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we are thinking along similar lines. Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've just completed a first pass of Africa, which has taken MUCH longer than anticipated. I anticipate doing this in three passes, the first to find confirmation (or otherwise) that our jurisdictions still exist, the second to reference or delete other information, and possibly a third to put in other bodies recovered from lists (like UGLE Districts) and not yet entered. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Fiddler... could you hold off on your clean-up for a week or so?... As I stated above, I am working on my own draft re-write... and I am considering proposing some fundamental changes to the basic organizational structure of the list.

I want to avoid a situation where you and I both spend a lot of time and effort working at cross purposes. I know that if our positions were reversed, I would be very upset if I had spent hours researching information, only to have you propose a version that did not include any of the information I had just researched. I don't want to upset you like that. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I'll save the current changes to my sandbox and let you get on with it. I can always put references back in. Thanks for that. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I've been adding well-documented grand lodges from the Pantagraph "List of Lodges" book. This reference is used by all CGMNA grand lodges, and is very influential among UGLE-friendly European jurisdictions and CMI jurisdictions. Three questions have come up which those more expert than me in Wikipedia layout will surely know. First, where should we list Caribbean jurisdictions? Are they correctly placed in Central America, or should we append the section title for North America to read "North America and Caribbean"? Geologists state that the continent ends with Panama, and includes all the Caribbean, but many average readers don't make that connection and assume this means anything south of Mexico is 'Central'. Second question: Would one of you be able to jigger the template for the Central and South American section to create another column, for country? It would be similar to how the North America section is done. The reason this makes sense is the addition of all the Brazilian and Columbia state jurisdictions. Third, have you come across an actual organization of the European jurisdictions? There was talk of forming a European COGM-organization a few years ago, but I don't know if it came to fruition. Many of the largest don't show any affinity, which would indicate to a low-information reader that they are less globally connected, which is certainly not true. Jax MN (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

To the above, I would ask where we ought to put the new GL of Tahiti. Perhaps amend the Australia section to include Oceania? Jax MN (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Australasia & Oceania seems fine. Bit vague on Central America, probably best putting Caribbean GLs here, and the Atlantic island states with North America. If we abolish Central America, it might be useful to have North America (USA), and North America (Others). There is still no formal umbrella organisation for European regular GLs. Maybe we should run re-organising South America as a separate topic to obtain consensus. I don't mind doing it, but it would be a pain in the proverbial to have it reverted. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Bulgaria

There are at least three, if not six or seven grand lodges operating in Bulgaria. The two largest, the GLAFAMBG and UGLB are schismatic off the same parent which was formed in 1997, while a third, much smaller group, the GLB, claims an old pedigree from the GLdF in 1917 but which established itself in 2010. That's as fair as I can put it. I wish to provide a new Talk discussion section this to help explain to partisans of all sides (again) what this page is for: This page lists existing, referenced, independently verifiable grand lodges. A short time ago, an anonymous user from Sophia, Bulgaria, deleted the English language Wikipedia listing for the Grand Lodge of Bulgaria, on the List of Masonic Grand Lodges. Without rationale, this deletion breaks the rules we have established for inclusion, and I reverted it.

Masonically speaking, the Bulgarians are in a turf war. They can battle this out elsewhere. But without proof that a group that we know existed has now ceased to exist, the listing ought to stay on Wikipedia. Jax MN (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

We may also have issues with the self-published refs for GLAFAMB. I found two blogs that give the number of lodges as 20. I can't use them as they are paranoid anti-masonic drivel, and in one case openly antisemitic, but I find the similarities between the figures for GLAFAMB and UGLB worrying. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I've asked for independent references from my sources, as I don't speak Bulgarian. However, I've seen lists of lodges, extensive regalia and photos of known persons at their major events, I've seen government certified copies of real estate transactions for multiple buildings, newspaper clippings, and over several years have met with at least a dozen members of both of the major groups, and two or three from the small GLB group. Thus I have a 'strong suspicion that all three are legitimate for the purposes of this list. But we need those citations, regardless. Jax MN (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm convinced that all three exist, we just have to be wary of partisan anonymous edits. I don't speak Bulgarian, but I read Cyrillic, and most masonic sites in the world share a very limited vocabulary. A bit of Russian and the English loan-words used by masons were surprisingly helpful. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Paul Bessel (again)

