Talk:List of Freemasons/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Missing politicians

The list of famous Freemasons is missing a section for "politicians" or "national leaders" such as presidents, senators, prime ministers, etc. Given some of the most important leaders of the 19th and 20th centuries were Freemasons (i.e., FDR and Churchill), I think they deserve mentioning. Thank you. Rdi.

Please see the following link for a list of additional Freemasons by category: http://www.os2ss.com/connect/masons/famous.htm

The problem here is that we've suffered some vandalism. The very huge section of political leaders was removed, and due to wiki technical difficulties I haven't been able to revert it the last 2 days. Please stay tuned and/or, in the meantime, visit the main article's history.  :) ~ Bsktcase 18:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The list is purely alphabetical now, so this should be a n0n-issue...;~D
Grye 23:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kemal Ataturk

Kemal Ataturk listed as a Freemason. Is there a proof? Or is it a rumor? Aknxy 20:13, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Verify

You seem to forget the basic rule of wikipedia: Verifiability. The fact of being a mason (or rumored to be a mason) must be confirmed in the article about the person in question (or about a group of people). Otherwise the entry must be delisted.

I see lots of contribs by anons here. Who the heck is going to verify after them? Haven't you seen vandals lately? 00:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If someone cannot be proven to be a mason, but are attributed, it is possible they cannot be proven they were not freemasons, so Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view would indicate a list of "Attributed" masons, similar to wikiquotes.

[edit] Major cleanup

As with all other lists and all other things in wikipedia the major criterion is wikipedia:verifiability. I am going to scrap all this list and allow inclusion only if the coresponding article about a person mentions a fact or a notable rumor about masonry. This is the only way to ensure reasonable eyeballing of various ridiculous claims. mikka (t) 20:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

After a second thought it occurs that this would be very restrictive at the moment, therefore in addition I am asking you to certify that websites like this one and other listed in "Freemason" are reliable sources. I will going to mark all entries with sources (person's article, book ref or ext ref). The rest is good bye. mikka (t) 20:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, while some suspicious thing may sit here for a while unremoved (I am not an extremest deletionist), but no new additions without reputable sources and inclusion of the corresponding comment into the person's article for peer review are allowed since this moment. mikka (t) 03:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

so say i. this after wild goose chase i was doing after being assured that British magic society 'The Magic Circle' was a Lodge. Turns out they used to use a phrase 'doing the obligation' about taking their entrance exam, but that was it. Keep at it.Tiksustoo 16:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I will keep at it. But masons are a vary small blip on my radar, so I will do cleanup in a very slow pace, policing only new additions. mikka (t) 01:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed

  • Emir Habibullah Khan, Afghanistan. Lodge Concordia No. 3102, Calcutta, India

Unverified. mikka (t) 23:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Egypt

The claim of the listed person to be a Freemason was unverifiable by the Wiki article, and there appears to be no such thing as a Grand Lodge of Egypt. MSJapan 20:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

According to various sources, a Grand Lodge of Egypt actually did exist until the 1950s or 1960s, c.f. [1], [2] and according to [3], Muhammad Tawfik Pasha was sometime Grand Master. --Thf1977 21:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. Specifically 1871-1881, it seems, but I think it should be cited and added to his wiki bio article first. Otherwise it looks like an unsupported claim. MSJapan 22:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Estonia Entries

I have some misgivings about the entries for Estonia, none of them are cited anywhere and there's no way to accertain whether they are Freemasons or even exist for that matter. Could the person who placed Estonia's entries please provide a lodge number or a little more about the person?

I'd like to see this article have some historic and educational purpose and not just be a list of random names. In the meantime I am removing the Estonia section, refer to the 27th of August 2005 record if you require it. Jachin 11:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hungary

[edit] Pakistan

I just removed the above section because it was added with no citation. Does anyone have info about their membership?--SarekOfVulcan 19:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Turkey

Not confirmed in respective articles or elsewhere. mikka (t) 23:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald Reagan

  • "Ronald Reagan, 40th President of the U.S.A. Reagan was never initiated into a Lodge, but he was made an honorary Scottish Rite Mason".
    1. One must be of a Blue Lodge to be a SR Mason. How, at least where, exactly, was he made an "honorary Scottish Rite Mason"? Was he made an honorary member of SR right after he was made an honerary member of a Blue [etc, whatever you want to call it?] Lodge?
    2. Because actually, the making of an "Honerary Member" [in the USA] is extremely rare.
    3. & wait, list that here, because I'll call up on this one. Stat. Regardless, if he were made an SR Mason on sight, but never anything explicitely about 3rd degree, he was not a Mason, & his listing here should not occur.
    4. which Lodge(s)? I allege my Dawg is a mason, & he's [in]famous [in USA] but I'm not putting him on the list without a

citation, at least, verifiable or not. Grye 04:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

From masonicinfo's list: "President Ronald Reagan has sometimes been referred to as a Freemason but he is not. Some confusion as to his membership arises from a ceremony held in the Oval Office of the White House on February 11, 1988, when a group of Freemasons presented President Reagan with a Certificate of Honor from the Grand Lodge of Washington, D.C. He was also then made an Honorary Scottish Rite Mason. However, since the title of Freemason can only be conferred by a Grand Lodge of Masons, President Reagan should only be referred to as a Shriner (he is also an Honorary Member of the Imperial Shrine due to his extensive work with that organization over the years) or as an Honorary Scottish Rite Mason. The Shrine and Scottish Rite are concordant bodies and cannot confer the title 'Freemason' on any person. "
So, while he is a member of these other bodies, he never went through the initial degrees, and thus is not a Mason. MSJapan 06:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that's pretty close to my understanding, excellent digging MSJ Grye 08:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Jefferson

According to the second question here it clearly states at the very bottom that there is no evidence for Jefferson being a Mason, so I have removed him from "debated". Furthermore, the same page also has no evidence regarding any of the other debateds, so unless we have some solid info, that whole section needs to go. MSJapan 04:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

His picture appears among a large groups of Masons, all dressed in Masonic regalia in the Washington Masonic Memorial. While Jefferson's clothes are not visible, everyone else is dressed in Masonic regalia. And the caption states that the gathering took place after a Masonic event, and it points to Thomas Jefferson in the middle. But to be fair, the caption also says there is no other evidence that Jefferson was ever a Mason, and they are not offering this drawing as definite proof.

[edit] 3 references? Ok.

