Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Proposed paragraph removal

Section proposed for deletion

In contrast to Catholic allegations of rationalism and naturalism, Protestant objections are more likely to be based on allegations of mysticism, occultism, and even Satanism. Masonic scholar Albert Pike is often quoted (in some cases misquoted) by Protestant anti-Masons as an authority for the position of Masonry on these issues. However, Pike, although undoubtedly learned, was not a spokesman for Freemasonry and was also controversial among Freemasons in general. His writings represented his personal opinion only, and furthermore, an opinion grounded in the attitudes and understandings of late 19th century Southern Freemasonry of the US. Notably, his book carries in the preface a form of disclaimer from his own Grand Lodge. No one voice has ever spoken for the whole of Freemasonry.

I believe that the above paragraph should be deleted due to poor sourcing and WP:OR issues. The deletion was contested by User:Blueboar, so I would like to elaborate more on the issues that I have with this paragraph.

The first sentence makes a general statement about what Protestant objections are more likely to be based on using one source alone: an anti-Freemasonry tract by Christian fundamentalist Jack Chick. Since this is a WP:PRIMARY work presenting the viewpoint of an individual Protestant Christian, we can only use it as a source for straightforward statements of fact that directly come from the source (e.g. what Jack Chick personally thinks about Freemasonry). We cannot engage in WP:OR and apply extrapolation and analysis to this source to say what Protestant objections are more likely to be based on overall.

The second sentence is published by the Masonic Information Center, meaning that it is not WP:INDEPENDENT of Freemasonry. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, it cannot be used to make claims about third parties, such as what Protestant anti-Masons have said or any misrepresentations they may have made.

The end of the passage is cited to Albert Pike's own Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, a WP:PRIMARY work. It cannot be used to establish whether Pike was learned, whether he was a spokesman for Freemasonry, whether it is [notable] that his book carries a disclaimer from his Grand Lodge, or whether his writings were controversial among Freemasons in general, all of which are not direct statements of fact about Pike's work but rather analytical statements contextualizing his work requiring a secondary source. As the paragraph states, His writings represented his personal opinion only, so they cannot be used as a source for describing the role of Pike in Freemasonry in WP:Wikivoice. Zylostr (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• An initial comment (I will respond in more detail later) - first, the source for the second sentence (De Hoyas and Morris) was originally published by M. Evans & Company, which is INDEPENDENT of Freemasonry. The online version that is linked to (Masonic Service Center) is merely a “courtesy link”… a re-publication by permission of the authors. Second - It is a secondary source, not a primary one. And… even if it were, the authors are two of the most notable scholars on Freemasonry, writing about a subject within their expertise, so it would pass the EXPERT exemption. Blueboar (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  It still seems to me that the source may be WP:COISOURCE. The publisher being independent doesn't make the authorship independent—for instance, a public figure's autobiography might be published through a major mainstream publishing house, but it would still be a non-independent source. The De Hoyas and Morris source appears to carry the copyright of the Masonic Information Center, making it the work of a Masonic organization. Additionally, the genre of the work appears to be a polemical work in defense of Freemasonry, and De Hoyas and Morris are Freemasons who have held leadership roles in Freemasonic organizations, so this is not a work by outsider academics.

  To be charitable, I believe it might make sense to limit the extent to which COISOURCE applies to work written by members of very large organizations or movements, as well as work belonging to organizations that fall under the umbrella of a broader movement but are not necessarily formally connected to the movement as a whole. For instance, it seems to me that works written by scholars who happen to be religious are not categorically COISOURCE on religious matters. I can see an argument that De Hoyas and Morris's work is on par with the work of legitimately credentialed religious apologists, which could make it usable but not in WP:Wikivoice. Zylostr (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  I have been thinking about this further, and while I still disagree with your objections to Morris and De Hoyas, I do think these paragraphs are too long. In fact, I think the entire “religious objections” section (not just the paragraphs in question) could benefit from better summarization. The opinions that various religious sects and denominations have about Freemasonry (and Freemasonry’s response to those opinions) are covered in detail in linked articles. We don’t need to repeat it all here. This article is supposed to be an overview. Blueboar (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think I would also agree with summarization in accordance with due weight. Perhaps the whole section could be replaced with a brief paragraph cited to academic sources about religious history, with secondary sources guiding due weight considerations. This would potentially obviate concerns over De Hoyas and Morris by replacing the source with very similar information from an academic source.Zylostr (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

One problem is that there are no completely independent academic sources that cover the sub-topic. The closest we have are either Religious scholars or Masonic scholars like Morris and De Hoyas. Still, I will give it a shot. Be patient please… this will take time. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Freemasonry is a secret society

The lexical knowledge:

• Encyclopedia Britannica Freemasonry (Definition): Freemasonry, the teachings and practices of the fraternal (men-only) order of Free and Accepted Masons, the largest worldwide secret society — an oath-bound society, often devoted to fellowship, moral discipline, and mutual assistance, that conceals at least some of its rituals, customs, or activities from the public (secret societies do not necessarily conceal their membership or existence).
• Wikipedia: Secret Society#Definitions: Historian Richard B. Spence of the University of Idaho offered a similar three-pronged definition: The group's existence is usually not kept secret, but some beliefs or practices are concealed from the public and require an oath of secrecy and loyalty to learn. ...Spence's definition includes groups traditionally thought of as secret societies (Freemasons and Rosicrucians) ... Historian Jasper Ridley argues that Freemasonry is, "the world's most powerful secret Society".

