Talk:List of Freemasons/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about List of Freemasons. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Edit request from 77.49.154.248, 13 August 2011
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can you please add Samuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers? [1] Third paragraph
77.49.154.248 (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Topher385 (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Why isn't this source relliable?--77.49.154.248 (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- The Golden Dawn is hardly a reliable source on Freemasonry. See if you can come up with another source. Blueboar (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- That material was (somewhat) poached from BC&Y, who has the full details we require here; dates, lodge, etc. I will refrain from further comment, but will state for the record to address recent goings-on in general: edit requests from IPs without reliable sources will not be fulfilled, and persistent reversion of the template closure by said IPs will be treated as disruptive editing and dealt with accordingly. MSJapan (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, MSJ... That is a reliable source. I have added him to the list. Blueboar (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- That material was (somewhat) poached from BC&Y, who has the full details we require here; dates, lodge, etc. I will refrain from further comment, but will state for the record to address recent goings-on in general: edit requests from IPs without reliable sources will not be fulfilled, and persistent reversion of the template closure by said IPs will be treated as disruptive editing and dealt with accordingly. MSJapan (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- The Golden Dawn is hardly a reliable source on Freemasonry. See if you can come up with another source. Blueboar (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Why isn't this source relliable?--77.49.154.248 (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Done Blueboar (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from 77.49.154.248, 14 August 2011
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Frederick Stanley, 16th Earl of Derby
77.49.154.248 (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- If it is your plan to simply post every stub from BC&Y on here, then I would suggest you register an account and add the entries yourself. MSJapan (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Done - eh... willing to do one or two for anyone when they actually bother to provide a source. It's easy to cut and paste. Blueboar (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from 46.246.144.68, 25 August 2011
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
46.246.144.68 (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Done - for Barnard and d'Eon... not done for Tecumseh (source says there is no evidence that he was a Mason) Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Request to 46.246.etc... I realize that you not wish to create a user name and log in, which means that you are not able to edit protected articles like this one. That's OK... However, you are making multiple requests and thus obviously want to be a regular contributor. At this point, I must ask you to edit like a regular contributor... If the page were not protected, you would have to type in the complete entry (formatted with name, a brief identification, Masonic info, and a reference) yourself. Given your level of involvement, I think it reasonable to ask you to do that anyway... by leaving a complete entry here on the talk page as if you were typing it into the list... so that all one of the other regular contributors has to do is simply cut and paste it in to the list. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Please Add The Following Puerto Rican Freemasons
Well, firstly add an asterisk to Barnard. Secondly I believe that we must reconsider the: "Please Add The Following Puerto Rican Freemasons" (Archive Four, Fourth from Bottom). The resolution was that because the source said that Newton and Gandhi were freemasons it is not reliable, but the site of the GL of Puerto Rico surely can pretend that any foreigner is a freemason only to "call" other Puerto Ricans, BUT should not pretend that famous Puerto Ricans were freemasons for the same reasons because bureaucratic-like types like me may want to see the archives etc. Also Newton was a certified occultist and any low minded Puerto Rican who never left Puerto Rico may believe that he was a freemason. On the other hand surely Puerto Ricans know more about Puerto Ricans. Thanks!--46.246.144.68 (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- I assume you mean add a bullet point... done. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- I thought we addressed this a while back with a Serbian GL site as well, where the "foreign Masons" were incorrect. Frankly, I think if part of it is wrong, there's no reason to believe the rest is accurate either - being a native of the country is no proof, seeing as tons of folks think Obama, Clinton, Jay-Z, and a slew of other people are or were members. So I'm not going to buy what amounts to anecdotal proof.
- OTOH, I just got the revised Famous Freemasons (with errata included) as an e-book from Kindle, so that can be referenced if needed. Tecumseh is included, but it is not the famous one - it is another Tecumseh of another tribe who was initiated in 1851. So that should settle that. Give me a list of what we need to check, and I will do so. Do we have a citation format for Kindle? Conversely, I can pull the entry and someone can go find the page number in the print version. MSJapan (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Edit Request from rdmay53
Country Music Hall of Fame member Roy Acuff was a Freemason. Source is as follows: www.grandlodge-tn.org/?chapters=Y&page=FAQ
Rdmay53 (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from Termo337, 5 September 2011
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Student Member
Zamzam Baharom, Student President Uitm, Uitm, Johor, Malaysia Termo337 (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Your request lacks the two key essentials of reliable sources. (1) Proof that this person is notable. (2) Proof that this person is a Freemason. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 19:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Mark O. Hatfield should be added
I finally have something reputable from the Grand Lodge of Oregon to cite Mark Hatfield as a Mason. The reference is in the "Oregon Masonic News", Vol XXIX No. 1, September 2011, page 11. It isn't on the web yet, but I have the hard copy in front of me. Their website is at http://www.masonic-oregon.com/.
The newsletter states:
"He petitioned the Masonic Fraternity in 1943 and received his Entered Apprentice degree Aug. 25, 1943; his Fellowcraft degree Oct. 1, 1943, and his Master Mason degree Nov. 8, 1943. He was a member of Pacific Lodge No. 50 in Salem."
Could you add him?PhilD86 (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Done kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 23:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Christopher Wren
I don't believe the discussion concerning the masonic membership of Christoper Wren is nearly enough settled to justify placing him on this list, at least not without mentioning that his membership is debated - and debatable. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Wren#Achievement_and_reputation .
Gould doubts Wren was a mason. http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/christopher_wren_freemasonry.html .
Martin McGregor states only that Wren's membership was "highly likely." Id.
Mackey also says the subject "has long been debated with lively interest." http://books.google.com/books?id=GUS5-9IouBIC&pg=PA1122&lpg=PA1122&dq=was+christopher+wren+a+freemason&source=bl&ots=5k96XZvS8J&sig=gJlowszgWgn1U5LzQ3Ub8v1NywI&hl=en&ei=pUhpTq-_L8qdgQfSxdzaDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=was%20christopher%20wren%20a%20freemason&f=false .
In short, I don't think Wikipedia should state categorically that Wren was a mason when the authorities on the subject cannot themselves state it as a fact. We've been very careful to keep "probablies" off this list and shouldn't make an exception for Wren simply because we "really, really believe he was." Just by $2.00. kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 23:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from 46.246.157.254, 18 September 2011
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
- George Mackenzie, 3rd Earl of Cromartie Grand Lodge of Scotland
- James Douglas, 14th Earl of Morton Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Thomas Lyon, 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Alexander Melville, 5th Earl of Leven Grand Lodge of Scotland
- William Boyd, 4th Earl of Kilmarnock Grand Lodge of Scotland
- James Wemyss, 5th Earl of Wemyss Grand Lodge of Scotland
- James Stuart, 8th Earl of Moray Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Henry Erskine, 10th Earl of Buchan Grand Lodge of Scotland
- William Nisbet (mason) Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Francis Charteris, 7th Earl of Wemyss Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Hugh Seton Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Thomas Erskine, Lord Erskine Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Alexander Montgomerie, 10th Earl of Eglinton Grand Lodge of Scotland
- James Hay, 15th Earl of Erroll Grand Lodge of Scotland
- George Drummond Grand Lodge of Scotland
- James Forbes, 16th Lord Forbes Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Sholto Douglas, 15th Earl of Morton Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Alexander Stewart, 6th Earl of Galloway Grand Lodge of Scotland
- David Melville, 6th Earl of Leven Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Charles Bruce, 5th Earl of Elgin Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Thomas Erskine, 6th Earl of Kellie Grand Lodge of Scotland
- George Ramsay, 8th Earl of Dalhousie Grand Lodge of Scotland
- James Adolphus Oughton Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Patrick McDouall-Crichton, 6th Earl of Dumfries Grand Lodge of Scotland
- John Murray, 3rd Duke of Atholl Grand Lodge of Scotland
- David Dalrymple, Lord Hailes Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Sir William Forbes, 6th Baronet Grand Lodge of Scotland
- John Murray, 4th Duke of Atholl Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Alexander Lindsay, 6th Earl of Balcarres Grand Lodge of Scotland
- David Erskine, 11th Earl of Buchan Grand Lodge of Scotland
- George Gordon, Lord Haddo Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Francis Douglas, 8th Earl of Wemyss Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Francis Napier, 8th Lord Napier Grand Lodge of Scotland
- George Douglas, 16th Earl of Morton Grand Lodge of Scotland
- George Gordon, 5th Duke of Gordon Grand Lodge of Scotland
- William Kerr, 6th Marquess of Lothian Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Francis Stuart, 10th Earl of Moray Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Charles Montagu-Scott, 4th Duke of Buccleuch Grand Lodge of Scotland
- George Gordon, 9th Marquess of Huntly Grand Lodge of Scotland
- George Ramsay, 9th Earl of Dalhousie Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Francis Rawdon-Hastings, 1st Marquess of Hastings Grand Lodge of Scotland