--SarekOfVulcan 17:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Jefferson continued

I just posted over at the Mediation Cabal, to get an outside view of this. Feel free to comment there.--SarekOfVulcan 21:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Trust me, if I ran the world, I'd give myself a better salary.--SarekOfVulcan 01:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I am the cabal mediator. I have answered both of you on your talk page. -- Bonaparte talk 15:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Outsider opinion: since the Philalethes Society has this listed as a Myth, it seems clear to me that the 1955 Masonic Bible was an example of a hopefully Good Faith, but inaccurate, inclusion of a person who was not a Mason. This happens. As Jefferson nowhere appears on any rolls, his inclusion on the list in the Bible, now 50 years and more out of date, can be disregarded. It is in the caegory of Urban legend. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it isn not an Urban Legend Grye 17:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

KJVTRUTH's cites, posted on the Mediation page, were:

1955 Masonic Bible source1, [source2][source3][source4][source5][source6][source7][source8][source9]

[source10] [source11] [source12][source13] --SarekOfVulcan 02:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Note this section commenting on bad mediation decisions made by User:Bonaparte.--SarekOfVulcan 20:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debated section

Upon further investigation, there's no evidence for any of those individuals, so they're gone. Just don't say "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence", because I really can't find a reputable source for any of it. MSJapan 04:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General H. Norman Schwarzkopf

I can only find that he is involved in the worldwide Masonic conspiracy, and that the Gulf War declaration was ratified by eight Freemasons and a Zionist. He's not listed at masonicinfo's list of famous freemasons. MSJapan 06:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I found no evidence Norm's a Freemason. Grye 23:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Marshall Harlan

I found one lk under US Supreme Crt (just middle initial) and one under lawyers (mid-name spelled out). John Marshall Harlan is a bio article, and John M. Harlan a rdr to it (but i am changing it to a Dab). First Masonic hit on Googling "John Marshall Harlan" mason gives dates, making it clear that that site does not claim John Marshall Harlan II (also a USSC justice, and of course lawyer). I have bypassed the existing rdr (and that will also bypass the forthcoming Dab). It may be worth a comment by the 2 lk's lest someone speculate the identification was just a guess by WP ed'rs.
--Jerzy•t 05:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Marshall

  • John Marshall, Chief Justice (1801-1835) - Grand Master of Virginia (1793 & 1794)

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/anti-masonry05.html

[edit] Milton S. Hershey

Was a Brother (supposedly). I have no proof, but I mention him for the consideration of you Smart Guys. Paul, in Saudi 06:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] 66.211.136.138

I hate chainsawing all of it out when I know some of it is accurate, but it's like a change scam: add a whole bunch, take out a couple of known bogus, add some more, take out some more -- you're left not knowing what just happened.--SarekOfVulcan 15:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: above IP seems to belong to user currently identifying as User:KJVTRUTH, from edit pattern.

That would make these contribs the same...

66.211.136.138
KJVTRUTH
  • So signed by Grye 05:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfPP

My cites in one place:

Email from Secretary of Cheyenne Lodge #1:

Sorry, I have no record of V.P. Cheney as a member of our Lodge.

Tim Forbis PM

Email from PA Grand Lodge webmaster re: Cheney:

I apologize for any confusion caused by the entry.  It has been removed.  I 
will revisit the page to verify the remaining entries after the holidays.

Fraternally;
Brother Robert 'Bob' Susnjer
Woodlawn Lodge No. 672 F.&A.M.
Aliquippa, PA

[edit] Bolivar cite

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/bolivar_s/bolivar_s.html -- anyone have an indication this isn't accurate?--SarekOfVulcan 17:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved content from main page:

  • To some dispute many Colombians believe that Simon Bolivar (a famous freemason) was a Colombian national. But history proves to us that he was in fact Venezuelan. Bolivar was born July 24, 1783 in Caracas, in modern-day Venezuela. His family was part of the colonial aristocracy in Venezuela. Different tutors educated him after his parents died, and he would later pursue his studies in Europe. After the nation of Great Colombia came to an end, the Colombian people saw him as a tyrant and refused to bury him in their country after his death. He was thus returned to his true home in Venezuela. There is no denying that Colombians and Latin Americans admire him collectively and equally for his indispensable contribution to the regional South American independence struggle. But the fact remains that he was national of Venezuela, who had a vision of a united Latin America. Hence bringing about ideas of collective Latin American unity and nationalism. So Bolivar cannot be put under another country in this list that is not Venezuela, but could also be put under a region called Latin America.

--SarekOfVulcan 22:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

(a year later...) No, no indication otherwise, & with further questions to his Masonic history, i.e. Talk:Simón Bolívar#Freemason, I added hime to the article w/refs Grye 23:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buzz" Aldrin

Edwin E. "Buzz" Aldrin, Jr.,

I know he was a member of several Lodges... but I have him as a member Montclair Lodge No. 144 NJ, where he was maybe raised to Master Mason. Grye 10:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, Buzz is involved with Tranquility Lodge 2000. Check out the website Tranquility Lodge 2000 for info. Bdevoe 19:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation: Add disputed section?

The mediator suggested adding a "Possible Masons" section. I think that "Disputed" would be better, but I'm still not convinced it's a good idea. What do you other folks think?--SarekOfVulcan 09:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think either would be good. Maybe take any that are uncited [w/Lodge + etc] or otherwise unconfirmed & move elsewhere, like in a section in discussion? A list of names is a "work in progress", but those names shouldn't be associated, for good or bad, without better info. But I don't really care... well, unless someone insists like Hitler was a Freemason... Grye

OK, I read some discussions. There's a huge difference between saying Jefferson, Hitler, The Queen, or the Mayor are/were/may have been Masons. & maybe move it over to the Discuss page section, with a preface, & play with it there, until something sticks? Grye

The mediation stuff is completely gone, but I've got this to say about it: what concerns me about "disputed/possible Masons" is that I could claim anyone was a Mason, and put them in that list. That violates WP:Verifability. Furthermore, why is it that the people who think they know the most about what Freemasonry is have never taken part in it? I wouldn't trust someone who only watches Life in the ER to be capable of performing surgery, so frankly, why should the comments of the vast majority who know nothing about Freemasonry except for what Jack Chick tells them and are fruthermore unwilling to think about what they're reading anyway because it conflicts with their view of Jesus (H?) Christ be taken into consideration?
In short, people should refrain from commenting on things they know nothing about. You don't see me editing Indira Gandhi, do you? MSJapan 16:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thing about some "debated" Masons is that a couple of them have signed into Lodge.... Etc... There's other various reasons why some rally are in there. Perhaps some criteria for inclusion of such, & into a renamed list? People do come & wonder about what they've heard about So-&-So... Grye 11:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