The logical thinking:

• The principle of secrecy with the obligation of confidentiality and the hierarchical initiation system implies that there must necessarily be secrets kept, otherwise it would be an open community like any other. It is also known from Freemasonry that there is secret cipher (Masonic cipher), rituals, gestures, handsigns, symbols and passwords for mutual identification, as well as non-public membership lists. All of these secret aspects are therefore more reminiscent of the practices of a secret service than of an ethical association that only withholds a few scientific secrets from humanity that could be learned by oneself anyway.
• To assume that just because some (very old) secrets of Freemasonry are now publicly known, is as naive as believing that a secret service would stop its work just because a few of its encryptions were decoded. Of course it can be assumed that, as with any secret service, these methods are constantly being improved and developed in secret.
• If secret symbols and codes have been used once (secret society), it can be assumed that they can always be used. It is not possible to prove the contrary. An exposed enemy secret agent will always be classified by security authorities as a possible spy, even if he becomes a stonemason afterwards. Because it is impossible to prove, that he no longer is an enemy agent.
• Thank you.

Wikiprediger (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, neither Britannica nor Wikipedia are considered reliable sources here. They're both tertiary. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Another issue is that there are multiple definitions of the term “secret society”. While some of these definitions do apply to fraternal groups (such as the Freemasons, Knights of Columbus, Elks, and college fraternities)… other definitions DON’T apply.

And because there are multiple definitions, we can not state in Wikivoice that such and such fraternity IS a “secret society”.

What we CAN do is note that while definition “X” applies to such fraternal groups, definition “Y” does NOT apply (see WP:NPOV). And that requires going into context and nuance that isn’t really appropriate for the lead sentence. Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

As to the specific definitions discussed above: at least in the United States, Freemasonry does not fit even those definitions.

Let’s look at Brittanica’s definition: it defines the term as concealing “at least some of its rituals, customs or practices from the public”… Freemasonry does not. It freely acknowledges that ALL of its rituals, customs and practices have been exposed SO MANY times (often with pictures and diagrams) that NONE of it is secret any more. You can even purchase copies of the various “official” rituals on-line.

Same with Spence’s definition… again, what may have once been concealed from the public is now publicly available.

As for your “logic”… it seems you really don’t understand the subject matter. You talk about Freemasonry having a “cypher”. I assume you are referring to the Pigpen cypher, which some sources refer to as the “Masonic cypher”. It is hardly “secret”. Schoolchildren learn it. (I remember learning it when I was around 10 years old. I thought I could send messages to my classmates without my teachers knowing what I was saying… turned out my teachers had learned it when they were children). More importantly it ISN’T actually taught in Masonic Lodges. I’m not sure how it became associated with Freemasonry, but it isn’t Masonic at all.

As for the “secret” handshakes, passwords, symbolism etc etc… this is stuff that once (back in the 16th century) WAS a secret way for Masons to identify each other… but because it was all exposed over and over again, it is no longer considered secret. In the modern day, Grand Lodges issue dues cards so masons can verify their membership to each other. Or they can simply email the relevant Grand Lodge main office and ASK: “is so-and-so a member in good standing?” (In fact, anyone can do this… The membership rolls are a matter of public record).

The basic problem is that you assume that Freemasons “must” be doing something secret behind those closed doors, but your assumption is incorrect. The reality is that the Freemasons don’t have ANY secrets any more. They simply pretend at secrecy (out of tradition). Oh, It did have secrets once… but NONE of it is actually secret anymore (and hasn’t been for about two hundred years). Blueboar (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Fine, i had a similar disussion already in the german wikipedia (i'm from germany). My conclusion was to write an own article with criticism on freemasonry - i have too much points to discuss them all individually here. It would take months for probably only some changes in the end. In a more critic article is place for this - i think it's the right way to do. The article is nearly complete in german - i'll then transalte it to english. Thank you. Wikiprediger (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

FYI, you should probably see our existing article on Anti-Masonry… it may already cover much of what you are talking about. Blueboar (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Anti-Masonry for me is a too strong term. This article is more about politics and religion. Criticism for me is something else. But thank you for that hint. Wikiprediger (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

No problem… just didn’t want you to waist your time duplicating what has already been done. As Billy Crystal said in The Princess Bride: “Have fun storming the castle!” Blueboar (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. twink twink. You mean one of the freemasonry headquarters - the holy wood on I am the bee (imdb.com)? i already had. twink twink. the secret is about the keywords there. do you have any further questions, i can give you a short instruction how to disturb their global communication. twink twink. greetings to your masters. they're not mine. Wikiprediger (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

History creep

I note that over time, a lot of editors have been adding subsections to the “History” section - outlining the history of the fraternity in specific countries/regions (China, the Caribbean, etc). I am wondering if these subsections are appropriate for this article (which should be an overview - with links to more detailed articles). We have numerous Freemasonry in X articles that might be a better venue for this sort of information. Please discuss. Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Fellowcraft vs Fellow Craft

We seem to have a disagreement on the spelling of the name of the second degree. One word or two? I did a google ngram that seems to support that it should be one word (“Fellowcraft”), and this matches the sources I have in my library. Also, I note that the United Grand Lodge of England spells it as one word, and this article is marked as using UK spelling. Blueboar (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Greetings @Blueboar, I understand that many jurisdictions have lost the ancient way of writing Fellow Craft and now just spell it as one word, which is becoming more popular now, same thing happened with Free-Masonry, Free-Mason, and it might happen in the future with Master Mason and Entered Apprentice, I am not advocating that we get rid of Fellowcraft in this article, but that we present both spelling, Fellow Caft is the historically accurate way of spelling the word, which is why Rituals use the abbreviation F.C. and is still used in many jurisdictions, thus this spelling is relevant today as a way to understand why F.C. is used, to respect jurisdiction that are still using this spelling and as the correct historical spelling. Again I do not want to get rid of the other spelling just present both for a more accurate and encyclopedic understanding.