- William Maule, 1st Baron Panmure Grand Lodge of Scotland
- James St Clair-Erskine, 2nd Earl of Rosslyn Grand Lodge of Scotland
- James Duff, 4th Earl Fife Grand Lodge of Scotland
- George Hay, 8th Marquess of Tweeddale Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Alexander Douglas-Hamilton, 10th Duke of Hamilton Grand Lodge of Scotland
- George Campbell, 6th Duke of Argyll Grand Lodge of Scotland
- John Campbell, 2nd Marquess of Breadalbane Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Thomas Hay-Drummond, 11th Earl of Kinnoull Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Francis Wemyss-Charteris, 9th Earl of Wemyss Grand Lodge of Scotland
- George Kinnaird, 9th Lord Kinnaird Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Henry Erskine, 12th Earl of Buchan Grand Lodge of Scotland
- William Douglas-Hamilton, 11th Duke of Hamilton Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Alexander Murray, 6th Earl of Dunmore Grand Lodge of Scotland
- James Broun-Ramsay, 1st Marquess of Dalhousie Grand Lodge of Scotland
- George Leslie, 15th Earl of Rothes Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Lord Frederick FitzClarence Grand Lodge of Scotland
- George Murray, 6th Duke of Atholl Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Fox Maule-Ramsay, 11th Earl of Dalhousie Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Robert St Clair-Erskine, 4th Earl of Rosslyn Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Sir Michael Shaw-Stewart, 7th Baronet Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Walter Erskine, 11th Earl of Mar Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Archibald Campbell, 1st Baron Blythswood Grand Lodge of Scotland
- George Baillie-Hamilton-Arden, 11th Earl of Haddington Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Sir Charles Dalrymple, 1st Baronet Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Alexander Fraser, 19th Lord Saltoun Grand Lodge of Scotland
- James Hozier, 2nd Baron Newlands Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Charles Maule Ramsay Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Thomas Gibson-Carmichael, 1st Baron Carmichael Grand Lodge of Scotland
- John Stewart-Murray, 8th Duke of Atholl Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Sir Robert Gilmour, 1st Baronet Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Archibald Montgomerie, 16th Earl of Eglinton Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Edward Bruce, 10th Earl of Elgin Grand Lodge of Scotland
- John Dalrymple, 12th Earl of Stair Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Archibald Douglas, 4th Baron Blythswood Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Robert Hamilton-Udny, 11th Lord Belhaven and Stenton Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Alexander Fraser, 20th Lord Saltoun Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Sir Iain Colquhoun, 7th Baronet Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Robert Balfour, 3rd Earl of Balfour Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Randolph Stewart, 12th Earl of Galloway Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Malcolm Barclay-Harvey Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Alexander Macdonald, 7th Baron Macdonald Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Archibald Montgomerie, 17th Earl of Eglinton Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Andrew Bruce, 11th Earl of Elgin Grand Lodge of Scotland
- David Liddell-Grainger Grand Lodge of Scotland
- James Wilson McKay Grand Lodge of Scotland
- J. M. Marcus Humphrey Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Sir Gregor MacGregor, 6th Baronet Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Michael Baillie, 3rd Baron Burton Grand Lodge of Scotland
Kenneth Robert Henderson Mackenzie, The Royal Masonic cyclopaedia, p. 288 46.246.157.254 (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Nope. No lodges cited for any of them. MSJapan (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Um... MSJ, we don't have lodges cited for most of the people we currently list. If we are going to require citations to give lodges, we would have to reduce the list about 75%. That said...
- NOT DONE - 46.246 - we have politely suggested (several times) that the time has come for you to log in and contribute to this article directly... and a request of this size just proves that point. To expect other editors (all volunteers) to continue to edit for you - especially to this extent - boarders on being WP:Disruptive editing.
- So... I think the best answer to your request is "NO"... on the grounds that its shear volume makes it an unreasonable request. Blueboar (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is also not appropriate for material on talk pages to be commented out because the requester doesn't like the answer received. I have reverted that, but my patience is wearing thin for this type of behavior. MSJapan (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Rethinking inclusion
Sigh... I think the time has come for us to examine our inclusion criteria... I am worried that we are bumping up against WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I think we need something a bit stricter than a) the person has an article, and b) there is a source that lists them as being a Mason.
As indicated by the request made above, we have a problem when it comes to Freemasons who have titles of nobility... unfortunately the Nobility WikiProject has successfully argued that someone can be notable enough for an article simply by virtue of having a title. This means we could end up having to list every English baronet, lord, earl, etc. who was ever a Freemason (hundreds alive today... and thousands if we look through history). That definitely is not what we intended when we started this list. Blueboar (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have to say something: Because I love both this page and all titles of nobility, if I am the cause of either the deletion/change of design of this page, deletion of all those articles of people notable only as peers or both of the above, I de-activate the request and do never try to persuade no one (especially Blueboar and MSJapan) to put any baronet and earl and any one else who has a small article and is known only as peer.--46.246.157.254 (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, unfortunately, all this stuff is now in the page history and can't be removed, so if we don't address this now, it will be a problem that will certainly recur if somebody else sees it unsolved. It is, however, going to require some thought. MSJapan (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- As I see it, we have three options for inclusion...
- a) Overly broad - List anyone who is wp:notable (defined as having an article), and who happens to be a Freemason (with verification of that fact) - this is our current criteria.
- b) Overly restrictive - list people who are notable primarily for being Freemasons - This would be a very tiny list... there are not a lot of people who could meet this criteria.
- c) Find a happy medium - ah, there's the rub... where and how do we draw the line? Blueboar (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
James Glasgow
Should/can James Glasgow be added? He was the Deptuy Grand Master and Scretary of State of North Carolina who was the pivotal figure in the Glasgow Land Fraud scandal which led to his resignation as Sec. of State, his lodge losing it's charter and the creation of the Supreme Court of North Carolina. Now if we was not a mason in good standing at the time of his death, he is NOT eligible to be on this list, correct? Eric Cable | Talk 17:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Not being in good standing (either in life or death) is not necessarily grounds for non-inclusion... we list several people who were expelled or resigned... the question is whether there is a solid reliable source that accurately discusses both his membership and why he quit/was kicked out. Blueboar (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Not being in good standing (either in life or death) is not necessarily grounds for non-inclusion...
- OK, good to know. Eric Cable | Talk 14:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
the question is whether there is a solid reliable source that accurately discusses both his membership and why he quit/was kicked out
- Dude, there are VOLUMES out there about the Glasgow Land Scandal...
- "Glasgow Land Fraud" on Google
- Glasgow Land Fraud papers
- "An Angel has Fallen!" The Glasgow Land Frauds and the Establishment of the North Carolina Supreme Court
- Eric Cable | Talk 14:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Do any of these sources discuss the fact that a) Glasgow was a Mason, or b1} whether he was expelled from Masonry and b2) if he was expelled, whether his expulsion was due to his involvement in the Land Scandal? That is the kind of thing we would need. Blueboar (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- a) Yes b1} Yes b2} Yes. I'll work on it. Eric Cable | Talk 14:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- a) Yes b1} Yes b2} Yes. I'll work on it. Eric Cable | Talk 14:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- Do any of these sources discuss the fact that a) Glasgow was a Mason, or b1} whether he was expelled from Masonry and b2) if he was expelled, whether his expulsion was due to his involvement in the Land Scandal? That is the kind of thing we would need. Blueboar (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, I just added him with cites. He already had a wiki article, but it's very short so I'm actively working on expanding it. Eric Cable | Talk 20:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Polling
I sujest to open a poll. Anyone who wants to vote may vote A, B or C and explain the reason. I will talk with Blueboar and MSJapan about the ending date.
- a) Overly broad - List anyone who is wp:notable (defined as having an article), and who happens to be a Freemason (with verification of that fact) - this is our current criteria.
- b) Overly restrictive - list people who are notable primarily for being Freemasons - This would be a very tiny list... there are not a lot of people who could meet this criteria.
- c) Find a happy medium - ah, there's the rub... where and how do we draw the line?
A Because I am against change of design and of if-someone-that-has-an-article-but-is-not-so-notable-is-not-to-be-put.--46.246.157.254 (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- A poll would be premature at this point. Your opposition to any change is noted. Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from 68.63.135.72, 29 September 2011
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dr. Leon H. Sullivan Long time Pastor of Zion Baptist Church Philadelphia, First African American Board Member of GM,Founder Of OIC, Human Rights Activist, Medal of Freedom Awardee;Prince Hall Lodge 57, Philadelphia, PA
68.63.135.72 (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- He's got an article, but it has no mention of his membership, and I can't find a reliable source that has mention of it either. The Lodge exists, so that helps (and it is actually called "Prince Hall #57", which is probably very interesting in and of itself), but MWPHGLPA doesn't have a list of famous members. Barring any other source, Sullivan might be far enough back where he might be in one of Walkes' books someplace, but I'd have to look. MSJapan (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Do you remember me?