THANKS Bonaparte but the Masons do not accept compromise with Non-Masons. I am called a Socket Pupet to discredit me, so they can excuse deleteing Masons they dislike, or are ordered not to claim. They are the real brainwashed puppets deleting the truth about Masons who have proven themselves members of the Craft that Deny the Stone that has become the Head of the Corner (Arch)(Mat 21:42)KJVTRUTH

Note: the mediator who suggested this has been indefinitely blocked because he ran a sockpuppet farm. See User:Bonaparte.--SarekOfVulcan 02:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte has not updated his user page since 11/07/2005, but that has not stoped 10 users and 4 annons from updating his user page with all sorts of Junk including a ban.KJVTRUTH

The problem with a disputed section is that you can find the same amount of positive proof as you can negative, though I have found that many of KJV's sources are clearly on an anti-Masonic agenda, and they don't give Lodge info (which we considered to be an important NPOV fact to prove membership). No matter what we do with it, somebody's not going to be happy, because either they are or they aren't, and I would suggest leaving it out so we don't have to do this back and forth debate every other week. MSJapan 03:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
How about we put every entry in this article which has no verified Lodge, &/or isn't cited w/ definite proof, at the top of this page? No, really, how about it? I'll do the work, if there's consensus to do so... Grye 19:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd prefer to avoid it completely, because if it is disputed, there's no way to reach a concensus, and we're still going to deal with things getting moved back in with no proof. MSJapan 00:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, there's a problem with them still being listed, even though it be on a talk page... Perhaps with a timeframe? Then agian, their presence on the talk page shows that they have been rpesented for listing, & shows that they have not been cited for X amount of time. Actually increadibly useful, to the interest of the main article. Grye 01:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty much about to do it (move unciteds here, to the top) anyway. I'm not big on recreating the entire structure of the main article here, but I will if it's thought best. Any thoughts? Grye 01:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I know, I need to work on the U.S. Supreme Court Justices, I'll get to it... Grye 01:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debated Freemasons

[edit] Paul Bernardo a Freemason?

I have noticed on your list of "Famous Freemasons" that Canada's most notorious schoolgirl killer Paul Bernardo was a Freemason. Other than the website you provided, which to me may be a bit to POV for my liking, is this the only proof that is provided? I checked Bernardo's page here at Wikipedia and nothing is stated at all about him being a Mason. Could someone please provide some credible evidence to support Bernardo's membership?

This is yet another example in favor of my statement above that the list is probably infested by vandals or simply irresponsible editors, and requires a huge cleanup. mikka (t) 00:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with the comment directly above; the tone of the start of the article is hostile to the Order in any event, and the lists are not exhaustive or accurate so it has not been written from an objective and factually correct viewpoint. This article definitely needs a serious clean-up, or else scrap it completely because if you really want to draw up an accurate list then it is going to take you years to research and verify.

Most of the hits are FreemasonryWatch, and it's interesting how they supposedly got info that masonicinfo.com didn't. Anyhow, this is what Masonicinfo has to say: "Paul Bernardo - For some time now we've been trying to get some accurate information about this Masonic membership of this serial rapist from the Toronto, Canada area. Sadly, though, persons in Canada with details about this simply refuse to speak and respond with dismissive comments that we should not, as Masons, speak ill of another member. WHAT? This is a man who ABUSED not only women but Freemasonry as well! We feel most emphatically that 'stonewalling' information in such cases serves to not only reinforce a public perception that Masons protect 'their own' but to also create the idea that Masons knew about this and never spoke up. The latter is absolutely inexcusable and if there was anyone who knew about Bernardo's activities, they surely would/could/should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law as well. Sadly, when those who have information choose to 'keep it secret', it only adds to the horrid rumors that such things might be sanctioned by Freemasonry in the cause of 'protecting a Brother'. It also appears that it was only after a guilty verdict that his membership was suspended: sadly we sometimes tend to be glacial in our actions even in light of overwhelming evidence. We believe that the Bernardo case has much to teach Freemasonry but sadly the one person we know who has many of the details refuses to speak - and not being in Toronto have found it impossible to further research. If you have information that could help in the description of events, we'd like to hear from you!" MSJapan 05:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

All good research & thoughts, MSJ, but what was his Lodge? Anyone? Bueller...Grye 23:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly reccomend that he be brought to this page, in the "Debated..." (or "...infamous...") section. He's still around, just not on the main page until he's verified. That's what these pages are for, right? Grye 00:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I have asked my dad's girlfreind to look into this for me (if she is allowed to). Why my dad's girlfreind? Shes Paul's parole officer at Kingston Pen. However I doubt this is true. Onthost 23:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Research: That's how it happens! Grye 05:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refactoring of this talk page

I would much prefer it if all concerned could leave this pretty much in the order it was originally typed in. Moving everything around makes it pretty near impossible to follow. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 08:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, we edited at exactly the same time. & like I said, whatever. Have fun with it...;-) Grye 08:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • My thoughts on order of the talk page are:
    the main article is such that in-line links are discouraged; unconfirmed or "Masons" w/o Lodges listed are discouraged. They will need to be better organised on this page, for sure. We need to consider that, talk about it, maybe put them at the top, in some kind of catagories, with their notes, & pref prob alphabetized by name, irregardless of date posted (comments keep inline, names w/ comments in aplha order) Grye 08:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Famous and infamous

I kind of liked the elucidation.

These run the gamut from dictators to revolutionaries, segregationists to civil rights leaders, industrialists to labor activists, humanitarians to serial killers; many that today's Masons are proud to proclaim, and others they prefer to minimize.--SarekOfVulcan 22:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I didn't see any serial killers on the list (I'm not sure if they count if they were expelled), and I think it's more the fact that every Mason doesn't know who every other Mason is rather than an active effort to "minimize" certain members - the paragraph is ascribing a motive, and thereby stating an opinion rather than a fact, which it doesn't do without that section. Also it's fairly obvious that half those types of people aren't on the current list as such, and looking at the list will tell you what kinds of people are Masons without predisposing the reader to an opinion first. MSJapan 23:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Content sources?

It looks like the list has been evolving largely from answers.com's list? Grye 22:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

adding to "Source". Has been used as a source. Obviously.


[edit] Royal Society

I'm not sure how/if this catagory will go in, but here's some work on it...