Addendum: After some research it looks like Fellow Craft is still more used than Fellowcraft and gaining in popularity, and looking at historical mentions of the term, you can see the overwhelming use of Fellow Craft vs Fellowcraft pre-1950. Here is a comparison. HyperSite (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Moderns to Premiere Grand Lodge

The term "Moderns" was originally coined as a derogatory label by a newer Grand Lodge that referred to themselves as the "Antients." This misleading terminology persisted for centuries, causing significant confusion within Masonic circles. In recent years, most Masonic jurisdictions have agreed to adopt the more accurate term "Premiere Grand Lodge" to refer to the organization previously known as the "Moderns." This change aims to clarify the historical timeline and avoid the negative connotations associated with the older terminology. To improve accuracy and reduce confusion, it is recommended that all mentions of the outdated term "Moderns" be replaced with "Premiere Grand Lodge" throughout this article. This update will better reflect current Masonic scholarship and nomenclature. HyperSite (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Not without some cites for "most Masonic jurisdictions", please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The Quatuor Coronati Lodge No. 2076 guide lines alone should suffice, in the "Revised Style Guide - Ars Quatuor Coronatorum" to publish any research papers, it is stated page 12-13 that: "In Masonic writing the words ‘Antients’ and ‘Moderns’ call for especial care. It would seem preferable to refer to ‘the Antient Grand Lodge’ or ‘the Antients’ rather than to ‘the Antients’ Grand Lodge’. It is in any event recommended that the Grand Lodge of 1717 be described as ‘the Premier Grand Lodge’ [now spelt with an initial capital letter] rather than that of the Moderns." You can access the document here. HyperSite (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Article review

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I have taken a look at the article and noticed the following:

• There are uncited statements in the article.
• There is an "unreliable sources" orange banner at the top of "Islam and Freemasonry" section. Is this still valid?

Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

This is a tricky topic to bring up at GAR… a LOT of material on Freemasonry comes from two types of sources: 1) Primary source material from insiders, 2) unreliable source material from opponents of Freemasonry. There isn’t much that would qualify as both independent and secondary material - ie what GAR is looking for. I am tempted to say: let’s make it accurate, and if that means we don’t get to GA or FA, so be it. Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Nomenclature

Given some of the recent additions, I think we need to revisit a discussion that we had several years ago, and reach a (new?) consensus. The issue is what to call the two main traditions/factions within broader Freemasonry?

English language sources tend to reflect an Anglo/American perspective, and use “Regular” and “Continental” when discussing these two branches. Sources that stem from the Euro-sphere, however, tend to use “Liberal” and “Conservative” to describe the two branches. Both forms of nomenclature have neutrality problems.

Here on WP, we try to take a neutral position on all of this. But that presents a problem in determining which terms we should use. My own inclination is that we should use the terms that each branch uses when referring to themselves (so “Regular” and “Liberal”) and avoid the terms that each branch uses when referring to the other (so avoid “Continental”, and “Conservative”). But I am open to suggestions. Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I strongly believe we should adopt "Conservative" and "Liberal" as the most neutral terminology for both Masonic traditions. This approach offers several advantages:

First, "Regular" inherently implies legitimacy, suggesting the other tradition is somehow irregular or illegitimate - a perspective not shared by Liberal Masons themselves. Wikipedia's neutrality policy requires we avoid terminology that subtly endorses one side's viewpoint.

Second, "Continental" creates a misleading geographical limitation when this tradition is practiced globally, just as Conservative Masonry extends far beyond Britain. Using geographical terms for philosophical differences introduces unnecessary confusion.

Third, "Conservative" and "Liberal" directly address the actual philosophical distinctions between these traditions without embedding claims about legitimacy or origin. These terms accurately reflect the fundamental differences in their approaches to Masonic tradition and practice.

This parallels other Wikipedia naming conventions where neutrality is prioritized over common usage. Consider how the Russian Wikipedia uses "Russia-Ukraine War" rather than the more commonly used "Special Military Operation" in Russia. In both cases, clarity and neutrality should take precedence over terminology preferences of either side.

Additionally, using consistent parallel terms (Conservative/Liberal) provides readers with an immediate understanding of the philosophical contrast between these traditions, making our articles more accessible to those unfamiliar with Masonic history. It also aligns with Wikipedia's commitment to describing subjects in terms that would be recognized by reliable sources across multiple language communities, not just English-language ones.

Finally, this terminology change would bring our articles in line with scholarly discourse that increasingly recognizes these philosophical designations as more accurate than the historically contingent terms from any single national tradition.

As an encyclopedia committed to representing multiple perspectives fairly, we should choose terminology that most accurately describes the philosophical distinction between these traditions without implicitly favoring either's claims about legitimacy. "Conservative" and "Liberal" accomplish this goal most effectively. HyperSite (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

In addition I believe that being able to clearly define those two movements will enable us to have a more qualitative article on regular Freemasonry since the term regular is used by both sides in some instance.

We could create a new article called conservative Freemasonry explaining its roots history lineage and points of view and modify the article concerning regular Freemasonry to explain what the concept of regularity with information on where it comes in Free-Masonry as a whole and how it's applied in both traditions today.