Dear MSJapan and much dearer Blueboar. I think you know who am I. I now registered but this does not mean that I will never appear as an IP to screw your lifes up.
Sincerely The Theosophist (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
P.S.
Can you take a look at my user page and tell me if you like it?
Edit request from , 8 October 2011
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Steve Jobs needs added to the list LokiVasyrak (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. And also, put your signature in the right place.--The Theosophist (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to the nay-sayer's club, Theosophist ;>) Blueboar (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Blueboar, but do not belive taht if this was not so redicullus I would say no. Do you remember Tecumseh or the Puerto Ricans? If it was a situation like those, I MAY have say yes! Do you like my Userpage? Can you notify MSJapan because I missed him?
Of course you are a better guy. See you later!--The Theosophist (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC) - Don't care about your user page... this isn't face book. I care about the edits you make to articles, and the comments you make on talk pages. Blueboar (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, now I like MSJapan more than youand also, you must know that I hate facebook and I never was, be or will be a member--The Theosophist (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)- Theosophist, thank you for asking for a reliable source, if you could please read WP:FORUM and see the "discussion forum" section and stay on task of improving the article.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
where is Obama?
Wasn't Obama 32° Degrees Freemason of the Prince Hall? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.15.80.30 (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Nope... Obama is not a Mason (Prince Hall or otherwise). Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from , 9 November 2011
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I will add a list of Freemasons to the page as i myself am a Freemason. So i can submit myself to the page and many others. I can also post a description on why we formed the secret society
Zanitho12 (talk) 08:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. Unless you are notable enough to have your own article on wikipedia, you don't go in the list.--Vidkun (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Vidkun is correct... this list has two basic requirements for inclusion: 1) A person must be notable to be included on the list, and b) you must provide a reliable source to support the claim that the person was/is a Freemason. If you meet these two basic requirements, we would be happy to add you. If not, forget it. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Should we include birth/death dates with the brief bio data?
Just wondering if it would be helpful to include birth/death dates (in years) to the brief bio data? Since there are articles on all these people, it shouldn't be too difficult to add it (just time consuming). It might help the reader to put the people listed in some sort of historical perspective. Blueboar (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. The information is largely available by going to the articles on the individuals concerned, but I still think it would be part of a useful "brief summary" for those merely scanning the list. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 20:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
May I take it as a project?--The Theosophist (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)- Well, we should better forget it. It will take so much time to finish and it will not help that much. --The Theosophist (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't all have to be done at once - it could be a rolling project. Equally, I agree, it's not essential, just useful. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 21:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- See, it's a matter of ratio. A friend of me who is a sociologist taught me this: To se if something needs to be done we rate the time and the usefulness both in a 0-10 scale. If the usefulness is more than the time we should do it. If they are equal we should discuss a bit more. If the time is more than the usefulness we should leave it. I rate this project T8 - U4. --The Theosophist (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't all have to be done at once - it could be a rolling project. Equally, I agree, it's not essential, just useful. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 21:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, we should better forget it. It will take so much time to finish and it will not help that much. --The Theosophist (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from , 20 November 2011
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Gerald R Ford, President Initiated: September 30, 1949, Malta Lodge No. 465, Grand Rapids, Michigan 69.208.69.202 (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Done-BUT you should provide yourself the reliable sources. See you next time.--The Theosophist (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Co-Freemasonry
Should we add to the list female co-masons or male who were only co-masons?--The Theosophist (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- We obviously are not limiting ourselves to just Anglo-US style "Mainstream" Masonry (we include people from the Prince Hall tradition, and from the Continental tradition, after all)... but adding co-ed Masonry and Female only Freemasonry is yet another layer and could end up making the list significantly longer (and it is already overly long). Not sure how to answer this question. Blueboar (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but can you explain why is that bad? --The Theosophist (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- No. It is not the purpose of the list be so extensive as to be utterly ridiculous. As it is quickly getting to be with the addition of ten's of names of people who are unknown but for the fact that they are masons and have an article. USEFUL, POSITIVE, contributions are welcome. Adding names for the sake of adding names most certainly is not. kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 22:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- No. I'm frankly concerned about the size of the list as-is, and adding yet another tradition to it (and one that most people haven't heard of, to be honest) seems to be to be really pushing the scope way too far. MSJapan (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- No. I do agree that this would be a complication, not just lengthening the list, but also making it less easy to comprehend for those outside masonic circles. I agree with MSJapan that most people have never heard of Co-Masonry. Additionally, with the greatest of respect to its members, most regular Freemasons would not consider Co-Masonry to be real Freemasonry at all, but a different tradition with some areas of similarity. Certainly here in England, whilst there are some ritual similarities, the differences of culture, philosophy, and landmarks are so pronounced as to make it clear that there is little held in common between Freemasonry and Co-Masonry. I'm not qualified to say whether Co-Masonry should have a similar list to this, but if it should, then it should certainly be a different and separate list. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 01:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- What if a famous person was only a co-mason?--The Theosophist (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well... all the men and women you listed on my user talk page were members of Le Droit Humain... why not start off by creating a "Notable members" section within that article and list them there? If your list grows significantly, it could be hived off to a separate "List of members of Le Droit Humain" article. Just a suggestion. Blueboar (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- As discussed by MSJapan above, a co-mason is not a Freemason. kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 02:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Additionally, to be a little more fact-based, the LDH article itself is way too cross-referential to other articles to communicate its content, and has no real encyclopedic content of its own. Therefore, if we were to add Co-Masons to the list here and link them there for explanation, no one would have any idea what on earth the whole thing was about in the first place. In fine, the article doesn't assert its own notability - the gist of it is "It's Freemasonry, but it's not, but we're not going to enumerate the differences, and here's a list of where we are in the world." I think that needs to be addressed before anyone starts making a list of notable members of an organization that it would appear nobody has heard of aside from its own members. MSJapan (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hardly "nobody", MSJapan -- I knew about them long before I started editing here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Additionally, to be a little more fact-based, the LDH article itself is way too cross-referential to other articles to communicate its content, and has no real encyclopedic content of its own. Therefore, if we were to add Co-Masons to the list here and link them there for explanation, no one would have any idea what on earth the whole thing was about in the first place. In fine, the article doesn't assert its own notability - the gist of it is "It's Freemasonry, but it's not, but we're not going to enumerate the differences, and here's a list of where we are in the world." I think that needs to be addressed before anyone starts making a list of notable members of an organization that it would appear nobody has heard of aside from its own members. MSJapan (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Edit request on 12 December 2011
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Ivan Andrić was born on October 9, 1892, to a Roman Catholic family of Croatian parentage,[4] in Travnik, Bosnia and Herzegovina" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivo_Andri%C4%87 so it is not corectly to write that he is serbian novelist and writer but its the same if you write croatian, its the best to write he is a yougoslav novelist...
188.129.121.26 (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Done... reflecting the bio article. Blueboar (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Edit request on 12 December 2011
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please consider adding Colonel Harlan Saunders founder of Kentucky fried chicken173.72.208.111 (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC) 173.72.208.111 (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.--Hazel77 talk 23:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't normaly do other people's work for them (User:173.72.208.111 in this case), but I was interested, so looked. Ref 1. Ref 2, with photo of his clearly masonic grave. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 12:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Done -- thanks for the assist, TT. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't normaly do other people's work for them (User:173.72.208.111 in this case), but I was interested, so looked. Ref 1. Ref 2, with photo of his clearly masonic grave. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 12:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Edit request on 3 January 2012
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add person as follows: Carlos Romero Gimenez Coronel Carlos Romero Giménez spanish Colonel, anti-fascist fighter, Human Rights advocate. Spanish Gran Logia, Madrid Descendiente (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- He was a member of a Lodge under the Grand Orient of Spain (GOE), and seems to have somehow transferred his membership, which doesn't make sense. Info is available in the Spanish Wikipedia, but the Spanish source isn't linked, so I don't think we can actually do much with this as such. MSJapan (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
You may see this link (in Spanish): http://foro.masoneria.es/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=278. JP Sartre on 27 Dic 2011, 18:11 provides info. (summary: begis at Mare Nostrum 11, Grand Orient of Spain (GOE) and then GLE (Gran Logia Española) serving as Gran Consejero (1937) and Gran Experto of it Governance Council (1938). In France, represents Masonic Family as Consejero, helping exiled masons from Spanish Civil war)Descendiente (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Descendiente: I note that Wikipedia does not have a biographical article on Colonel Gimenez. One of the criteria for inclusion in this list is that the person be notable... ie there must be an existing article about him. I don't know if Colonel Gimenez is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia or not... but assuming he is, that article would have to be written before we add him to the list. I would suggest that you research his life some more... find some good sources... and then write a bio article. When you have done that, come back and we can further discuss adding him to this list. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Blueboar: There is an article in Spanish Wikipedia: here. Regards.Descendiente (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Great... then you should be able to use that Spanish article to help you write a short bio article here on the English wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 6 January 2012
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the folowing name: LeJeune, John Archer - Major General, U.S. Marine Corps and 13th Commandant of the Marine Corps (1920-1949) he earned the proud title of "the greatest leatherneck of them all". He was initiated May 3 1919, passed May 7 1919 and raised May 17 1919 in Overseas Lodge No. 409 (Rhode Island Charter) at Coblenz, Germany.