  • Elias Ashmole, RS founding member. One of the first recorded inductees into the Freemasonry. Source: Gerry Rose ,"The Venetian Takeover of England and Its Creation of Freemasonry" Grye 06:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Dr. Robert Moray, Edinburgh [Lodge] 1641. RS founding member. First recorded RS inducted into Freemasonry. Source: Gerry Rose ,"The Venetian Takeover of England and Its Creation of Freemasonry" Grye 06:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
He's pre-UGLE (et al) but there's endless support of his Masonic history... Grye 07:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Member, RS
founding member RS
I would also like to see some reference added to the bios. For all Bacon's "supported Masonic history", it's not mentioned once in the bio, for example. MSJapan 08:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Excellent point. I agree. problem with Bacon is that'd potentially open up some kind of edit war, as his Masonic history's a little hard to prove, as Freemasonry didn't exist as we know it when he was around... Although it might exist because he was around....... Being that I prob owe my presence on, & even awareness of, everything Wiki (including the word...:~) to him, I'll look into that. Grye 04:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CIVIL

Everyone involved might want to brush up on the above policy. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 01:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Presidents and numbers...

I think the solution is obvious - both sets of information are useful, so why not have both? such as "1st President George Washington" etc. It avoids rv issues and should make everybody happy. MSJapan 18:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but Sarek 's edits were revisionary, & I am not going to do the work the original editor should have done for him, then for Sarek just because they don't want to do it. Although, "president" is a title, & that's why I left it in, with them & others. "13th" etc is not a title, & be it 4 characters or 400, "find it in the article about them". So yeah, both whatever I wouldn't care, but removing a title, regardless how redundant, is not appropriate. Grye 18:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think that it is fair to say that as a minimum amount of referential information, the number of the President is worth having here, and I do believe that convention requires that the title remain. Also, it's not quite so convenient if you have to click on another page just for a small bit of information. MSJapan 05:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll eat my shoe now... w/the list purely alph, US Pres, & # info is much more useful... Grye 23:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Watch this space....

List of dignitaries of mystical organisations is a link to the WP article listing dignitaries of mystical organizations. Mahabone sneaked a whole bunch of Masons in there, so be sure to watch the page, as they belong here, not there. MSJapan 05:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... no, he didn't?--SarekOfVulcan 05:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Odd. Guess not. Warnings removed, but I still removed the section as it doesn't belong there anyway. MSJapan 06:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Latest greatest list: List of occultists
Grye 23:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The factual accuracy of this article is disputed

Um... Perhaps it always will be [disputed], but most of the disputed people have been moved to Talk:List of Freemasons/citation, along with most everyone else... So if everyone were here & there w/citation, & only there if w/o citation, & we had a much clearer statement about adding them there w/citation then adding them to the main article, who would object to the removal of the "Talk:List of Freemasons" tag, & why? Grye 01:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed tag, but at any given time someone(s) could be (are) added unchecked, & for X-period of time remain, so if anything, a note? A different tag? & due diligence... Grye 10:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "UK: England & Wales, and Scotland"???

I was somewhat puzzled by this. As UK is short for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland why is there no reference to Northern Ireland? The phrase "(the two Masonic jurisdictions have never been united)" hardly resolves the apparent disappearance of any area where Freemasonry played such a major role in the social and political history. If Ireland is being treated as a single and united whole, then this should be changed to GB or Great Britain. But if the Orange statelet has a separate jurisdiction, then perhaps someone should level with us. Harrypotter 14:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to guess it was an accidental oversight on somebody's part, but we need to address the issue in a non-partisan way, and not being familiar myself with who's going to get offended by what, are there any suggestions? MSJapan 00:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
How about "British Isles"? It doesn't solve everything, but undeniably (?) Ireland, N & S, is a British Isle? & Scotland is on a British Isle? OK or something along that line, but not too vague or ancient...Grye 10:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find the formula Islands of the North Atlantic or IONA was one method of describing these locations used during the Northern Ireland "peace process". Bearing in mind the role of secret societies in Northern Ireland, this could be one NPOV approach. On the other hand it might make sense to detail the development of various masonic jurisdictions, on the basis that as we are looking at individuals in terms of their masonic affiliation it would reflect how these human "stars" are located in particular constellations of the masonic firmament. But then this should be a consistent across teh whole world . . .Harrypotter 17:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

UK of GB &NI is covered by three GLs. UGLE, GLoS and GLI. UGLE covers England and Wales, GLoS covers Scotland and GLI covers both the Province and the Republic. I'd suggest a heading of UK of GB &NI then three sub headings, England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland (Covering Republic and NI).ALR 10:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are you kidding me?

I know the english wikipedia isn't that accurate or prolific on Latin American data, but come on! as venezuelan freemasons you only mention Bolívar (fair enough, he did practice Masonry) but... Miranda! he's the most famous venezuelan freemason, famous particulary (besides the Independance) for being venezuelan and freemason {this would be Francisco de Miranda, just in case}, let it be noted that Antonio José de Sucre was also a freemason (probably introduced by Bolívar), and a hole bunch of other patriots were too. Let it be reafirmed that independence movements in the Americas (the US and Hispanic America) were organised by freemasons using their secrecy and connections, thus most generals, founding presidents and foundig fathers were freemasons. About other latin american countries, I don't know the names, but I can assure you there are at least as many freemasons per country as mayor patriot generals (not that they are always the same). Nulo Siniestro

There was an issue with SA Freemasonic Locges listed a while ago, & I remember that the general consensus was that it was too complex for us to really list a lot of them. It ran into the whole UGLE-POV issue. It will also quickly run into the Anglo-Saxon issue, etc. Grye 03:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australia needs work...

There's a whole bunch of people in there that were uncited, so I removed them. Can someone get a list of verified famous Australian Freemasons? MSJapan 04:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a few quickies
From freemasonrysaust.org.au
Victoria Lodges
uglnsw.freemasonry.org.au's website. go to "about Freemasonry">"Famous"
it looks like there's a lot of info at & around www.uglnsw.freemasonry.org.au/MasonicResearch/, but that it's probably a NSW Lodgemember area. If someone has the gall to ask 'em for access, etc...
Grye 04:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Or ask someone who's got access. I'll see what I can do. MSJapan 13:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orange Institution

The list of people purported to be Freemasons - are any Orange Institution members included? Because, according to Wikipedia articles on the subject, "there are organisations which ar e often thought of as related to Freemasonry, but which are in fact not related at all, and are not accorded recognition as Masonic, such as the Orange Order which originated in Ireland" and ""In addition a number of organizations and fraternities such as the Orange Order style themselves along Masonic lines, using similar regalia and ritual. However they are not part of Freemasonry and are not accorded recognition as such."