This way we could avoid using any type of loaded terminology and respect Wikipedia's neutrality. HyperSite (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

While the term "irregular" is not always explicitly applied to Liberal Freemasonry in Wikipedia articles, the consistent labeling of the UGLE-aligned tradition as "Regular" creates a strong implicit contrast that can suggest a lack of legitimacy on the part of Liberal bodies. Similarly, the use of "Continental" introduces geographical confusion, especially considering that both traditions have spread far beyond their points of origin. These terms, though historically common, can subtly encode bias and undermine the encyclopedic neutrality Wikipedia strives for.

For these reasons, I believe there is merit in adopting more philosophically descriptive and balanced terminology—namely, "Conservative Freemasonry" and "Liberal Freemasonry". These labels better reflect the actual ideological distinctions between the two traditions without implicitly favoring one over the other. They also support a clearer, more informative structure for future content development (e.g., separating the concept of "regularity" from the identity of any one branch). I support this shift as a constructive way to enhance clarity and uphold neutrality across Freemasonry-related articles. Jvonfranco (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I do understand the objection to “Regular”. The problem with using Liberal/Conservative as labels is that these terms have (non-Masonic) political meanings and implications.

Masons from the traditionally Anglo/American dominated branch strongly object to being called “conservative Masonry” because that implies that they take a conservative stance in politics (when they most emphatically do not). Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

In short… each branch objects to the nomenclature used by the other branch. That creates Neutrality issues no matter which branch’s nomenclature is chosen. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm with Blueboar on this - I actually came to the Talk page after seeing a branch of Masonry being called "conservative." I think the best way to approach this actually is to use geographic terms: Anglo-Masonry and Continental Masonry. Anglo-Masonry originated in the UK, likely in the 1500s. Continental Masonry broke off and became distinct from Anglo-Masonry in the 1870s after GOdF's views on what the antient landmarks of masonry were evolved. Anglo-Masonry largely follows the landmarks of the GLs that became UGLE, while Continental Masonry largely follows those of GOdF. Within Continental Masonry you have different kinds of obediences - "men-only" or "malecraft," "mixed masonry" or "co-masonry," and "women-only." These phrases (to my understanding) are pretty widely accepted within the Continental branches of masonry, but are somewhat aggro ("malecraft") or nonsensical ("co-masonry") in Anglo-Masonry.

Calling something "continental" does not mean it is geographically restricted to the continent of Europe. I don't believe I've ever seen an objection to the phrase "continental breakfast," actually. I have, in fact, seen objections on both sides of the masonic family to being called "liberal" or "conservative." I find it hard to take offense to referring to the branch based on the origin of your constitution, though. -- Seemlyable (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I tend to use the words "traditional" and "inclusive" to describe the two variants. Liberal and conservative are already far too laden with political meaning. FWIW, I don't like "continental" for the same reason I don't like describing metaphysics, idealism, and traditional philosophy as such: describing a thing by its origins without additional context gives us too few hints about the term's meaning. Irregular comes with the baggage of there being an implication that what those who practice a more inclusive forms of Freemasonry is not regular in the common language sense, e.g. normal. Traditional feels neutral. Inclusive feels more or less accurate but is probably more controversial. 2600:4040:2510:E500:98CD:BC2A:76AC:EB6F (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Traditional doesn't mean anything. The GOdF is one of the oldest and traditional GL yet Liberal. HyperSite (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I see merit in calling them "traditional" and "inclusive". It is accurate to say that the "male-only"+"believers-only" admission policy is the older and the initial one, and to adhere to it 300 years later (in a completely different social context, simply because it is a founding principle) feels to me like a strong exercise in traditionalism. The foundational idea of Le Droit Humain, the first mixed obedience ever, was to admit women, which was an exercise in inclusivity.

However, I think a wikipedia article should prioritise being "in line with [the most common current usage in] scholarly discourse", as noted above, even if there are theoretically better terms.

Disclosure: I belong to a liberal Lodge. Mitelmo (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I’m not sure there is a “most commonly used” terminology in scholarship. Again, the problem is that (since most Masonic scholars are Freemasons) the nomenclature used in Masonic scholarship depends on which tradition dominates in the country/region the scholar stems from. Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you on this @Blueboar this is why we cannot rely on masonic terminology (since they differ so much depending on the side) in this specific case as Wikipedia must maintain neutrality above all. HyperSite (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

But… Wikipedia is supposed to “follow the sources”… and those sources use one or the other of the two Masonic nomenclatures. Which nomenclature depends on which branch of Freemasonry they come from. I am feeling like we are in a “catch 22” situation. It’s frustrating. Blueboar (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

It's a complex issue, but I believe we are currently facing the worst-case scenario: using the highly loaded term “regular” to describe just one side of the Masonic spectrum.

This directly conflicts with Wikipedia’s principle of neutral point of view. Both branches of Freemasonry consider themselves “regular” by default—because acknowledging only one side as regular automatically renders the other irregular. That’s not a neutral framing. It would be like having an article about a war and labeling one faction as “the right side” and the other as “the wrong side.” That approach is inherently biased and not suitable for an encyclopedia.

Beyond bias, the current structure is also confusing for newcomers. The term regular predates the split between Masonic traditions and was originally used to refer to unaffiliated lodges—those not aligned with a Grand Lodge. Its meaning has evolved over time and been used differently by both sides. This historical complexity deserves its own dedicated article, explaining the origins and evolution of the term “regular,” and how it has been interpreted by various Masonic bodies.