I now realise that "All Masonic Grand Lodges in the United States" is not a good source. He really has tried to list anything that claims to be a masonic GL. Finding the GL with the address in the parking lot clinched it. Others have historical significance, but haven't been heard of since the 1950s, or earlier. Basically, anything purported or historically known to be a masonic GL is on the list. Some established their existence through lawsuits which are still quoted as precedent. Many have disappeared, or been absorbed into regular Prince Hall masonry before the list was compiled. Other Bessel lists are useful and sound - this one isn't. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Syntax

I've been experimenting with how an entry would be best formatted. It will take a little more work, but considering these two examples, what do you think about following these models? Sorry if this is a repeat of an earlier discussion. I hadn't seen it, and wanted to provide a reference for future editors.

Example Continent Section

Country or Greater Geographical Area	State, Province, or Other Geographical Area	Grand Lodge Name	Founded	Lodges	Members	External Organizations
France		Grand Orient de France (Grand Orient of France) (GOdF or GOF)	1728 / 1773	1,150	52,000	AMIL, IMF, SIMPA
Mexico	Coahuila	Gran Logia "Benito Juarez" del Estado de Coahuila (Grand Lodge of the State of Coahuila, "Benito Juarez")	1890	24	284	CGLREU

Notes:

Country and ~State. In most sections, we would (I would) add a state/province column, which would remain empty if a jurisdiction served the entire nation. Nation-wide grand lodges would be listed ahead of ~state grand jurisdictions in that nation, even if sovereign.

Name. The actual name, (and in non-English nations usually the non-English name) would be first, followed by an English translation, and then by an abbreviation if it is commonly used. My thinking is that since this is the English version of Wikipedia, a translation is necessary, but the original jurisdictional name should lead for purposes of accurate identification. Further, we may generally dismiss prefixes and modifiers such as "A.F. & A.M", "Most Worshipful" etc., where they are not needed to help clarify an identity against a rival, yet should include terms like "Legal" as in the case of Portugal, "Regular" and/or "National" when used as part of the name, where it helps designate from another jurisdiction, etc. Links to that jurisdiction's website should go in this field, after the name. Wikipedia links would be used here, as available, either linking the original language name to its non-English language Wikipedia site, or the translated name. Names are listed alphabetically, by their actual name, not the translation.

Date. Correct date formats would be the year of founding, normally, unless there were some controversy that requires the specific day. In addition, if a grand jurisdiction was re-founded, a second date, separated by slash, would be allowed.

References. Where a reference supports multiple data points for that entry, it would be placed after the last applicable data point. Web access syntax in a reference should be noted "accessed 2 March 2014" or similar.

External Organizations. These should be listed with Wikipedia links to the definition of that external group, below, with multiple entries separated by commas. We should move all but acronyms to the list below, to allow this column to be more narrow.

Jax MN (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Note to prospective editors, user ДМ and anonymous folks

This page is subject to much scrutiny from many editors and watchers. Your interest in making edits is appreciated, and we assume good faith. Therefore, we remind you to follow the guidelines we've discussed here at great length, and of course the general Wikipedia Talk page guidelines.

In brief, information added or changed must have independently-verifiable citations, preferably links. The lack of citation is why most changes get reverted. Several of us are in process of verifying all listings and all references, and have found that a number of small grand lodges once cited, have ceased to exist or perhaps only exist on paper. For example, we've found that many of the Bessel references have ceased to exist. Therefore, the bar we set, collaboratively, was that any group listed should have a verifiable physical location where masons actually meet, and be noted in an independent and valid reference citation. The intent was not to reflect issues of 'Masonic regularity', which would be another layer of complexity, but rather, to leave off the fictitious groups, groups that have died out or merged into another body, and the bogus groups that exist only online. Clues we look for include a verifiable citation of # of lodges, # of members, and a verifiable date of founding. When groups hide this stuff, and only allow a "Contact Us" page, it's a good indicator that while a group may be something, it isn't really a Masonic Grand Lodge.