It is not clear to me which organisations the members listed are part of. --Mal 21:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The founder of the Orange Institution is claimed in the OI article as being a Freemason, but it gives no source, nor can I find one. As far as this article is concerned (and I honestly thought it was pretty obvious - I don't quite see the confusion), everyone listed here is a Freemason. This does not mean that a person isn't also something else besides a Freemason, however. MSJapan 23:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three Questions

  • I just added a page for John I. Beggs I know he was in the Harrisburg Lodge and then later in Milwaukee, Oconomowoc?, and St. Louis. Can someone do the honor of correctly adding him to the list?
  • I'm hoping to add bios for others Capt. Robert McCulloch (CSA) who was a high degree Scottish Rite Mason in St. Louis, as well as his grandson Robert P. McCulloch. Can I get some help verifying these and notability for Capt. Robt??
  • Is there a reason why Freemason:US is not a Wikipedia category that could be added to the bottom of articles on individuals?

I'm not a Freemason and I'm a wikipedia newbie, be gentle in your response.

Thanks!

69.19.14.31 22:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't add people, notable or not, unless we have a definite source of proof for membership, and since you didn't add Masonic membership to his bio, it's harder to claim. There is, however, a category for articles, but yet again, it cannot be added without a source. The best any one of us can do is Googling for verification - AFAIK, there is no way to obtain membership records from Grand Lodges unless you can show proof of relationship, and maybe not even then. MSJapan 02:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
And, unfortunately, with the requiremetns being given for obtaining the information, one is further obligated to use said information judiciously... i.e. if you are related, then the use of said info may be your prerogative; if Masonically related, the info's distribution would probably not be OK... Grye 08:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Freemasons in Serbia

I would like to know was Nikola Tesla a Freemason and did marshal Josip Broz Tito have any conection with them or any other similar organization.

Thank You! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.18.53.14 (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

As a note, Google will generally take care of thesxe things, but: it seems that while Robert Lomas, a Masonic "researcher" (I'm skeptical of his conclusions, thus the quotes) has written a biography of Tesla, there is no other connection. As for Josip Broz Tito, the answer would also seem to be no, as I can't source anything related in English. MSJapan 19:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
That I know of, Tesla was not a Freemason, & I am both a fan, & live where he's lived (Telluride, CO USA). For what it's worth... Grye 08:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reason(s) for re-combination

I'm calling it "re-combination", because this list was created, & then citation became a major issue then citing added, then deemed "unsightly", then split into the present structure of List of Freemasons with citations at Talk:List of Freemasons/citation. This system has proven itself as simply not effective.

If every entry is supposed to be cited anyway, and everyone on the 2nd page is cited (maybe not verified, but...), & most of the people on the 1st page are NOT cited, & the ones that are, are actually cited on the second page anyway, then there is no issue whatsoever with subtracted content.
The only possible issue would be with the format of the content (presentation), &, well, if the objector wants it different, then the objector can get crackin... until then, check the history. It is consensus that all persons listed need to be cited.
Grye 01:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should do inline refs and footnotes (thuogh it will be bulky and need to be double columned like the main Freemasonry article refs are. However, I'm not sure where to source some of the entries. It's one thing to say that someone is or was a Mason, but specific lodges can get tricky. MSJapan 04:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I think (know) you are right, this is the way to go, or at least the next thing to try, because nothing else's working. Grye 02:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
H-Z are ref'd everywhere; A-G are ref'd in the ABC list, but not in the rest of their name occurances -yet Grye 07:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
...specifics aren't the named definition of the list, only that they are, and that they are reliably ref'd?Grye 07:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
MSJ, I'm pretty sure you made your above comment over a year ago... let's see how it works out. Hope to say "you were right, brother..." Grye 08:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abd al-Qadir

Added the Emir Abd al-Qadir, there are some additional notes under the discussion section of his specific article.

--J. J. in PA 07:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abdelkader

Why was the Abdelkader reference removed?

There are online scources. First preson sources include Morris' Freemasonry in the Holyland (1872) and Churchill's Churchill's Life of Abdel Kader, Ex-Sultan of the Arabs of Algeria (1867).

It was also noted in the article "Abd el-Kader: The Tolerant Hero" in the June 1992 Philalethes.

--J. J. in PA 06:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

(note: the above was respectfully moved here from user talk pages by Grye)
Because of the references given,
  • 1864 Le Monde notes he was initiated into a Lodge under Grand Orient of France, not considered regular then or now. irregularity wasn't declared until around 1877. Abdelkader was raised 1864, so the point's moot. Grye 02:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Notice I put a fact tag on his article too.that was Hawayek, my bad

I would say replace him if you wish, but I'm stuck on the GOdF point... Grye 06:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)unstuck

June of 1864, Lodge of Pyramids, Alexandria Egypt, and courtesy work for the lLodge he petitioned Henri IV, Paris. Cited in Morris, pp. 579-81, from the Philalethes article. Morris is available in reprint. Churchill just noted that Abdelkader had become a Freemason.

Is this sufficient? There were some online sources.

--J. J. in PA 06:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hold on a second.. somethings not right here... sorry JJ please tolerate ;~) Grye 06:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
OK I see. When I first read your concern, I was thinking of Khalil Saeed Hawayek, but the point still stands that it was GOdF, but I don't care at the moment, & I'll re-add him. Someday the GOdF issue will come up again tho, so be prepared...;~) Grye 07:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the GOdF was recognized by the English Grand Lodge until at least 1874 (most list it as 1877). We might have to take Voltaire off the list if we go back that far. It might be proper to add a note for GOdF affiliations. :-) --J. J. in PA 00:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

uh... he was raised 1864.the article says irregularity began GOdF accepted women in 1774. Is that date wrong? supposed to be 1874? Irregularity was doled out in 1877-ish.
& Yeah, that's pretty much why I left this one alone... the edit talks already turn into a waste of time, then you go back that far, & for people like Voltaire & Abdelkader... Nah.
Also, when Abd al-Qadir was referenced as "Abdelkader", I think/it appears I got him confused w/ "Hawayek". I don't have any prob with either, that I know of, it's just the ref thing.
Grye 01:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a possibility on "Hawayek." The Grand Lodge New York chartered several lodges in Lebanon (don't ask me how that happened). The has special district, at least through the early 1990's. You might wish to check with them.

[edit] Talk:List of Freemasons/citation

I was going to suggest something similar, but then I read the talk page above. I sure this article has suffered problems, however the citation request and nomination for selection is not something that should be seen in the article space.