In addition to that, I strongly advocate for the creation or improvement of specific articles:

• Liberal Freemasonry
• Conservative Freemasonry
• Regularity in Free-Masonry

These terms are, in my view, the most neutral and explanatory descriptors available. Conservative simply means preserving older traditions, and liberal is already in widespread use. Crucially, these terms don’t imply moral superiority or legitimacy, and most readers do not associate them with political ideologies in this context. To avoid confusion, we can include a brief explanatory note at the top of each article—similar to the one used on this site:

https://www.robertburns59.org/conservative-and-liberal-freemasonry/

Other terminology options fall short for the following reasons:

• "Adogmatic Freemasonry" implies that there is a "Dogmatic" freemasonry, creating an inherently biased framing that fails to neutrally represent both traditions. This terminology implicitly characterizes one branch as free-thinking while suggesting the other is rigid or doctrinaire, imposing value judgments that would likely be rejected by members of the tradition being indirectly labeled as "dogmatic."
• “Traditional Masonry” is vague and subjective. Anyone can claim to uphold “tradition,” and some of the oldest Grand Lodges—such as the Grand Orient of France, known for preserving key rituals of the Premier Grand Lodge—are liberal.
• “Mainstream Masonry” is inaccurate globally and misleading. Liberal Masonry is the dominant or 'mainstream' form in many regions, including much of Continental Europe, Africa, South America, and Central America while Conservative Masonry is dominant in other regions.
• “Anglo-Saxon Masonry” reduces the distinction to language and geography. It incorrectly implies this form of Masonry is limited to English-speaking countries, which is demonstrably false.

As I’ve said before, the continued use of the term “regular” in this context is not only confusing but also damaging to the credibility and neutrality of Wikipedia. It reinforces a one-sided narrative that excludes or marginalizes significant portions of global Freemasonry.

I’m absolutely open to alternative suggestions, but at the moment, “Liberal” and “Conservative” Freemasonry are the only terms I’ve found that are both balanced and informative. The term liberal is already well-established and naturally implies the existence of a conservative counterpart. While conservative is not yet as widely used, it is present and growing in usage. HyperSite (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

The evolving understanding of social and historical contexts highlights the importance of adapting terminology to reflect contemporary usage. As Freemasonry has undergone significant changes since the 19th century, some of the terminology currently used to describe its various branches may no longer be adequate or accurate. The term Liberal Freemasonry is widely used within certain Masonic bodies that have developed beyond the original constitutions still upheld by more traditional or “regular” branches. Updating the language used on Wikipedia to reflect such terminology can help maintain a neutral point of view while ensuring clarity and relevance in describing the diversity within modern Freemasonry. Jvonfranco (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

As a Mason initiated in France many years ago, and having later lived in Canada and the USA, I have experienced various rituals and Masonic organizations. What I can say is that Freemasons are the same everywhere, while Masonic organizations are more political in nature.

What is essential is to explain what Freemasonry is around the world, without being influenced by political considerations. The only way to do this is by clearly distinguishing between the organizations and the Masons themselves, who are all brothers (and sisters), regardless of the Grand Lodges to which they belong.

Now, regarding the organizations themselves, the following declaration from the UGLE is crystal clear:

“The Grand Lodges listed on this page are those recognised by the United Grand Lodge of England. ‘Recognition’ in this very specific Masonic sense of the word means that UGLE considers them to be regular in their practice of Freemasonry, in the way they were formed, and that it would be happy for the respective members to intervisit with its own members.” (https://www.ugle.org.uk/about-us/foreign-grand-lodges)

Clearly, the word "conservative" is appropriate in this context. It takes only a few seconds on the website of the GODF, for example, to see that such a Masonic organization is "liberal." Therefore, it is evident that the use of the terms "conservative" and "liberal" is both justified and appropriate. Patboupaco (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

“Conservative” is a strong “no” for me. Usage is extremely rare in source material, and the potential for misinforming readers (who would think this is a political designation) is high. Blueboar (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree liberal Freemasonry is already wildly in use and I have never heard of a reader that equates it to a political stand.

Having a liberal Freemasonry implies that there is a conservative one, it's a natural assumption. In my opinion it is the least loaded term.

I believe that most people are intelligent enough to understand that conservative or liberal Freemasonry does not imply a political leaning, especially if there is a warning message that states otherwise in the consecrated article.

I believe that there is an urgent need to move from the heavily loaded term 'regular and irregular' as this completely goes against Wikipedia's neutrality.

I am not against finding another term but at the moment I do not see any other term that would be more neutral than liberal and conservative. HyperSite (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Again, the objection isn’t to using “Liberal”. The objection is to using “Conservative”. Blueboar (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I know, my point was that there is precedent, since Liberal Freemasonry is wildly accepted and that no one thinks that's it's a political affiliation. Conservative would have the same effect. Also since Liberal Free-Masonry already exists it implied that there is a conservative one as well. They are the most neutral in my opinion. HyperSite (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

sigh… but “Liberal” is to some extent a valid political designation. The liberal branch of Freemasonry routinely advocate for liberal political programs and even endorses liberal political parties… the problem is that the (so called) “conservative” branch most definitely does NOT (it maintains silence on politics and political issues). Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

There is definitely some (very little in my experience) political discussion on the liberal side, and some open support for EU institutions and democracy. I am not sure about political parties' support but I guess it might be the case in some countries (and not in many others). In any case, I would like to share another point of view regarding this topic:

Liberal GLs organise themselves as if they were small democratic republics, for instance: there is a constitution, the same division of powers in place, limits to government, representation, periodical elections... and an elected president (the Grand Master). I think we can all see what sort of political pedagogy/hygiene an organisation like that is representing, without the need to discuss anything...