independent references; masonicinfo.com and The Philatelic Freemason,
71.233.217.111 (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not done YET... General LeJeune is definitely notable enough to be included, and I think it is likely that he would have been a Mason... however the sources could be better. Masonicinfo.com is iffy as a source (while it is well regarded in the masonic community, it is also a personal website of Ed King, and Wikipedia frowns on using personal websites as sources). The Philatelic Freemason is a masonic news letter, so it might be reliable... does anyone know more about it? Blueboar (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK... I think this should be enough ... any objections? Blueboar (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- That should work. MSJapan (talk) 04:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Done Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Consensus request
A large number of edits have been recently added, many quite good as they corrected names, added missing initials, and so on. Only one had an Edit Summary. IIRC, an Edit Summary is considered by en.wiki to be, if not "required," then highly and strongly desirable. All editors should include an Edit Summary because not doing so requires other editors to look at each edit to find out what's going on. It's just polite.
I would also like a consensus on name format. My recommendation would be to include a person's legal name, and not to include titles, honorifics, and the like, as they are not part of a person's name. Consistency suggests that if one listee is Dr. so-and-so and another is Sir so-and-so, then every listee should be so treated, including those whose only claim to fame is Mr., Mrs., Miss, Ms., and their counterparts on other languages for those listees not from English-speaking cultures or countries. kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 00:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would agree as to honorifics. Winston Churchill is better than Sir Winston Churchill.
- Less sure on titles. I think these should be included as part of the descriptive biographical info. If we take the following example:
- Clarence Threepwood, 9th Earl of Emsworth and noted pig breader. Initiated June 20th, 1917 - Woodhouse Lodge No. 42, Blandings, England[ref]
- the name is Clarence Threepwood... his title (9th Earl of Emsworth) is included as bio information, along with the fact that he was also notable for breeding pigs. Blueboar (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think WP:COMMONNAME should pretty much address any concerns along those lines. MSJapan (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Freemason Kings and Presidents
- ENGLAND / GREAT BRITAIN: Henry I, Henry II, Richard I, John (= Knights Templar!),Henry III, Henry V, Henry VI, Henry VII, James I, Charles I, O.Cromwell, R.Cromwell, Charles II, William III, George I, George II, George III, George IV, William IV, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI, (Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II)
- SCOTLAND: Robert the Bruce
- USA: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, W.Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Pierce, Buchanan, Lincoln, A.Johnson, Garfield, McKinley, Th.Roosevelt, Taft, W.Wilson, Harding, F.D.Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, L.B.Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush (father), Clinton, Bush
- FRANCE: Louis XVI, Napoleon Bonaparte, Louis XVIII, Louis-Philippe I, Charles X, Napoleon III
- ITALY: Vittorio Emanuele II, Garibaldi, Mazzini
- NETHERLANDS: Louis Bonaparte (brother of Napoleon), Willem I, Willem II, (Queen Wilhelmina, Queen Juliana, Queen Beatrix)
- BELGIUM: Leopold I
- RUSSIA: Pyotr (Peter) I, Pyotr III, Pavel (Paul) I, Alexander II
- SPAIN: Joseph Bonaparte (brother of Napoleon), Juan Carlos
- SERBIA: Peter I
- ROMANIA: Alexandru Ioan Cuza, Carol II
- HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE: Friedrich II, Maximilian I, Rudolf II
- PRUSSIA: Friedrich II, Friedrich Wilhelm II, Friedrich Wilhelm III
- GERMANY: Willem I, Friedrich I
- BAVARIA: Maximilian I
- HANNOVER: Ernst August, V.George
- GREECE: George I, George II
- PORTUGAL: Afonso I (= Knight Templar!)
- JORDAN: Hussein
- OTTOMAN EMPIRE: Murad V
- EGYPT: Fuad I
- CHINA: Sun Yat-sen, Chiang Kai-shek
- COLOMBIA: Simon Bolivar
- SWEDEN: Gustav III, IV, V, VI, Oscar I, II, Karl XIII, XIV, XV, Adolf Frederick
- DENMARK: Christian VIII, X, Frederick VII
- NORWAY: Oscar I, Haakon VII
- POLAND: Stanislas I, II
- NAPLES: Joachim Murat, Joseph Bonaparte (brother of Napoleon)
- ARGENTINA: Bernardino Rivadavia Böri (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - not sure where you got your information from (I suspect it was a conspiracy theory website), but your list is full of obvious errors. Queen Victoria and Elizabeth II?... seriously?? Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't get my information from any website! I found them from the books. Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II are women, so you are saying that they are not freemasons. But this is not true! Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn was the father of Queen Victoria. He had no son! And King George VI was the father of Queen Elizabeth II. He had no son. (because of that Elizabeth became "Queen".) Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II are the Royal Patroness of Freemasonry. (same things for the Queens of The Netherlands.) / You are saying: my list is full of obvious errors. Which one is wrong? Böri (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this list is crazy. A large number of the names on it WERE indeed Freemasons, but many others certainly were not. Many of the English kings date from a time before Freemasonry existed. Queen Victoria WAS the "Grand Patroness of Freemasonry", a title officially offered by the United Grand Lodge of England, and accepted by the Queen, because of her great interest in the Craft, but it did NOT make her a Freemason - she was never initiated. Queen Elizabeth II has never had the title "Patroness of Freemasonry", although her husband (the Duke of Edinburgh) is a Freemason, and a member of Navy Lodge No 2612 in London (as stated on his official website). Several of your American Presidents were indeed Freemasons, but there are others on your list who were simply involved with masonic-related organisations (youth organisations, or charitable offshoots); again, this does NOT make them Freemasons. Your lists for Sweden, Denmark, and Norway are much more accurate, but overall much of your list is clearly derived from "conspiracy theory" sources, even if you haven't realised the origins of the stuff you were reading. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 12:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't get my information from any website! I found them from the books. Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II are women, so you are saying that they are not freemasons. But this is not true! Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn was the father of Queen Victoria. He had no son! And King George VI was the father of Queen Elizabeth II. He had no son. (because of that Elizabeth became "Queen".) Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II are the Royal Patroness of Freemasonry. (same things for the Queens of The Netherlands.) / You are saying: my list is full of obvious errors. Which one is wrong? Böri (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- You are saying: "...but many others certainly were not." - NOT true! They were also freemasons! /"Many of the English kings date from a time before Freemasonry existed." - Yes, I wrote that they were Knights Templar! (and Knights Templar became freemasons!) /"your list is clearly derived from "conspiracy theory" sources" - Which site? Show me the link! There's no site like that! Böri (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Böri - I have to echo Timothy's comment. You may not have realized that the book you read is repeating unfounded conspiracy theory claims, but it is (by the way... what book was it?). I suggest reading some other books. Despite their off-putting names, both "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry" (by S. Brent Morris) and "Freemasons for Dummies" (by Christopher Hodapp) are excellent introductions. If you want something more scholarly, I would suggest "The Freemasons" (by Jasper Ridley). For a great on-line source: The Grand Lodge of BC&Y has lots of material on their website (I would suggest starting with this page, and then just follow the links).
- As for US Presidents... There have been 15 Presidents who were Masons: Washington, Monroe, Jackson, Polk, Buchanan, A. Johnson, Garfield, McKinley, T. Roosevelt, Taft, Harding, F. Roosevelt, Truman, L. Johnson and Ford. The rest of those on your list were/are not Freemasons.