Additionally, if YOU are interested in making edits, one thing that can help you and us is to create your own User page, linked to your login ID. Page editors (and automated bots) will leave you feedback there, and there they can provide more dialog and help than we can in the more public forum of the actual project's Talk page, like the one you are reading now. Jax MN (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

King Solomon Grand Lodge, Newark, New Jersey

For the record - I've just deleted this one because I can't find enough evidence to keep it in. However, my gut instinct says it is still running. The business listings say next to nothing (and less than is usual), however Google Street shows a well maintained building advertising OES. All I've got other than this is a lodge they chartered in Holland 20 years ago. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

If you have not seen it, take a look at the web page of the Phylaxis Society (Phylaxis is a lodge of research associated with PHA). The website is not well organized... but, if you dig around a bit, it has some decent information on the smaller Prince Hall style entities. I note that Phylaxis lists a "King Solomon Grand Lodge of New Jersey" in their "Bogus Freemasonry" section.

This at least demonstrates that KSGL has a real life existence (ie it is more than just a web-page). The fact that they have an actual physical building confirms this. Add to this the fact that they apparently have created their own version of OES for their ladies to join, and I think we can say that they are at least attempting to practice Freemasonry - even if it is an irregular form of Freemasonry. I would keep it. Blueboar (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the rest of the relevant Phylaxis page, Damascus is almost completely off the radar. I can definitely say that the Masonic Architects of the Universe were alive and practicing in 1997 but stopped talking to the IRS in 2009, now presumed defunct, and I'm only three down. Most of the Phylaxis pages have a similar problem. I don't mind using the site where a Grand Lodge has a piece specifically about it, but I don't value the state lists as a current reference, especially since this would allow a new infestation of dead, made up, and simply rumoured Grand Lodges. Which leaves one photograph of unknown age, which probably says King Solomon Grand Lodge above the OES bit, but the top of the porchway is, ironically, in the way. So I have their address but no proof that they meet there as Freemasons, or that they haven't leased the building but kept its name, or whatever you're having yourself. If they are still meeting, they will show up sooner or later and can be re-added. Given that a lot of these smaller GLs have fallen off the perch in the last 5 years or so, I won't hold my breath. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this; when we finally pull the trigger and promote this page onto the Freemasonry Project informational block, we'll see a big uptick of editing activity, and assuredly, those groups no longer (or not yet) listed will clamor for a position on the list. These too, will have to meet the reasonable bar we've set for independent citation. It will be a busy time for our editors... Jax MN (talk)

Grand Lodge Ancient Universal Mysteries

Something made me go back and look at this one again. The English operation is in Forres, which isn't in England. Checking the address, it's a small lock-up garage in Morayshire which probably contains a lawnmower, a selection of rusting tools, some old carpet and broken furniture. There is no mail box. Aside from the main lodge in New York, there isn't another address. Apparently (says the website) the first test is finding them.

Claiming responsibility is Maitreya Sangha, which is associated with the Seven Ray institute. The genius behind this lot is an ex-drummer called Keith Bailey. He has rewritten the blue lodge degrees to fulfill the requirements of the age of Aquarius (really) but by his own admission, hasn't attracted enough master masons to set up a lodge in any one country. He teaches meditation at the New York address, runs Seven Ray from Rutherford, NJ, the other lodges only seem to exist on the net. The whole thing is a New Age reinvention of Buddhism, masonry only on paper. Leaving a long note, because we'll probably see Bro Bailey again. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

US Grand Lodges

Having scythed out a number of these, it's probably good to leave a rough summary of what's gone and why. The main issue was Paul Bessel's list of Masonic Grand Lodges in the US, which we all assumed to at least have been reliable when it was compiled, but seems to have uncritically included reports from other sources without the most rudimentary checks. Many of the GLs deleted either disappeared decades ago, or never existed in the first place. Others supplied fictitious addresses, and with no other evidence of their existence were deleted on principle. A few had merged, or changed their names. The other large category was made up of Grand Lodges that had ceased to exist in the past decade of so. Some states are getting particular about the charitable status of bodies that don't donate to charity, and added to declining membership, the writing is on the wall for a lot of the smaller independent bodies.