Useful list, good work by all concerned. Thanks brethren. - Fred 11:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is (not) an article

I had another think about it, I still don't understand. I have noted the Category below. If this is not an article, no problem. Is it? - Fred 14:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Answer requested. 08:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the question, nor it's possible premise... Grye 11:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Until you very recently changed it, this list contained two lists. The second list contained an instruction to place new additions below the list proper, and have their citation verified. This used to be on the talk page (here). I think that is where it should be. It should not be in an article (List of Freemasons), in this case, a list. The article is for readers, not editors. - Fred (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
List_of_Freemasons#To_be_alphabetized
Is this an article? It says it is not above. - Fred (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
No, the article is just fine for references, hence the ref tag system at all... Unfortunately, the reference section of this article [more like a list, yes] will be potentially/probably longer than the article itself, but several other systems have been tried, none worked, & we are reduced to this system for now.
Do be a little patient until the old system is completely changed over. In the meantime, you could immerse yourself in this article's history... When you think you've read it all, keep looking -there's probably more !~D
Grye 23:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There are two lists and references. This is an article, not a sandbox. Please do your experiments somewhere else. - Fred (talk) 09:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Um... Yeah. You're right. My bad. I'm clueless, & I just got here yesterday. I should totally not jump into projects like this, where so many other people have contributed so much, & put so many dozens of hours at a time of editing to make this silly usually POV-inspired list happen in a way that follows wikipedia's standards for citable NPOV material.
You're right, my bad, I should really 1) learn to read better, & 2) start reading those silly article history pages. Again, sorry. I think I'll go scratch in the ol' sandbox now. Meow...;~D Grye 00:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] continued

I have removed the editorial comments and signatures - up to "D" - from the article. They should be on this talk page. I have asked the editor to remove the rest. - Fred (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the newly uncited entries -up to "D". Grye 04:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I "found" the citations for all the entries up to "D". The citations for the article's material had been incomprehensibly removed by Fred.e. All's not good, but better now that at least some of the article's content is cited. Grye 04:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Fred:
  1. They aren't "editorial comments and signatures", they are fairly well referenced citations for the article's contents. There is a difference. The signatures are based on the discussion a long time ago, before your time. I know a lot of it is gone, but for what's here, check the history and discussion of the article before editing.
  2. If you don't like a way that a reference is made, consider changing it, don't wholesale remove the content
  3. When, where, exactly, did you "I have asked the editor to remove the rest."?
  4. When you are saying the way the world should be ("They should be on this talk page"), make sure to cite where everyone else agrees with you that the world should be that way.
Grye 03:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a question

moved from User talk:Grye, by GRYE, for continuity & pertinence

Dear Grye, I am posting a note here in case you missed it. Please answer my question here. - - Fred (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It is pretty simple really, it is not your article. You put your signature and your comments into an article. I removed them. You removed my contribution from the article. I restored it. Anyone viewing the history will see who did and said what and when. I recommend you retract your accusations. Fred 03:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a response

Fred,

Wikipedia:How to edit a page gives us some guidelines about editing, notably, the use of the "minor edit" notation: "...without modifying content, etc. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute"

NOTE: Yes, it says there you should not sign edits you make to regular articles, so Fred's edits & reasoning make sense, but I think maybe what Fred did not understand was that the edits he effected were not actually signed edits, rather they were the ref's history of
  1. what the ref was for ("what")
  2. the ref (web address etc)
  3. who accessed the ref (username)
  4. when they accessed the ref (date)
This is desirable information, as the site ref'd can go away, but we still see that so-and-so vouches that they did see it there, & when, and that that was acceptable for whatever time the difference may be.
This is shown to be desirable information in the citation templates below. Notice the last entry in each, "accessdate".
(For an example fo ref tags that uses such info, see Wikipedia:Citation templates)
{{Citation
  | last =
  | first =
  | author-link =
  | last2 =
  | first2 =
  | author2-link =
  | title =
  | date =
  | year =
  | url =
  | accessdate =  }}

{{cite web
  | last =
  | first =
  | authorlink =
  | coauthors =
  | title =
  | work =
  | publisher =
  | date =
  | url =
  | format =
  | doi =
  | accessdate =  }}

{{cite journal
  | last = 
  | first = 
  | authorlink = 
  | coauthors = 
  | title = 
  | journal = 
  | volume = 
  | issue = 
  | pages = 
  | date = 
  | publisher = 
  | url = 
  | format = 
  | id = 
  | accessdate = }}

{{cite conference
  | first =
  | last =
  | authorlink =
  | coauthors =
  | title =
  | booktitle =
  | pages =
  | publisher =
  | date =
  | location =
  | url =
  | doi =
  | id =
  | accessdate =  }}

{{cite encyclopedia
  | title =
  | encyclopedia =
  | volume =
  | pages =
  | publisher =
  | date =
  | id =
  | accessdate =  }}

{{cite news 
  | last =
  | first =
  | coauthors =
  | title =
  | work =
  | pages =
  | language =
  | publisher =
  | date =
  | url =
  | accessdate =  }}
This is just a quick examination. I hope that this might clear up:
  1. That yes, Fred is correct in that general policy is that you should not sign edits you make to regular articles
  2. That the material Fred removed from articlespace was not signature, but Reference citation information;
  3. That this information is valuable
  4. That despite the above, his edit opinion, & edits, were taken into account, & maintained, despite all of this.
If this is understood & accepted, then I would like to say that the above citation standards were known to myself, & I think MSJ & others, but perhaps this & the entire history of the article (much of which is no longer available) was not entirely understood by Fred; That I for one have been reluctant to do all the homework, which I considered Fred's homework, just to reply to all this, but maybe if we had, when Fred first appeared, all this would be better, we wouldn't any of us be offended, & would all be making better, more harmonious edits, et.al.
I guess, Fred, that's as close as you'll get to an apoligy, as least from me. Perhaps it's unfortunate that I/we didn't have this discussion before, & if need be, we can continue it? & maybe we can keep this discus here ?~) Grye 23:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] redundancy