- As for the Knights Templar evolving into the Freemasons... that is a very disputed idea. There is a lot of pseudo-historical speculation that attempts to "prove" a connection, but there really is no solid evidence that supports it. The vast majority of academic historians reject the idea outright. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am also going to need to see sources for each entry. As Blueboar said there were only 15 US presidents who were Freemasons and you list 29. Jefferson is frequently referenced as a freemason, but no records exist to substantiate that claim. Lincoln put in a petition, but immediately withdrew it when he received the nomination for presidency, never having his petition even balloted on. Reagan temporarily received the 32ond degree from the Grand Commander of the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite in the United States, but the Grand Commander was immediately rebuked by the Grand Master of Masons in Maryland because the Grand Commander doesn't have the right to make a non-mason a mason, he can only make someone who is already a 3rd degree mason a 32 degree mason in the Scotish Rite. The Honor was immediately taken away from Reagan. The Bushes have been associated with the Skull and Bones which is not a masonic body, and Clinton was a DeMolay but never joined the Freemasons. These are just a few of the inconsistencies from the Presidents section.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's a waste of time, insofar as those who were Masons are already on the list, and those who are not aren't going to get on the list. A lot of it is based on the idea that "one family member was one, and therefore the rest are," which is wholly erroneous. For example, for the Presidents, LBJ only took his first degree, Nixon was not, and the last who was in recent times was Ford. Clinton was a DeMolay only, Reagan was made an honorary Shriner (though the 32nd is news to me) and Jefferson, as you say, one just can't tell one way or the other. Napoleon stated an interest obliquely (for political purposes?), but neither he nor his brothers actually joined. Frederick the Great was actually Frederick II, and his successors were not related to him directly. King Hussein of Jordan would certainly not have joined and then outlawed his own membership. I'm sure we could go on and on, but I'm sure there's no reliable support for the entries posited that we have not already addressed. MSJapan (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am also going to need to see sources for each entry. As Blueboar said there were only 15 US presidents who were Freemasons and you list 29. Jefferson is frequently referenced as a freemason, but no records exist to substantiate that claim. Lincoln put in a petition, but immediately withdrew it when he received the nomination for presidency, never having his petition even balloted on. Reagan temporarily received the 32ond degree from the Grand Commander of the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite in the United States, but the Grand Commander was immediately rebuked by the Grand Master of Masons in Maryland because the Grand Commander doesn't have the right to make a non-mason a mason, he can only make someone who is already a 3rd degree mason a 32 degree mason in the Scotish Rite. The Honor was immediately taken away from Reagan. The Bushes have been associated with the Skull and Bones which is not a masonic body, and Clinton was a DeMolay but never joined the Freemasons. These are just a few of the inconsistencies from the Presidents section.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- They were all freemasons! (and you know that!) Show me that they weren't! Böri (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, that isn't how Wikipedia works. We don't have to prove the negative... you have to prove the positive. If you want to add someone to this list, you have to provide a citation to a reliable source that says they were Freemasons (see WP:BURDEN). Unless you can do that, we have nothing further to discuss. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- They were all freemasons! (and you know that!) Show me that they weren't! Böri (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- From the masonic books, of course... In the internet age no one can hide the truth! Böri (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:DNFTT - I think this discussion is over. Blueboar (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is the site of the Turkish Freemasonry you can see the names of some of the kings and the presidents there: http://www.mason.org.tr/index.php?Itemid=44&id=40&option=com_content&task=view#hukumdar Böri (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Your point? that website agrees with what we have been telling you. Blueboar (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is the site of the Turkish Freemasonry you can see the names of some of the kings and the presidents there: http://www.mason.org.tr/index.php?Itemid=44&id=40&option=com_content&task=view#hukumdar Böri (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- That website also agrees with what I said before. Böri (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, that list does not support the list created above. I agree with Blueboar, until an actual reliable source shows up WP:DNFTTCoffeepusher (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Let's not be quite so vague. Bori, you have far more entries on your list than that website does in several cases, and the website is wrong in several others (at the very least). Lyndon Baines Johnson was not a Mason per se, nor was Nixon (who, I would add, that website claims is still alive - he died in 1994). Gerald Ford was a Mason, but he is also deceased (2004; website indicates otherwise). Reagan, both George Bushes, etc., whom you mentioned, are not on that list, nor are any female monarchs. You have six entries for France; the website has three, at least one of which (Napoleon) is definitely questionable. Neither your list noer the site's is in accordance with UGLE's list, as it's actually missing one King of England. So between you and this Turkish site, errors are rampant.
- This is why we don't just add whatever people think we should add - people make mistakes or (publish misinformation) quite often on the Internet. The blatant factual errors indicate that that site is not a reliable source per Wikipedia's policies. Therefore, anything from it is unacceptable, and that should close this discussion. MSJapan (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Ok, that list does not support the list created above." I didn't write from that list. But that list agrees with me! Do you know more than the Turkish Freemasons? You are all wrong! Böri (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- So what list did you write from? You say you got your list from a book... what book?
- As for the Turkish site... It isn't a question of whether we (a small group of Wikipedia editors) know more than the Turkish Freemasons; it is a question of whether other sources know more than the Turkish Freemasons. One source can be wrong... it is unlikely that multiple sources, all in agreement, are wrong. The list provided by the Turkish Freemasons disagrees with the lists provided by numerous other sources (both Masonic and non-masonic in nature)... sources that a) have a reputation for accuracy and reliability, and b) agree with each other as to which Kings and Presidents were Freemasons. I would definitely say that those other sources, especially when combined, do know more than the Turkish Freemasons. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Ok, that list does not support the list created above." I didn't write from that list. But that list agrees with me! Do you know more than the Turkish Freemasons? You are all wrong! Böri (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- "I would definitely say that those other sources, especially when combined, do know more than the Turkish Freemasons"/ You think so! Other sources were written by freemasons of the other countries... How do you know that they know more than the Turkish Freemasons? I show you that these kings were freemasons. You couldn't show that they weren't! You didn't say anything! This is a kind of demagogy! Böri (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- First, the sources we rely on were not all "written by Freemasons of other the countries". Yes, some were written by Masons, but others were written by non-Masons (such as academic historians)... Second (and to me, far more important) the sources we consider reliable (whether Masonic or not) are those that have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The Turkish source does not have such a reputation (do we even know who the author is?). Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think it is high time we stopped this dialogue now, citing again WP:DNFTT. It is clear that Böri has a history of disruptive editing, with a string of warnings on his talk page, and considerable evidence that he is motivated by political and nationalistic concerns above WP policy and consensus. He has been asked repeatedly to name his sources, and has consistently declined to do so. He is in a minority of one. I suggest there are no further grounds for discussion until actual fresh evidence is produced. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 01:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- First, the sources we rely on were not all "written by Freemasons of other the countries". Yes, some were written by Masons, but others were written by non-Masons (such as academic historians)... Second (and to me, far more important) the sources we consider reliable (whether Masonic or not) are those that have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The Turkish source does not have such a reputation (do we even know who the author is?). Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- "I would definitely say that those other sources, especially when combined, do know more than the Turkish Freemasons"/ You think so! Other sources were written by freemasons of the other countries... How do you know that they know more than the Turkish Freemasons? I show you that these kings were freemasons. You couldn't show that they weren't! You didn't say anything! This is a kind of demagogy! Böri (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I do see the "per se" note above, but LBJ was an EA, hence he was a mason, just not a full Master Mason. As to the comments by the usual maintainers of this topic I have nothing to add except that I have nothing to add. kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 23:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- LBJ is already on the list... so that is a moot point. What this all comes down to is the usual mantra we repeat over and over again... if you want to add someone to the list, you need to provide a reliable source. 'Nuff said. Blueboar (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 12 February 2012
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add John H. Barnhart to list of Freemasons– February 27, 1857 Membership document for the Lodge at Norwalk, Mount Vernon Lodge #64. Norwalk OH under charter of the Grand Lodge of Ohio, (AI 5857?) October 1, 1916 Membership documents for the Cedar Rapids, Iowa, North Star Lodge, No. 447 at Estherville, Iowa Azure4sure (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Marilyn Valentine
Not done: Please provide some proof of notabilty and a verifiable source for the information. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've got a source which I'm not going to bother posting, as there's no notability. MSJapan (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Edit request 2 on 12 February 2012
Sam Houston, Governor of Tennessee, President of the Republic of Texas, first Governor of the State of Texas, US Senator. Initiated at Cumberland Lodge No. 8, Nashville, Tenn. Source, 10,000 Famous Freemasons by William R. Denslow http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/10,000_famous_freemasons/Volume_2_E_to_J.htm ChuckEye (talk) 05:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Done Blueboar (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 22 February 2012
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jean-Marc Aractingi,engineer,diplomat and author; Grand Master of 33rd degree at the Grand Orient Arabe
82.126.16.90 (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. mabdul 00:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I question whether this guy is really notable. While we do have a bio article on him, it relies exclusively on sources that were written by the subject himself (for example, he is not only the GM of the Grand Orient Arabe, he is the author/webmaster of it's webpage). I suspect we have another case of someone who started their own private splinter Grand Lodge, and is trying to use Wikipedia to promote it. Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 29 February 2012
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You should add the Danish physicist Hans Christian Ørsted to the list of famous Freemasons. He is also listed on Danish Wikipedia as a Freemason [[6]]. The Danish Encyclopedia "Den Store Danske" at [[7]] also mentions that he was a Freemason. H.C.Ørsted is particularly known for being the first to realize electomagnetism.