Now, UGLE has been ruled by the royal family since its foundation, which means they initiate royals and "promote" them as quickly as you would expect, and have, let's say, more than cordial communications with royal and about royals (as in trafficking beautiful pictures of royals in masonic attire). "The lustre of royal leadership is highly prized and rightly treasured among [UGLE] Freemasons".

Now again, I don't think it requires a great leap of imagination to see what kind of political pedagogy/hygiene an organisation like that is representing, without the need to discuss anything...

So, I gotta ask: do you think enforcing political silence while condoning monarchical order is a perfectly innocent non-political position? And if you were to think it was not... how would you name it? "conservative" perhaps? Mitelmo (talk) 07:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

First, the position of Grand Master in UGLE is purely ceremonial. The jurisdiction is actually run by the Pro Grand Master.

Second, yes UGLE has had a tradition of electing a member of the Royal Family as their Grand Master. However, once the Duke of Kent (the current GM) retires, that tradition will likely end… as none of the younger royals have expressed interest in joining the fraternity.

Third, UGLE is only one of hundreds of Grand Lodges in the Regular/Anglo-American/conservative/whatever branch of Freemasonry. None of the others have a royal as their Grand Master.

Finally, if you study the constitutions of various Grand Lodges/Orients (in both branches), you will discover that the “Liberal” branch tends to give Grand Masters far more dictatorial power than the (so called) “conservative” branch does. Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

(About 1) I do not contest that it is purely ceremonial, nevertheless the constant exercise of praising royalty and taking pride in their involvement with the Craft is a political stance (one with an old tradition in the UGLE). Same goes for any of those GLs which are quick in making honorary Masons out of their favorite politicians. By doing so they make the same political statement as well: "this person in power, this authority, this representative of a tradition, this representative of a party or certain political ideas... is cool and my organisation condones it". You might want to believe it is of no political consequence, but I am quite sure you would feel differently if a random GL declared a dictator or anyone from their family their "no-consequence"/ceremonial sponsor.

(About 2) That tradition has had short interruptions before. It might be recovered in future.

(About 3) Let's not diminish the influence of the UGLE when setting example: UGLE is a primus inter pares. That being said... I know the american GLs will make their own picks in terms of who they make honorary Masons among their political elite.

(About 4) That's hard to believe. Liberal GLs in the GOdF tradition take pride of being like a democratic mini-republic, so they have separation of powers (the GM cannot make law), periodic elections, an independent judiciary, temporarily limited GM mandates, a legislative body in which every Lodge is represented, etc. Of course, there might be colourful GLs with GMs ad vitam (I don't know, maybe some Memphis Misraim order or similar?), but I don't think that's the bulk of the "liberal" tradition as represented by the GOdF. Mitelmo (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

So, the options so far, according to my understanding, would be:

(1) To use terms they use themselves for themselves: "regular" + "liberal".

(2) To use exclusive terminology: "regular" + "irregular".

(3) To use geographical terms: "anglo-american" + "continental".

(4) To use evolutionary terms: "traditional"/"conservative" + "inclusive"/"liberal"

(5) To use popularity terms: "mainstream" + (!?)"alternative"/"minoritary"

(6) To use "supreme being" policy-related terms: "adogmatic" + (!?)"dogmatic"

... I might be missing some more ...

Well... what about we just explain in the article that there are all these alternatives, instead of just deciding to use one of them. It is an ongoing debate in the masonic world and I don't think it is our job to settle it. I would personally feel an article is impartial and informative if it presents to me the facts about current disputes, instead of just picking a side and making me wonder if the effort is impartial enough.

Otherwise, my feeling is to vote for (1), in order to respect each side self-perception. Some of us might say that "regular" is an exercise in exclusivity, which is kind of insulting, but that is exactly the intention of that term, to be an exclusive term. That is also how it is used as well by the liberals (to exclude what their own Grand Lodges do not like), so they (we) cannot claim to be perfectly inclusive either. The fact of the matter is that the "UGLE-sphere" take pride in being exclusive (admission-policy wise) and use that term a lot, so I don't see any problem with stating such a reality, if we give as much context about this surrounding dispute, as possible, e.g. "these are the terms they commonly use to refer to themselves... this is disputed terminology... there are alternatives preferred by each side... not all Grand Lodges adhere to one side or the other, there are nuances... etc." Mitelmo (talk) 06:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Of these, I would lean towards option 3 - the geo-historical designation (Anglo-American style vs Continental style) as the most neutral. Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Latin America vs. South America vs. earlier than 18th Century?

Hello,

I am not a Mason. Why do we have one section for "Freemasonry in North America" (no linked main page) and one section for Freemasonry in Latin America? The only American states that AREN'T Latin are the USA and Canada... though many argue that Quebec is also Latin (considering the fact that France is still in the Latin Union... which is why French Guayana is also in Latin America).

Mexico is obviously a Latin American state and also obviously a North American state, so to which category does it belong? Guylaen (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Both? Blueboar (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Concerning recent changes to terminology without consensus

I notice that someone has changed the article to use "Anglo-Saxon" terminology without waiting for consensus in this ongoing discussion. This seems premature given that we are still actively debating what nomenclature best serves Wikipedia's neutrality principles.

For clarity, here's where the discussion currently stands:

Naming Options

Option	Supporters
Liberal/Conservative	HyperSite, Jvonfranco, Patboupaco,
Regular/Liberal	Blueboar (initially suggested)
Anglo-American/Continental	Seemlyable, Blueboar (most recent preference)
Traditional/Inclusive	Anonymous IP user, Mitelmo (partial)
Multiple options with explanation	Mitelmo (alternative suggestion)

I would respectfully suggest that we revert to the previous terminology (Conservative and Liberal) until we reach a proper consensus here, at this point 'Conservative/Liberal' is the most endorsed terminology. Making unilateral changes runs counter to Wikipedia's collaborative principles. The change to "Anglo-Saxon" terminology appears particularly premature since the discussion is still active with multiple viewpoints being expressed.