Can we toss the lists broken up amongst nationality & preofession & significance & alphabetical etc, & just reduce it to alph'd, & add an inline flag &/or comment, or somesuch? Grye 08:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for removing the profession breaks (they're a bit all-encompassing in some places) and moving it inline. Country is not so bad, except in the case where someone was a Mason in one country but a citizen of another. Let's do it in stages - remove the jobs first and see how it looks. Also, can we just ref tag everything as far as citations are concerned, double column the refs at the end of the page, and then take out whatever goes in there that isn't reffed? That might solve the other problem(s). MSJapan 16:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
As a note, the ref tag isn't working as it is formatted, though it seems to be a direct c/p from Freemasonry, where it does work. MSJapan 16:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
That was pretty much my plan, or at least exactly how it seemed to be happening...
  1. Yeah, the ref section's missing, I think. I'm looking in history to see where it went, but regardless, it'll be back in there in a moment.
  2. I have no idea how to do the double-column thing, but I'll look for one & emulate it....
  3. Further, there's going to be the constant problem of editors not knowing how to do all this. This page is going to need constant support...
  4. There's often (constantly) edits (aditions) made which are good, but take someone running around doing searches to get an actual cite on the info added.
  5. ...Problem with that, which we experienced back-in-the-day of this page, was anyone can add anyone: Joseph Conrad, 97° Lodge Xyxxeiber 32, Tungstunia etc, & it looks good, but w/o cites, & someone checking cites, it's worthless...
Grye 19:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I do like the idea of scrapping the by occupation stuff and going with a straight alphabetical by country format. I would suggest something along the lines of:
Blueboar 19:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How's the list these days, relative to before? & MSJ, can you drop an example of "double column the refs at the end of the page"? I do not see an example... Grye 23:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've named refs (ref name=blahblah) when mutliple. I hope this helps to address this issue? Grye 00:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] format

  • My thought is, there are a nearly infinite possible subcats, so if we subcat anything beyond alph, we run into trouble, i.e. the actual cats "Freemason", w/ "Brit Freemason", "Cuban Freemason", etc. we are watching them, now as we txt, be deleted, & there's no support for them, at least here w/ me, because lists of lists all with sublists are nearly impossible to maintain.
  • I kind of liked the cat: format, but felt it needed a cite policy, because this list is kinda bogus POV +++; it self-addressed by nature 1/2+ of these questions. The problem was watching the list of cats, which have several subcats, & when evolved, checking several hundred different pages for citation. Again, this problem will and has arisen, when you have a specialized cat system, people become multi-listed, & the ref section becomes that much longer too.
  • So, whatchyathink of, using Blueboar's sample?:

[edit] B

[edit] C

[edit] D

[edit] E

[edit] F

[edit] (etc)

[edit] Sources
  1. ^ http://www.masonicinfo.com/famous1.htm masonicinfo.com

[edit] Template

What does who think about a template, something like this? & if it's a go, what to include/disincluse?

{{Template:cite_Freemason
<-----Blue Lodge----->
<-----all lines only render if populated----->
<-----lines with "<ref>" render in reference section----->
|1° (Initiated) Date = [date]
|At Lodge            = [Lodge information]
|location (URL, etc) = <ref>
|accessdate          = <ref>
|2° (Passed) Date    = [date]
|At Lodge            = [Lodge information]
|location (URL, etc) = <ref>
|accessdate          = <ref>
|3° (Raised) Date    = [date]
|At Lodge            = [Lodge information]
|location (URL, etc) = <ref>
|accessdate          = <ref>
<-----Other masonic info----->
<-----(Lodge Affiliation(s), resignation/removal, York, Scottish, OES, etc)----->
|Other Masonic info   = [information]
| location (URL, etc) = <ref>
| accessdate          = <ref>
|Other Masonic info   = [information]
| location (URL, etc) = <ref>
| accessdate          = <ref>
|Other Masonic info   = [information]
| location (URL, etc) = <ref>
| accessdate          = <ref>
|Other Masonic info   = [information]
| location (URL, etc) = <ref>
| accessdate          = <ref>
|Other Masonic info   = [information]
| location (URL, etc) = <ref>
| accessdate          = <ref>
|Other Masonic info   = [information]
| location (URL, etc) = <ref>
| accessdate          = <ref>
|Other Masonic info   = [information]
| location (URL, etc) = <ref>
| accessdate          = <ref>
|Other Masonic info   = [information]
| location (URL, etc) = <ref>
| accessdate          = <ref>
|Other Masonic info   = [information]
| location (URL, etc) = <ref>
| accessdate          = <ref>
|Other Masonic info   = [information]
| location (URL, etc) = <ref>
| accessdate          = <ref>

[edit] Template Discuss

Hopefully, it is obvious: the need for such detail; & the potential rediculous length.

Given that in the USA one will receive 4-32°s in 1-3 days, while a brother in the UK etc might be on his deathbed at the 13°... & the flip-flops in Scot/York etc... Yes it becomes quite long esp when one is 3° & there's probably all this code that doesn't need to be there but still is cut-&-pasted anyway... but...

Grye 05:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The York Rite does not have numbered degrees, and exclusive of honorary-type degrees (e.q. degrees conferred on the chair upon installation, or things like the Order of Constantine), it has at most 13 "regular" degrees. The template could be shortened there. --J. J. in PA 19:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
A couple of points, the degrees and orders within the York Rite are organised in a reasonably independent manner outside the US, although here in UK many of them are administered from Mark Masons Hall, so the usage is US specific.
I find it hard to belief that someone would only be 13th in England, since we go straight in at 18th then move to 30th after having been through the chair (roughly 7 years or so), then at least 5 years each after that.  :) Scotland is a little different , but I agree with the point that a single template doesn't really capture all circumstances.
To some extent I'm not sure that this is actually article material.
ALR 20:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I am speaking to the US York Rite "system." At most, excluding those limited to those given to the respective chairs, and "honorary" -type degrees is 13. You might want to check the York Rite articles, I believe they are listed there. --J. J. in PA 23:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, "13th" was an example... What I meant was that in the US, technically, one can go from 0-32° inside about a year, while in the UK, one would not exactly expect to ever see 32 degrees... no?
At any rate, this format is too cumbersom. I think the 1st 3 are significant, & maybe the last? w/ Lodge(s), & the citer, & source? Grye 09:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
First and third, then installation, are probably the most important. Highest in the SR, and yes for England 30th is limited to those who've been through the chair of the 18th, beyond that isn't common. The problem comes with all the rest which would become quite cumbersome. Listing Lodges might get clumsy for some (I'm in four craft lodges and that's not uncommon), but worth trying if there is enough material out there to substantiate.ALR 11:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd much prefer BB's version - this here is simply too much info, I think. MSJapan 23:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
MSJ (& all), is this too much still? Grye 04:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
As-is, the proposed (& probably never-to-be-done) template reflects the (maximum+) data that's similar to any given entry on the list, as of now... Grye 01:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Existing template

Note these do exist, for now, which addresses a concern, that being accessdate. when use liked this, with the ref tag & ref tag closure, it would come out in the ref section. Note their usage on Sir Alexander Fleming, and the resulting citation in reference section... Grye 04:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

<ref>{{Citation
  | last =
  | first =
  | author-link =
  | last2 =
  | first2 =
  | author2-link =
  | title =
  | date =
  | year =
  | url =
  | accessdate =  }}</ref>

<ref>{{cite web
  | last =
  | first =
  | authorlink =
  | coauthors =
  | title =
  | work =
  | publisher =
  | date =
  | url =
  | format =
  | doi =
  | accessdate =  }}</ref>

[edit] consolidating entries

Just a note: I was waiting to alph each subsection's entries to remove/combine duplicat entries, so as to show how many dupes there were w/ the other system(s), & thus partly the need to do it this way. Of course, go about your biz if you want to do it now... Grye 04:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from Article

These discussion items are being moved here from article space, the list.