It may also be worth mentioning here that several Danish Kings were Freemasons - they are all listed on [[8]]. Bengsig (talk) 14:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Done Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but the Den Store Danske article seems reliable. I formatted Oersted'd entry like this:
* [[Hans Christian Ørsted|Hans Christian Oersted]] (1777-1851), Danish physicist and chemist who discovered that electric currents create magnetic fields. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.denstoredanske.dk/Livsstil,_sport_og_fritid/Foreninger/Hemmelige_foreninger/Den_Danske_Frimurerorden|title=The Danish Order of Freemasons|work=Den Store Danske|language=Danish|accessdate=2012-02-29}}</ref>
If you'd like to change that entry or provide detailed entries for the other people you mentioned, please format it in a similar way to make it easier to insert and reactivate the edit request. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Nighthawk5424 recently added Jack Johnson to the list. I think Johnson should be on the list, however, I have a problem with the citation that was given... a PDF newsletter from Whatcom Lodge # 151 in Washington State.
The problem is that the source in question cites Wikipedia as a source. This sets up a WP:CIRCULAR reference. I removed the questionable source (replacing it with a cn tag to encourage a more reliable source), however Nighthawk has reverted my removal/tag, and has returned the questionable source. Nighthawk is not a new user, but he/she has not been very active and may not know the relevant policy... so, I will cut him/her some slack. Rather than edit war, let's discuss. Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've pulled the ref a second time, because it's not an appropriate reference. I will leave a note on the user's talk page, and hopefully we will have a discussion. MSJapan (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've undone the original editor's removal of the {{cn}} tag MSJapan placed, and asked him not to remove it again until a reliable source is provided. I've also let him know that the entry will be removed at some point if a reliable source isn't given. kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 12:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
John Steinbeck was a Freemason
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Another Brother needs to be added:
John Ernst Steinbeck, Jr., Pulitzer Prize winning writer. Salinas Lodge No.204 CA (1929-1933).
Source:
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/steinbeck_j/steinbeck_j.html
Additional photo for fun:
Amallucent (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)amallucent
- Done - Good find. Blueboar (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Eliphas Levi was a Mason
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Eliphas Levi, French occult author and ceremonial magician, Lodge Rose du Parfait Silence, Grand Orient of France, Paris.
I'm not sure how you site the GOdF's Lodges, being they aren't recognized by the UGLE, and are considered irregular by most Masons.
Sources:
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/esoterica/levi_e/levi_notes.html
Paul Chacornac, Éliphas Lévi, rénovateur de l'occultisme en France (1810-1875), 1926
Amallucent (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)amallucent
- This one needs a bit of discussion... yes, Levi was (for a few months) a Mason... but if we add him, we must make it clear that he joined well after he wrote his books about Occult Freemasonry (and he quit the Craft because he discovered that it was not the same as "his" preconceived ideas.) Blueboar (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am not convinced that we need that kind of detail in the list. I think that we should mention that he was only a freemason briefly, but more detail belongs in the home article not the list.Coffeepusher (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Brigham Young was a Mason
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Brigham Young, American leader in the Latter Day Saint movement and a settler of the Western United States, raised April 9, 1842, Nauvoo Lodge, Illinois.
Sources:
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/masonicsymbolsandtheldstemple.htm
or
Paul C. Graham, "The Masonic Moroni"; cf."Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society," Spring 1971, p. 81. <http://dig.lib.niu.edu/ISHS/ishs-1971spring/ishs-1971spring-079.pdf>
Amallucent (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)amallucent
- Done, Although his membership is questioned... a few months after he was initiated his lodge was deemed to be clandestine and its members (including Young) were suspended. Blueboar (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 29 March 2012
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fernando Canlas Nicolas, Deputy Director, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, Past Master of Hiram Lodge no. 88, Grand Lodge of the Philippines, 32 degree AASR Valley of San Diego, CA USA and member of Shriner - Albar, CA USA.
112.209.215.183 (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - we need a reliable secondary source that establishes his membership. We also limit inclusion in this list to Masons who are considered notable enough to have a Bio article on Wikipedia. In other words, in addition to a source that establishes the person's membership in the fraternity, we require that a Wikipedia article on the person exists... before we add him to the list. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Consensus Request - Purpose of List
My understanding is that the list's purpose is to identify notable Freemasons. I suggest that membership in side bodies is outside the brief of this list. Thus, membership in [Scottish] Rite, York Rite, AMD, Shrine, &c. is not relevant and wastes space unless that information is integral to proving someone is a master mason per se (such as a grand lodge having jurisdiction over more than the first three and chapter degrees alone). Thoughts?
kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 17:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Are you talking about limiting what sources we can use for citation, or are you talking about limiting what we should mention in the text? Blueboar (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Just what we should mention in the text, i.e., name (Harry S Truman), notabilitiness (United States President), lodge (Belton Lodge No. 450, Belton, Missouri), and proof. I would not mention membership in other masonic bodies, would not mention what grand lodge (unless for some reason knowing the jurisdictional affiliation of the person's lodge was absolutely necessary), nor do any editorializing. Just the facts, ma'am.
kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 12:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Just what we should mention in the text, i.e., name (Harry S Truman), notabilitiness (United States President), lodge (Belton Lodge No. 450, Belton, Missouri), and proof. I would not mention membership in other masonic bodies, would not mention what grand lodge (unless for some reason knowing the jurisdictional affiliation of the person's lodge was absolutely necessary), nor do any editorializing. Just the facts, ma'am.
- I am of the opinion that we should keep the mentions brief, however I think we should provide a little more information than just name, rank, and serial number. A brief who they are (why they are notable), what lodge (with proof), and affiliate bodies seems fine to me.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Information on affiliate bodies does not do anything to add to the fact that someone is a mason. And where does one draw the line? Nowhere? Then we can end up with five or six paragraphs of someone's masonic "pedigree." Or do you draw it at some other place? Why there? Why not here? Side bodies add nothing but text and the ability to make unjustifiable judgments about this guy or that guy because this one had this degree and that one did not. If the highest degree in Masonry is Master Mason, then I submit that this list should stop there.
kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 14:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree. Affiliate bodies are part of a person's masonic record. As for the question of where to draw the line, that can be solved on a case by case basis and doesn't need a hard judgement right now based on the hypothetical "five or six paragraph" slippery slope which actually doesn't exist. As of now the longest entry is William Hesketh Lever, which consists of 6 or so sentences exclusively of a blue lodge record. So I am getting confused, what is your argument? Are you arguing that we should stick to the first three degrees because 1. Side bodies are outside the scope of this list? 2. allowing mentions of side bodies means that "we can end up with five or six paragraphs of someone's masonic pedigree" 3. mentioning side bodies may create the illusion that degrees outside the first three are some kind of ranking system, and this list should stop at the highest degree?
- my response. 1. this is a list of Freemasons, thus recognized affiliate bodies (bodies recognized by one of the grand jurisdictions, not just the GLOE) are part of that. 2. Slippery slope, that hasn't happened on a list of possibly over 1000 entries (I am not going to count, but it is a lot) and the idea that if we don't draw a hard line now chaos will result doesn't hold up to reality, length of an entry can be handled case by case. If you have a specific entry you find problematic please bring it up, but as of now the inclusion of affiliate bodies hasn't caused that problem. 3. I don't think that either showing a person was active in such and such affiliate body, or restricting that information will do anything to stop people unfamiliar with freemasonry from making that judgement. it isn't the purpose of this list to engage in enthymematic argumentation.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, they are part of a person's masonic record. But this article is not about anyone's masonic record. It's about masonic membership.
kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 20:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, they are part of a person's masonic record. But this article is not about anyone's masonic record. It's about masonic membership.
- I agree that membership affiliated bodies is irrelevant (and mentioning them could be confusing to our readers who do not understand the differences between the various bodies). That said, there are some masonic credentials (such as being a Grand Master) that probably should be mentioned... for example:
- Harry S. Truman - US President - Belton Lodge No. 450, Belton, Missouri - Served as Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Missouri (1940–1941) <refs>
- I could also see adding a one sentence line in cases where membership is disputed, or when someone was expelled. Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I think things are fine the way they are for two reasons: 1) What, exactly, is it hurting? and 2) Sometimes, a person's notability is based on thier work in an appendant/concordant/affiliated group. For example, Arturo de Hoyos (http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A1J1LTXAFMBWO5) is notable because he is the Grand Archivist of the Scottish Rite. Eric Cable | Talk 13:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would quibble with that... Arturo is notable as an author on Masonic topics. Without his writing he would probably not be considered notable. My quibble, however, is with your example and not your point... Yes, in cases where the subject's involvement in affiliated bodies is what makes them notable ("Dad" Frank Ladd and Robert Macoy both come to mind here) this should be noted in the bio section.