As noted throughout this thread, “Anglo-Saxon” is not a neutral or universally accepted descriptor, and introduces several issues:

It is geographically misleading, as many Masonic jurisdictions in so-called “Anglo-Saxon” countries (e.g. Canada, the U.S., South Africa) do not exclusively follow a uniform model, and likewise, many Grand Lodges adhering to UGLE-style Freemasonry exist outside the Anglosphere.

The term “Anglo-Saxon” also carries cultural and historical connotations that may be problematic or misunderstood by readers unfamiliar with the nuances of Masonic history. It risks suggesting an ethnic or linguistic exclusivity that is neither accurate nor desirable in an encyclopedic context.

Most importantly, this terminology has not achieved consensus. In fact, the strongest and most extensively supported direction in the current discussion leans toward the use of “Liberal” and “Conservative” Freemasonry as philosophically descriptive and balanced terms.

As per Wikipedia's policy on consensus and neutrality (see WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV), significant terminological changes in contentious or sensitive articles must reflect community agreement, especially when they impact how entire traditions or groups are characterized.

I therefore request that the article be restored to the prior neutral terminology until a proper consensus is reached here on the Talk page. HyperSite (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

• My bad… I thought we had a rough consensus. That said:

First- no one has used “Anglo-Saxon”… my change was to “Anglo-American style”. not an ethnic designation but a geo-historical one (example: Prince Hall, which is predominantly African-American in membership, can safely be termed “Anglo-American style”.

This is the branch of freemasonry that overwhelmingly predominates in the UK, Canada and the US (both historically and in the modern era), and was exported to other parts of the world primarily through the efforts of UGLE and the various US Grand Lodges (example: India by the British, and Japan by the US). As a term, “Anglo-American” is both geographically and historically appropriate. It is also the most neutral of the choices for this branch.

As for the other branch… it predominates in France, and to a lesser extent in other countries in the continent of Europe. It was exported to other parts of the world primarily through the efforts of GOdF. This is why I feel that “Continental style” is the best designation for that branch. It too is a neutral, geo-historical designation. Blueboar (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

All that said, I will stop changing, pending further discussion… but will not revert what I have changed so far, due to my strong objection to the term “Conservative”. Willing to discuss just about any other alternative. Blueboar (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar that because of the political implications of Liberal/Conservative, I have serious problems using them to distinguish the branches here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

So what terms do you think we should use? Blueboar (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm partial to Anglo/Continental, but I don't disagree with the arguments against them above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

For generally these reasons, I agree with "Anglo-American"/"Continental" (although my bias towards old fashioned language would probably push me towards "Regular"/"Continental", but I see the NPOV issue.) Only concern would be about some historical issues like with pre-revolutionary Russian Freemasonry, which I think is somewhat outside this way of thinking? So we should be careful applying it there. And I guess Nordic Freemasonry of the kind that requires explicitly Christian belief. But I think those issues can be addressed by stating that this is a general schema for understanding when the terminology is first introduced. Jahaza (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thats exactly the issue with Geographical naming. "re-revolutionary Russian Freemasonry, which I think is somewhat outside this way of thinking? So we should be careful applying it there. And I guess Nordic Freemasonry of the kind that requires explicitly Christian belief." and there are other cases. This is why I am still in favor of the Liberal/Conservative denomination. HyperSite (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Why Anglo-American? What would justify the American addition? Why not include South Africa, Australia, Japan or the Philippines? And why Anglo? The premiere Grand Lodge is the one that started the 'Continental' style of Masonry before unification. Do you see the issue with using geographical denomination? HyperSite (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Umm… no… the “Continental style” grew out of France (and to a lesser extent Italy) during the post Napoleonic era, and was exported to other parts of the world primarily by the French. In the modern era it is best exemplified by the Grand Orient of France (by far the largest body in this tradition), the overwhelming majority of Masons who adhere to this style are Europeans (ie Continental). Where it exists outside Europe they tend to follow the lead of the French. Hence “Continental style”

The “Anglo-American style”, meanwhile, developed in the UK and US and was exported to other parts of the world primarily by the British (although the Americans did their own share of exporting later). In the modern era the United Grand Lodge of England is perhaps the most respected body in this tradition (being the oldest), but it is really dominated by the 51 US Grand Lodges (more if we include Prince Hall)… certainly in terms of membership… the overwhelming number of Masons who follow this tradition are Americans. Other nations tend follow the lead of UGLE and the Americans. Hence “Anglo-American style”.

Yes, there are some very small “other traditions” that exist (Swedish Rite is an example) but they tend to be very localized and do not have the clout of the first two. Blueboar (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Swedish Rite etc. are generally based off of French Rite degree systems (aka Scottish Rite) and are also in recognition with the Anglo-American branches, so I'd say they're roughly Anglo-American. Seemlyable (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there any reason we can't use a combination of these rather than a naming scheme that pits them against each other?

We can rule out terminology like "conservative" or "continental" or "(ir)regular," because the terms are either in dispute or the people they refer to have said they are not comfortable.

It appears the folks here that are affiliated with GLs that come from the GOdF tradition like the name "liberal," and not "continental." Let them use that name.

Those of us affiliated with GLs that come from the UGLE tradition prefer "Anglo-American" and not "conservative." So let's use that.