  • Item 1. Famous Turkish Freemasons - to be compiled from: [5] - Fred (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table of contents

A range of TOCs can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/Compact tables of contents. One of them might improve this list. - Fred (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not Freemasons

These are some people who were removed from the list, & why. Please don't re-add them, unless you have some incredible new sources for that addition... Grye 20:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Burr

[edit] Napoleon I of France (Napoléon Bonaparte)

There is no Dispute whatsoever. He tried & was denied several times. Grye 05:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
There is a reference to a Masonic lodge that he joined is provided in Denslow's "10,000 Famous Freemasons," I can provide the Lodges and the specific reference if desired. User:LeNordique 17:29, 10 April 2007
OK, that's cool, we'll just have to waste another couple days providing you the specifics on why they aren't accurate. But OK, let's do it. Please post them here for now. Grye 21:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Then why not just provide the details on inaccuracy now and save the trouble of posting? In my defense, Denslow's work is a serious, scholarly, well-researched work and probably the best source for Masonic memberships. LeNordique 13:10, 11 April 2007

[edit] Aleister Crowley

It's an interesting read, but here's the important bit: "The United Grand Lodge of England does not recognize Crowley as a member of the Craft. All his affiliations were with irregular bodies, and so they deny him recognition." MSJapan

  • Gee, I wonder why the Grand Lodge denies his participation. Dwain

[edit] Pandit Jawaharlal

  • Pandit Jawaharlal
Does NOT appear to be a Mason. His father, Motilal Nehru was though, good call on that edit, Anon. Grye

[edit] Ronald Reagan

[edit] A discussion on this articles policies and edits

One day (25 March 2007) you say: new rule—if you don't have your own Wikipedia article there's not enough evidence of notability to be on this list

Another day (1 April 2007) you say remove uncited addition and third paragraph again—you don't get to make up your own verification policy for individual articles

How about this new rule: we don't get to add or remove anything, especially here, unless it stricly follows all of Wikipedia's rules, & we correctly cite that rule in comment? Oh, wait, that's not a new rule... But, whatever... Grye 21:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Also: Sources - standard section title is "References"... I don't really care, call it a bibliography, whatever. But "Standard" means little, as far as a reason to change. Why don't you go through all wikipedia & change all "Sources" to references? Tell me when you're done.

I find this section heading in poor taste. I'd rather we stayed away from personalities and discussed the actual issues here. Do certain things that I've done bother you, or does the fact that I personally edit this article at all bother you? If it isn't the latter, then why am I the titular subject of discussion Philwelch 06:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There doesn't seem much point in discussing anything here, as everyone just does whatever they feel like anyway... The point of this section is to show that, according to you, you can make up & apply all the rules you want, & w/o discussion, depending on if you want to add, or remove content?? While you are removing someone else's cited addition?
  • Standards of "proof" for those on this list may vary widely; some figures with no verified Lodge affiliation are claimed as Masons if anecdotal evidence suggests they were familiar with the "secret" signs and passes, but other figures are rejected over technical questions of irregularity in the Lodge that initiated them. Where available, specific Lodge membership information is provided; where serious questions of verification have been noted by other sources, this is indicated as well.
    • You removed this, saying "remove(d) uncited addition and third paragraph again—you don't get to make up your own verification policy for individual articles"
    1. This article, & this paragraph, aren't mine, so who's "you"? & please get off your "article ownership" tangent
    2. Actually, the editors of an article can collectively give guidelines for an article's contents... hence talk pages...
    3. Did it occur to you that if you have to remove something, again & again, & it's not vandal editors adding editing & re-adding that something, maybe you should talk about it?? Does it occur to you now?
    4. This is the big one, right here: This paragraph isn't, in any way, policy of any kind. Read it. It is a statement regarding other people's standards & proofs, & that they vary widely.
  • Oh, & to answer the other part of your question, no I don't care, AfD it, I'll be pleased. Grye 23:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll say that I do see your points, & that they are good, but that there's reasons for the way things are, & perhaps if they aren't documented well, then we should document them, & you can get cracking on that, talking about it here...
    • If you can see my points & that they are valid points, & start talking about some thing before editing, again & again, then go ahead delete this entire "offending" section, w/my comments -you've got my OK for mine. I'll take it as a mutual understanding ;~) Grye 23:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors . If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

I would like to reply to you but I have almost no idea what you just said. It's borderline incomprehensible—the formatting is strange, you don't consistently use complete sentences, I can hardly tell the context of what specific points you're replying to, that template you included was just plain bizarre and out of place, and from the outset of this thread I'm not really sure what in particular you are complaining about. In any case I don't want to take the risk of misunderstanding you. Please try to clarify yourself. Philwelch 01:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, small words: You talk about policy, & you act contrarily; You proclaim that others cannot just go around creating policy, yet 1) they don't, & 2) you do; you keep removing other people's content additions w/no reason. All whilst adding a dozen -at best- characters of actual content to the article. And finally, no, I don't feel like the article's "mine", & look, there's cited proof that I do understand the concept of articles not being owned by editors.
So: how about you:
  1. Stop arbitrarily creating policy
  2. Actually contribute
  3. Actually read histories & talk pages
  4. Stop vandalising other editors contributions
  5. Stop wasting my time
&, if my saying it somehow helps it happen, then, have a nice evening. Maybe pop over to the Comet Tavern or something.
Grye 06:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to make personal attacks (and what the heck does "talk proclaim" even mean?) then I have no reason to continue attempting to communicate with you. Philwelch 00:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. that'd fall under but not encompass the "Stop wasting my time" item. Grye 21:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is this?

Seems this is a fun game?? You can list anyone on this list? Right? At least, anyone who is dead, as they can't come and ask you what this monkey business of freemasoney is all about? --unsigned comment made by 12.7.175.2