- I think what Svanslyck is talking about is not mentioning membership in affiliated body when that membership is irrelevant to the person's notability. Franklin D. Roosevelt belonged to several affiliated bodies, for example... but his membership in those bodies is irrelevant in the context of this list, so there is no need to list all the bodies he joined and degrees he took. All we really care about in the context of this list is that he joined a basic Craft or "Blue Lodge". Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- What if we have a reliable source guaranteeing membership to an affiliate body but nothing else, shouldn't we mention it?--188.4.199.12 (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would say "no"... but my "no" needs clarification. I have no problem with using the source as a citation (as long as the affiliated body in question requires membership in a Craft/blue lodge as a prerequisite) - so, for example, if one of the Scottish Rite websites lists someone as a member of the Scottish Rite, I think it appropriate to use that website as a citation to verify that he is/was a Mason and thus belongs on the list... BUT... I don't think there is a need to mention his membership in the Scottish Rite in the text of the entry unless that membership is central to the person's notability. Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- What if we have a reliable source guaranteeing membership to an affiliate body but nothing else, shouldn't we mention it?--188.4.199.12 (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
"I think what Svanslyck is talking about is not mentioning membership in affiliated body when that membership is irrelevant to the person's notability." Yes, this is my point. In almost every case it is unmimporant that John Doe was a member of chapter, council, commander, scottish rite, shrine, grotto, etc. We only need one lapel pin, not 5 nor 15. In rare cases we might need two or even three but that notability needs to support the person's notability in whole, and not just as a member of the list. Thus, Albert Pike's being a member of the scottish rite is significant but that does not mean we need to identify every present and past presiding officer of ever signficant masonic body as those facts are not the purpose of this list.
kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 17:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 3 April 2012
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following people, as they were Grand Masters of the Grand Lodge of New Zealand
PRIME MINISTERS
GOVERNORS-GENERAL
- William Plunket, 5th Baron Plunket
- John Jellicoe, 1st Earl Jellicoe
- Sir Charles Fergusson, 7th Baronet
- Charles Bathurst, 1st Viscount Bledisloe
- George Monckton-Arundell, 8th Viscount Galway
- Cyril Newall, 1st Baron Newall
- Arthur Porritt, Baron Porritt
BOTH
Some of then (espesially Jellicoe and Holyoake) were too notable to have been ignored. , Governor-General of New Zealand, Grand Master http://www.freemasons.co.nz/cms/misc/grand-masters/ 188.4.199.12 (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 8 April 2012
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add to Jellicoe and Newall that they were an Admiral of the Fleet and a Marshall of the RAF respectively, as (unlike the others) they were more notable about this instead of governorship or the premiership. Thanks!
46.246.138.186 (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Done Blueboar (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Edit Request 15 April 2012 - Edmund Barton, Australian PM
Here are some more sources for him
UGLV Web site, retrieved 26 March 2012 http://www.freemasonsvic.net.au/OurHistory/FamousAustralianFreemasons.aspx
Grand Lodge of South Australia and Northern Territory web Site Retrieved 26 March 2012 http://www.santfreemasons.org.au/content/faq
National Archives of Australia. Australia's Prime Ministers, "Fast facts Edmund Barton" retrieved 27 March via web http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/Barton/fast-facts.aspx
“Masonic Prime Ministers Of Australia”, Monday, October 6, 2008, In “The Lectern “ The Official Publication Of The W.H.J.Mayers Memorial Lodge Of Research Holden Under The Charter Of Gregory Lodge No. 50h Uglq. Affiliate Of The Australia And New Zealand Masonic Research Council. Retrieved 14 April 2012 Http://The-Lectern.Blogspot.Com.Au/2008/10/Masonic-Prime-Ministers-Of-Australia.Html
It's No Secret, Real Men Wear Aprons, Edited Peter Lazar, Published by Masonic Care Ltd Australia 2009 Page 42 ISBN 978-0-646-52446-7
All these are taken from a large list of Australian freemasons in PDF at the bottom of this page http://www.lodgedevotion.net/devotionnews/education-editorial-articles/famous-australian-freemasons/large-list-of-notable-and-famous-australian-freemasons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melbournemason (talk • contribs) 04:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- All the above have been added to the main article Melbournemason (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
A source - FREEMASONS AND THE ROYAL SOCIETY
This might be of use http://www.freemasonry.london.museum/os/wp-content/resources/frs_freemasons_complete_jan2012.pdf Melbournemason (talk) 07:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Very nice find... Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Source for actors etc
I will have to come back to this.. unless someone else wants to go through it http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/masonicmuseum/masonic_actors_and_screen_writer.htm Melbournemason (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- The above has been used as a souce in the above list, done ! Melbournemason (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Footnotes
Dahn says I am turned off by the ..... annoying format problems in the footnotes
I agree..the "abcdef.." at the start of many of them makes them look very messy. Is that the way to do it ? Melbournemason (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid there's little we can do about the abcdef... What I meant more is that the footnotes are in many cases unformatted, or follow varying formats. If this list/the resulting lists are to move forward on the quality scale (and they could), that also needs to be a concern - but, as always with rapidly changing lists, that can be a major headache and a thankless job for anyone who might wish to look into it. Dahn (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
"Split me" time?
Friends, isn't it high time we considered splitting this list?
I have watchlisted this page because I keep writing reasonably sourced articles about Romanians who also happened to be Freemasons - Zamfir Arbore, Vasile Pogor and Ioan Mire Melik are some examples who did not make it on the list yet. Whenever I consider adding them, I am turned off by the impracticality of the list and the annoying format problems in the footnotes. I realize that the many good users who attend to this list are doing all they can to improve it: but it's the sheer size, activity and visibility that prevents a more thorough copyedit.
What would be the practical thing to consider? I might suggest either splitting this into national/regional lodges, orders etc. or a by century division. The former may not be entirely feasible (not all Masons, I suppose, are clearly affiliated with a certain chapter, particularly in early years); the latter has the advantage that it will create fewer and larger lists to watchlist and keep tidy, but may inspire people to create lists for bogus Masons in, say, Solomonic times. Dahn (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- If we do split the list, I would suggest a neutral alphabetical split (example: A-H on one page, I-P on another Q-Z on a third). Blueboar (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's even better. Dahn (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- OK... I will post a link to this discussion at the Freemasonry WikiProject's talk page, to generate additional comments. Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see why not - we could even transclude the three / five / twentynine pages a split results in onto the excisting page, so the presentation remains the same for the casual browser. WegianWarrior (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Creating a list of Freemasons seems a very simple task, but the longer one gets – the harder it becomes. If the article was to be spilt –I would support it on the basis of using names rather than any other category such as country, profession or Constitution. Using Country of birth is particularly problematic. For example Atatürk becomes Greek rather than Turkish as he is known. Many famous Australian Freemasons were born in Britian. However even names are problematic - under which letter do you put an actor with a screen name? For instance an Australian lodge of research spent time unsuccessfully proving "Chips Rafferty" has been initiated – until someone searched him according to his birth name of John William Pilbeam Goffage under which he was listed in the records of Grand Lodge NSW. I have found several other similar examples. If you put him in the list and his records are updated on one page – there is no guarantee that other entries for him will also be undated. An alphabetical listing is the best option, but will not be a silver bullet Melbournemason (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Technically, if the lists are separate, it wouldn't be much of a problem having entries on several - in any case, not as much a problem as it would be having them several times here (if somebody comes in and says "I don't see Rafferty" because s/he doesn't look under "G", then adds him under "R", it is much more embarrassing if they should be on the same list). Dahn (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Creating a list of Freemasons seems a very simple task, but the longer one gets – the harder it becomes. If the article was to be spilt –I would support it on the basis of using names rather than any other category such as country, profession or Constitution. Using Country of birth is particularly problematic. For example Atatürk becomes Greek rather than Turkish as he is known. Many famous Australian Freemasons were born in Britian. However even names are problematic - under which letter do you put an actor with a screen name? For instance an Australian lodge of research spent time unsuccessfully proving "Chips Rafferty" has been initiated – until someone searched him according to his birth name of John William Pilbeam Goffage under which he was listed in the records of Grand Lodge NSW. I have found several other similar examples. If you put him in the list and his records are updated on one page – there is no guarantee that other entries for him will also be undated. An alphabetical listing is the best option, but will not be a silver bullet Melbournemason (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see why not - we could even transclude the three / five / twentynine pages a split results in onto the excisting page, so the presentation remains the same for the casual browser. WegianWarrior (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
OK... we seem to have a general consensus that we should split the list alphabetically (grouping yet to be determined)... Although, I do have to admit that I like the idea of transclusion which would make editing easier but keep the presentation the same. Blueboar (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
This transclusion idea sounds like a good one ! Melbournemason (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Masonic Great War Project
Interesting and may be of use
- This site has been produced to provide a searchable database purely on Freemasons who took part in and died in the course of their duty during the Great War of 1914-1918
http://www.masonicgreatwarproject.org.uk/
Melbournemason (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Eisenhower?