There are maybe half a dozen that are gone simply because I couldn't find a reliable reference. My gut tells me that some or all of these may still exist, but with no reference I could not keep them in. Chief among these is the Sons of Haiti GL in Washington state. Their address was an electrical showroom in Renton. Their Seattle masons were mainly absorbed into Prince Hall in 1999, and they have since sold their main building in Seattle. However, they still meet in Oregon, and may still direct other small bodies. I just can't show that they still have a masonic presence in Washington. This needs attention, as we have an article on them. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Fiddlersmouth, yours has been an excellent book of work, and yeoman's duty. I've spot checked along with you, and conclude you have followed the rules that we set forth earlier for this project. For those following, his Bessel comments are correct. Our European friends still often report on Bessel's pages, as do some of non-Anglophile grand lodges who may participate in the World Conference of Grand Masters. But that's the way things go for solo-managed websites. The creators eventually move on to other things. For this List, however, there remains much to do. But it is in a far better state than it was several months ago. Jax MN (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree... Sure, had I been the one to make the decisions, I might have decided to keep one or two of the borderline cases Fiddler decided to remove ... Yet, I fully understand the logic behind what he did, and respect the judgement calls he made. It was strict, but fair. Please continue... we need to apply the same standards to the rest of the list. Blueboar (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

SOGLIA

I have nagging suspicions about SOGLIA. Checking an anonymous attribution of Grande Loja Regular do Rio Grande do Sul to the group, I noticed the Brazilian GL was Thelemite!? Scrolling down to the actual entry for SOGLIA, the reference is a joke. The Latin "motto" of Marea Lojă Regulară a României is taken from blockprint, it's nonsense. The site hasn't been updated since 2012. The words "Regular Grand Lodge" also make me twitch slightly, and I can now recognise them in languages I didn't know I understood. Does anybody know anything concrete about this lot? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Try here; it's a list of SOGLIA GLs: http://soglia.logiaindependencia.com/josite/ Jax MN (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a list of founders. The current list is something like this. I'm getting the impression that SOGLIA will let anybody join, and Gran Logia Patriotica del Perù will join anything. There are at least a couple of RGLE spinoffs in there, and the only connecting thread seems to be GLs who are so desperate for recognition they have decided to recognise each other. I'm not convinced the Romanians have anything other than grand officers. Filing Lorem ipsum off the front of blockprint and using it as a motto belongs in slapstick comedy. I'll keep digging. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Further to the above, I have found another website for RGL Romania. I suspect that our first one is an old site that has been hacked, and is probably poisonous. Now SOGLIA is even more bewildering. The Romanian website says they will not associate with mixed lodges, or GLs that indulge in politics or threw out God for not paying his subs, and they are now associating with Gran Logia Patriotica del Perù, liberal, adogmatic and mixed. This started as an association of disillusioned RGLE GLs. I suspect that RGLE now has a membership of almost two people, and will have to be removed. This means a stub article to explain the numerous international droppings it has left all over our table, unless anybody has a better idea. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you are correct in your analysis that SOGLIA is essentially a collection of tiny schismatic cast offs and self-promoting "wanna-be"s, desperate for someone to recognize them (and thus gathering to recognize each other)... but we can't let that influence our decisions on inclusion or exclusion. We need to neutrally apply our revised inclusion criteria... If a) there is more than just a self-published website to verify their existence, and b) we have no reason to question whether they (at least attempt to) practice Masonry (allowing for a reasonably flexible definition of "Masonry"), then we should include them. If not, take them out. We can always add them back again, if someone can come up with a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not... Brasil

