Talk:Regular Masonic jurisdictions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Regular Masonic jurisdictions article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

	This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a project to improve all Freemasonry-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Freemasonry-related articles, please join the project.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Freemasonry To-do: edit purge Freemasonry COTW Improve to Featured status Freemasonry Improve Order of Quetzalcoatl More... Review Requests All regular Grand Lodges Listed for deletion Grammar corrections Need images Scottish Rite York Rite Sovereign Grand Lodge of Malta Wikify Mystic Order of Veiled Prophets of the Enchanted Realm Watch this list — Edit this list

I am confused by this Article... what is it really about? The title says "Regular Masonic Jurisdictions", but no where does it define what "regular" means. In fact, the Intro, and the sections on Minnesota and Prince Hall discuss "recongnition" more than "Regularity". These two terms are not quite the same. The section on Continental Europe and France does not discuss regularity or recognition at all. Why is it in the Article (as written)? I really think we need to do a major re-write.

I would propose the following outline:

• Start with a definition of the words "jurisdiction" and "regular" (as opposed to irregular). Discuss the difference and similarity between "regularity" and "recognition" (you can use the current UGLE v. RGLE as an exampe) and how one will effect the other.
• Discuss why recognition issues are important, and why consensus between GLs is needed (for example, if you were visiting a lodge in another juresdition, you need to know that everyone else in the room comes from a lodge or jurisdiction that your GL recognizes.)
• Include the fact that until recently most Grand Lodges held to the idea of "Exclusive Jurisdiction" (ie there can be only one recognized Grand Lodge in any given jurisdition.) and how this is changing.
• Use Prince Hall as an example of a "Regular" jurisdiction that was not "Recognized" and then discuss how this has recently changed (except in the southern states)
• Discuss the issue of Minnesota as an example of how recognition does not always meet with agreement (point out that Minnesota considered GLF to be "regular" but most other GLs did not agree, and so either withdrew recognition from Minnesota or threatened to do so until Minnesota dropped the idea)
• Discuss the Situation in France in more detail (Grand Orient, GLF, GLNdF) and how this complicates things in Europe.

Any thoughts? Blueboar 16:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Along with a major rewrite, I think we need to move it to another title. "Freemasonry and Regularity", maybe? You seem to have a pretty good grasp on what needs to be done here: looking forward to the results.--SarekOfVulcan 17:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

This is clearly an artiicle whose purpose is to justify the GLF, and as such, it's not NPOV. For example, the last five paragraphs do nothing but justify how GLF is supposedly regular, although no one else recognizes them. That pretty much needs to go entirely, as it does nothing wrt the title of the article. I would also point out that only some Southern states do not recognize PH, but furthermore, PH does have an exclusive jurisdiction clause. MSJapan 04:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"*Include the fact that until recently most Grand Lodges held to the idea of "Exclusive Jurisdiction" (ie there can be only one recognized Grand Lodge in any given jurisdition.) and how this is changing." Actually, Exclusive Jurisdiction is POSSIBLY an America Centric concept, as, for example, there are multiple GL's in Germany, and, in fact, while many American GL's claim to follow the American Doctrine of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction, in the issues with the GLdF and GLNF, a number of American GL's recognised both at the same time. See Paul Bessel's page on French Recognition. Regularity references could also cite from his page as well, as I found his work to be fairly neutral. --Vidkun 14:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• I edited the page piece by piece in order to give citations why with each summary. Not 3RR-eligible, it wasn't a war. I'm going to stop now, because if I go on much further, there's really not much left. I had to struggle not to delete the UGLE reference, as it's cited in the first paragraph of the above-linked Grand Lodges page. Plus it has that reference to Kilwinning..;-) From here, it pretty much needs a quick re-write to complete the stub. & even with that, citing PH & GLdF make it sound like an anti-PH & -GLdF page. Which sucks. We should also add Masonic usage of "Regular" & "Amity" to their Wiktionary entries, which I will try & look at doing as well, ASAP. Understand, I have NO enmity towards any of the Lodges, left or removed, & this is not in any way an act of animosity. Wow. so many descriptive words beginning with "A"...Grye 07:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RGLE - again! (sigh)

The Regular Grand Lodge of England article has popped up again!

Back in 2005 Aug/Sept my moves to delete this material (see AfD for MHC and AfD for RGLE) were mainly on the grounds that Rui Gabirro was spamming Wikipedia with crude copy-and-pastes from the RGLE website (and goodness knows there is plenty there to copy!). See for example this edit to the Grand Lodge article and all the others listed in User:RHaworth/RGLE (a note to myself).

My feeling is that the present RGLE article should be allowed to survive subject to the addition of a definitive statement as to its recognition by other Grand Lodges. But I am not a mason. My only concern is to keep Wikipedia tidy and authoritative, so I will leave it to bretheren to decide. -- RHaworth 20:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regularity discussion

I've tried to restructure and make the bits about regularity more useful than just saying 'its complicated'

Need to add point about UGLE identifying HFAF etc as freemasonry insamuch as the regularity issues are not acceptable.

Also need to highlight that Masonci interaction does not preculde discussions.

[edit] Prince Hall

I'm uncomfortable with:

The exceptions to these new recognitions are in the states of the former confederacy, where the mainstream Grand Lodges generally do not recognize their Prince Hall counterparts. Ironically, the Prince Hall Grand Lodges in states where they are recognized, also recognize the Prince Hall Lodges in the old confederacy area.

As it is a bit too much of a broad brush statement. Is there anything more specific about which southern GLs do not recognise PH and how they deal with mutual recognition of those GLs which do? ISTR that Texas is one which refuses to recognise that.ALR 08:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)