Was Dwight Eisenhower NOT a mason? I thought for sure I saw his protrait hanging in the San Deigo Scottish Rite building years ago, but the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania does not list him here: http://www.pagrandlodge.org/mlam/presidents/index.html Maybe the San Deigo guys had his pciture up just because he was a 5-star general, POTUS and otherwise a kick-ass guy. Eric Cable | Talk 19:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am not expert of American Freemasons. Interestinly he is listed here http://www.grandlodgeofkentucky.org/about/famous_masons.htm but I am not super confident in that list. Bessel does not list him http://bessel.org/presfmy.htm Denslows 10,000 Freemasons list him as NOT being a Freemason http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/10,000_famous_freemasons/Volume_2_E_to_J.htm Dwight D. Eisenhower President of the United States. He is not a Freemason, but holds the fraternity in high regard. On February 24, 1955 he addressed 1,100 Freemasons at a breakfast given by Frank S. Land in the Statler Hotel in Washington, D.C. At this time he stated: "I feel a distinct sense of pride in appearing before this group which takes on its own shoulders the care and welfare of the unfortunate. This group, by action, recognizes the responsibilities of brotherhood by helping one another . . . you are setting an example to all of us that we must do our duty if we are to prove the Communists to be in error—to be liars.”
- I cant find a good source saying he was, but can find good sources saying he was not Melbournemason (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Denslow had errata, but Poll's revision of 10K makes no adjustments to that entry, and reads the same as the original, so I'd say the answer is no. MSJapan (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Given the number and reliability of the sources that don't list him ... I would agree with saying "nope - Ike was not a Mason". If a solid source turns up to change our minds, we can always add him at a later date. Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Denslow had errata, but Poll's revision of 10K makes no adjustments to that entry, and reads the same as the original, so I'd say the answer is no. MSJapan (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed.... just surprised. Eric Cable | Talk 13:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm working on a list of people who were not Freemasons, I'll just go ahead and add Eisenhower there. Dahn (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Couldn't you just get away with "Everyone else not on this list"? To be fair though, there are a lot of people who are popularly considered such and really are (or were) not. So, silly as it sounds, it might have encyclopedic value. MSJapan (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm working on a list of people who were not Freemasons, I'll just go ahead and add Eisenhower there. Dahn (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am not sure that Wikipedia should have an article on people who were NOT Freemasons... it would be HUGE. (also... I have to question whether "not being a Freemason" is notable as an attribute.) Blueboar (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- I was thinking more along the lines of "claimed to be, but aren't." Maybe I'll take a shot at a user draft and see if it works. MSJapan (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am not sure that Wikipedia should have an article on people who were NOT Freemasons... it would be HUGE. (also... I have to question whether "not being a Freemason" is notable as an attribute.) Blueboar (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
An article on people who are not freemasons but are often reported to be sounds like a good idea.. bu sources might be problematic.. and might just see you just reproducing others lists like this one http://www.masonicinfo.com/famousnon.htm ? Melbournemason (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oh Hell No. Sorry, but that would just be a whole new set of arbitrary rules for people to argue over. Eric Cable | Talk 17:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Eric here... I think a list of "claimed to be, but aren't" would be a very bad idea. Talk about potential POV magnet! I foresee tons of debates over the reliability sources (both those making the claim and those rebutting those claims.) Blueboar (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Erm
Am I the only one who thinks Dahn was making a fairly (or even blindingly) obvious joke about proving a negative? Egg Centric 23:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 27 May 2012
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Polydore de Keyser, Founding Member and first Junior Warden, MacDonald Lodge, No. 1216 https://sites.google.com/site/macdonald1216lodge/History-of-the-Lodge
Prince Michael of Kent, Grand Master, Grand Lodge of Mark Master Masons of England and Wales http://www.thefriendlydegree.org.uk/wordpress/?page_id=2
77.49.131.150 (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Done - added Polydore de Keyser. D of K already there. Hasn't the IP been taught to be cautious about this sort of thing? 
Egg Centric 16:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Done - added Prince Michael of Kent, who was NOT already there, surprisingly. With respect to Egg Centric, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, and Prince Michael of Kent, are two different people! I've added a better reference than the one provided above (a Craft reference), but I've also included the Mark Master Masons ref and noted Prince Michael's membership, as his role as Grand Master of Mark Master Masons makes it notable. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 17:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, an excellent point. I hadn't quite grasped the significance of that letter, but since I halved it with you, it's right in the end
Egg Centric 22:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 31 May 2012
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please put de Keyser at D not at K as the de is part of his surname, not of his first name. It would really be a good idea to put all the des at D and all the vons at V.
77.49.131.150 (talk) 09:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Done Okey dokey, I'll get to work on that. Egg Centric 09:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've set answered=no because I frankly haven't the inclination to do any more at this moment so others can do it; alternatively I'll be back later. I have moved a few. Egg Centric 09:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. IP, you seem to have made quite a few edit requests here. Have you considered getting an account so you can make the edits yourself? Egg Centric 09:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Already done Mdann52 (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 22 June 2012
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
John S. Tanner - U.S. Congress; 8th Dstrict; Tennessee: 1989 - 2011: Founder Blue Dog Coalition: Master Mason - 33rd Degree: Western Sun Lodge #88, Troy, Tennessee.
66.168.152.115 (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry I don't know what you're asking, can you clarify? TRLIJC19 (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps s/he's asking that it be added to the list, in which case s/he will have to provide a source. AndieM (Am I behaving?) 08:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TOW talk 08:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 12 May 2012
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Samuel Adams - American revolutionary & statesman. King James I - Scottish & British Monarch, produced Authorized Version of the Bible (King James Version). James E. Webb - NASA Administrator 1961-68 [1] - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC) 71.196.11.183 (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Sam Adams is quite likely but still needs a source... King James is highly unlikely so definitely would need a source... Webb may not be notable enough. Blueboar (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- If he has an article he is notable... and he has!--77.49.131.150 (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ah... you are correct. Webb apparently is notable enough. In which case, all we need is a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like Sam Adams was NOT a Mason. Too bad. He was one no nonsense, bad-ass dude. Eric Cable | Talk 16:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 26 June 2012
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Congressman John S. Tanner (8th district of Tennessee 1989 - 2011) western sun lodge #88, Troy Tennessee. 33rd Degree
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._Tanner
66.168.152.115 (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Note Wikipedia is not a reliable source plus, Tanner being a freemason is not mentioned is his article. Callanecc (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Done I took it upon myself and found two really good sources and one pretty good one.
- 1) Tanner described as "mason" in the 2009-2010 Congressional Directory:Congressional Directory, 2009-2010, 111th Congress (Google eBook). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 246. ISBN 978-0-16-083727-2. Retrieved 6/27/2012.
{{cite book}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help) - 2) Tanner mentioned in resolution regarding the anniversary of his lodge from the Tennessee General Assembly: "HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 531: A RESOLUTION to congratulate the members and leadership of Hess Lodge #93 Free and Accepted Masons of Dyersburg on the celebration of their 160th anniversary on October 8th, 2000" (PDF). Nashville, Tennessee: Tennessee State General Assembly. 6/16/2000. p. 2. Retrieved 6/27/2012.
WHEREAS, several Dyersburg Masons have distinguished themselves as men of stature in our great state and nation, including the Honorable John S. Tanner, U.S. Congressman for Tennessee's 8th Congressional District;
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=and|date=(help) - 3) Article on him getting his 33rd from in the Scottish Rite Journal: "Thirty-third Degree Conferred on Congressman John S. Tanner". Washington, DC: Scottish Rite, Southern Jurisdiction. 2004. Retrieved 6/27/2012.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help)
- 1) Tanner described as "mason" in the 2009-2010 Congressional Directory:Congressional Directory, 2009-2010, 111th Congress (Google eBook). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 246. ISBN 978-0-16-083727-2. Retrieved 6/27/2012.
Eric Cable | Talk 14:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Edison
Thomas Edison... anyone find a good source for him? All I can find are "not so good" sources. Eric Cable | Talk 13:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Erm, are you sure he was one? What I know about Edison would strongly suggest that he wasn't. There's plenty of kooks claiming he was of course but they're the kind that would claim Margaret Thatcher was! Egg Centric 15:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's my point exactly. I thought to myself "I wonder if Edison was a Mason" and googled it... and found unreliable sources saying he was, but little else. Oh well, just a thought. Eric Cable | Talk 13:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- ^ Ancient Aliens - The NASA Connection, History Channel 2, 2012