An anonymous user (never a good way to elicit sympathy to one's edits) has added several Bolivian grand lodges. While his/her/their attempts to edit the page show an effort to make the tables work, nevertheless, they have obviously cut and pasted references and inserted dead end External Organization links. The author attempted to insert website links, which were of the scantest variety: facebook pages, no independent verification. Yet they follow the pattern of what might exist, aside from what I would guess are bloated numbers. What shall we do about this? I thought of rolling back all these edits, like seven of them, but then considering WP:NPV I thought rather to cut the erroneous refs that remained, and add question marks to un-verifiable information. Might you recommend any other changes? Here's the South American Bolivian section as it looked before I began to edit it today:

Country	State or Other Geographical Area	Grand Lodge Name	Founded	Lodges	Members	External Organizations
Bolivia	[The ref captured here as #6 is bogus for this purpose: Pantagraph only lists mainstream grand lodges; the Ex Org is hardly decipherable and not explained in the table of such orgs; Finally, I doubt the numbers, as 4,600 seems clearly lifted from the GLB line.]	Gran Oriente de Bolivia (GOB) (Grand Orient of Bolivia)	1901	12	4,600 [<--no way]	GLB-RAPM-GOF-RAPM, (GLB-RAPM-GOF-RAPM)
Bolivia	[This is the mainstream GL]	Gran Logia de Bolivia (GLB) (Grand Lodge of Bolivia)	1929	81	4,600 [<--this ref is OK here.]	CMI, (CMB)
Bolivia	[Ref 6 is bogus; and this is another RGLE High Council site. 500 men? Really??!]	Gran Logia Regular de Bolivia (GLRB) (Regular Grand Lodge of Bolivia)	2005	10	500 APROX. [<--no way]	ACMMM, (MHCMHCW)
Bolivia	[Ref 6 is bogus; are they verifiably CLIPSAS? And 1,000? Citation needed.]	Gran Logia del Rito de York en Bolivia (GLRYB) (Grand Lodge Rite of York of Bolivia)	1986	20	1,000 [<--no way]	CLIPSAS, (CLIPSAS)
Bolivia	[Ref 6 is bogus; are they verifiably CLIPSAS? And 1,000 in only 6 lodges? Round number... Citation needed]	Gran Logia Femenina Bolivia (GLFB) Feminine Grand Lodge of Bolivia")	2007	6	1,000 [<--bad ref. And 1,000? In six lodges? I don't think so.]	FAMAF, (CLIPSAS)

So, do we delete them like the many bogus or dead US grand lodges that existed in name only without a verifiable physical address, or do we keep them, removing undocumented member and lodge counts, as seems to be the case for the Masonic High Council and other RGLE spinoffs?

I'm deleting the false references. As to the rest, what do you say? Jax MN (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Gran Logia Femenina Bolivia looks promising, probably needs an extra reference. The web citation of the York Rite Body is the website of el Gran Logia de Bolivia, very amusing, and the rest can't be independently verified. Gran Logia Regular de Bolivia, in particular, repeats (in Spanish) the standard RGLE rubbish with lists of bodies which have either disappeared, never existed, or have escaped RGLE and changed their names. If it's not identical to Gran Oriente, then they are joined at the hip, as one web obituary makes clear. As these three bodies can't be independently verified, I suggest deleting them, and finding an extra ref for el Gran Logia Feminina. I'll give it some attention in the next few days. None of these are on the CLIPSAS list of members. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Soberano Santuario General de Memphis, Montauban 1815

This organisation has recently been removed from the list of External Organisations by an IP editor. Checking, a low-end free website that hasn't been maintained in two years is rarely a sign of institutional good health, so I didn't revert. This in place of an edit comment. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Translations of GL names

I think we may need to apply a bit of common sense here. We probably need to translate GL names if they use a different script, or come from a wildly different language group from English, but keeping originals and the English translation where the words are almost identical is just cluttered and unnecessary, and possibly insulting to the reader. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Why do we need to give the name in the "original" language at all? Why not simply translate all names into English and be done with it. This is the English language version of WP after all. Our audience is those who read and understand English. Blueboar (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Maintainence and checking are MUCH easier when we keep a note of what the GL is actually called, rather than the English approximations that have to pass for translation. I have no intention of learning Bulgarian or Moldovan, but checking for independent refs was much easier when I could copy and paste the original name. I also think it is common courtesy to list an organisation by the name by which it likes to be known. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is a question of preference (what a given GL likes to be known as)... I think we can take it as a given that the "official" name of a French Grand Lodge will be in French, the "official" name of a German Grand Lodge will be in German and the "official" name of a Moldovan Grand Lodge will be in Moldovan (etc.) It's not like they consciously choose to use those languages over another.

Look at it this way: The United Grand Lodge of England uses English for its "official" name... but I doubt they object to the fact that the German language version of Wikipedia translates the name into German (see their article: Vereinigte Großloge von England). And even if UGLE did object, I think helping readers understand the name is more important than respecting the linguistic preference of any individual GL.

That said... I do understand your point about maintenance and checking. We are still in the process of implementing our new inclusion criteria, and while that is ongoing, I have no objection to keeping the non-english names to aid us in that process. I would say translating the names into English could be postponed until we are done with our clean up. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

De.wikipedia also gives UGLE its English name on the first line of the article. The list on fr.wikipedia that provided the foundation of this one isn't consistent, but UGLE is unlikely to be confused with anybody else. However, places like Bulgaria, Moldavia and parts of South America have wibbly little Grand Lodges that are easily confused, some of which even try to pass themselves off as major lodges. Two of the Moldovan Grand Lodges have names with (arguably) the same English translation. If enough of these entities make the cut in terms of lodges and external references, we will need their original names to disambiguate. Maintenance is also about keeping the list sane after the current exercise has run its course. I don't thing what we have now in terms of naming is particularly broken, and I don't think having everything in English is necessarily helpful.

The last time this came up, there didn't seem to be any great concensus. I suggest we shelve this discussion until we are reasonably happy with the content of the list, then have a proper RFC on the mechanics and aesthetics of naming Grand Lodges. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Shelving the decision until later works for me. Blueboar (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Grand Orient Arabe Oecuménique

This GL seems to have disappeared. Crucially, the website that new members are directed to has folded. Plausible pseudo-academic stuff is still appearing on the internet, but all I've got on the ground is a PO box in a small Paris street with a butcher at one end and a bar at the other. Other addresses just look wrong (a private house and a major courtroom). The Orient was formed in 2010 with a new rite based on Shia Islam. In the same year, an event in Paris was posted on Facebook, many invited, nobody told the address. Looks now like smoke and mirrors, and many similarities to RGLE. Lodges where there should be no lodges, lots of internet material, no evidence of actual people on the ground. We have Grand Officers, no lodges, no members. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I would say remove... it can always be added back if we find a source to support that it is more than smoke and mirrors. Blueboar (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Morocco

Still trying to grasp the actual picture. La Grande Loge Unie du Maroc, the previous UGLE favourite, almost folded. It cut half its lodges adrift, and they have affiliated to La Grande Loge du Maroc, which I have added. The UGLE now favours the Regular GL of the Kingdom of Morocco, a schismatic group who didn't want either of the above, and the United GL, supposedly extinct, is clinging on with a few lodges. Sorting out refs and facts on the ground may take time. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like we should list all of them (at least for now). Remember that "who recognizes who" isn't the most important factor for inclusion here (I would call it a supporting factor, but not the key factor) ... what is more important is a reasonable indication of masonic activity. From what you say, the United GL still exists (in a rump form), and is still active (if diminished). I see no reason not to list it. Blueboar (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem isn't the logic of who to include, but finding supporting references that help me believe that they all exist as Masonic GLs in the real world. Getting a picture of what's actually going on is some help in finding possible stones to look under. The posting was partly an apology for what looked like being a messy, piecemeal job, and partly to leave some commentary on the problem. I'm reasonably happy with what's left. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)