There's no reason we need to use terms that are opposites. These branches of masonry aren't in opposition to each other; in day-to-day practice, I don't think they think about each other much at all.

Let self-determination reign and move on. Seemlyable (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

That would be acceptable to me. Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Well we did not reach concensus, the majority of votes were for Conservative and Libreal, and there was a unilateral decision to adopt another specific term which I disagree with but I will not push the issue further for now at least we got rid of the highly problematic non-neutral terminology, now let's create or improve the three articles, Anglo-american, Liberal and Regularity in Freemasonry. --HyperSite (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Prince Hall

Going through this article, as well as the other articles that mention Prince Hall Freemasonry, I notice that we neglect to mention that this sub-branch is itself very fractured (just like the rest of Freemasonry). There are Grand Lodges under the Prince Hall Association (PHA) and Grand Lodges under the Prince Hall Origin/National Compact (PHO), as well as numerous other splinter groups that broke away from both. And (just like the rest of Freemasonry) there are the usual debates over which of these is (and is not) legitimate vs illegitimate and regular vs irregular. I do know that the “mainstream” GLs recognize PHA.

In any case… we could probably do with some expansion on this. I would welcome the input of editors more familiar with the history of Prince Hall than I am. Blueboar (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Is “See also” listing too much?

I note that the “see also” list is getting a bit long. Do we really need to link to all these articles? Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Women’s Freemasonry

A recent edit added Women’s Freemasonry as a third branch or “recognition chain” in Freemasonry… however, my understanding was that these groups were already covered under “Continental”/“Liberal” Freemasonry. Is this not the case? Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

It's a difficult one to determine, while most woman freemasonry would fall under Liberal Freemasonry, some require a belief in God (Universal Co-Masonry and other), which would be incompatible with Liberal Freemasonry, also some Liberal Lodges do not allow women. So, I felt that the most respectful and objective way to present them was to have their own category, what do you think? HyperSite (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Disclosure: I belong to a liberal Lodge.

It might be interesting to note that a Masonic Grand Lodge/obedience can be described in terms of its admission policy, without the need to appeal to their "regularity" or "recognition" situation. For instance, if they allow males and females, we can say they are a "mixed" obedience. Otherwise, it can be "male-only" or "female-only". Also interesting to note that some obediences are mixed overall, but let their Lodges have their own gender admission policy, i.e. some of their lodges are male-only, female-only, and/or mixed (for instance, the Grand Orient of Belgium have 3 federations of Lodges, each with their own distinct gender admission policy).

If an obedience does NOT require a believe in a "supreme being" (overall, in their constitutions), they refer to themselves as "adogmatic", but I am personally not sure if this term is "neutral" in and on itself, since it (might) imply that masons that agree about admitting only "believers in a supreme being" are "dogmatic", which is debatable, to say the least.

Now, if we talk about "chains of recognition", I think we can all agree that the main "federation" of organisations, internationally, by numbers, is the "UGLE-sphere", understood as the sphere of recognition of the United Grand Lodge of England. Because their self-identity, modern and historical, for good and for worse, has put a lot of emphasis in the admission policy, it happens that the UGLE-sphere is "male-only" and "believers-only", and insists dearly that masons that do not agree about this admission policy will never be recognised as masons by them. Some of the obediences there, like the UGLE itself, might be open to the idea of women-only obediences, to a degree that they recommend them to women looking for admission, but they have been always crystal clear about the non-recognised status (which implies that inter-visitation is forbidden).

The second "federation" might be the summed spheres of recognition of the Grand Orient de France and Le Droit Humain (which is in itself an international federation), although we could also note a few other french obediences, which are historically important and with relatively big numbers, but currently outside the UGLE-sphere, like the Grand Lodge of France. The reason these big obediences have their own sphere of influence/recognition is because they parted ways with the UGLE at some point in history. Although I am quite sure the reasons are historically complex, we can more or less agree that LDH was founded outside the UGLE because their foundational principle was to admit women and establish a "mixed" obedience, for the first time. The GOdF case is surely more complex, because they were recognised up to some point in history, but it is generally understood that they parted ways because they dropped the requirement to "believe in a supreme being". It is also interesting to note that it took much longer for the GOdF and others in their sphere of influence to also drop the "male-only" rule.

Well... all things considered, I am not sure what a wikipedia article should reflect. I do not think that to call "liberal" a "women-only" obedience is disrespectful, but I would totally agree that to call it "women-only" is accurate and sufficient. The debate is then how do we call those obediences that are outside the UGLE-sphere. I think the terms "liberal" and "continental" are the most widely used. I can see that "continental" might be geographically misleading, so my preference, currently, would be to call them "liberal", if we define it negatively, that is: that "liberal" does not imply an specific admission policy, but implies that they DO NOT adhere to the founding/traditional policy of only admitting men and believers.

I fail to see how the usage of "liberal" might feel disrespectful (unless using a different definition with political connotations, perhaps?), but happy to read an argument about it. Mitelmo (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I think there is a simpler (and somehow more complicated) argument to be made about the branch of Masonry which OWF & HFAF reside in - they broke from Co-Masonry pretty early on in the existence of the continental branch of Masonry. They, specifically, didn't like many of the ritual liberties being taken by the English Co-Masons and wanted to return to a form that looked more like UGLE. Sometime after the split, they quit admitting men and became a strictly women organization, and some time after that relations with regular masonry normalized. So they're weirdly both "continental" and "regular" at the same time, but also neither. Realistically, given the schism and recognition network (i.e. they have no amity at all with the "true" Continental lodges and only informal relations with UGLE), they probably constitute their own branch at this point, imo. -- Seemlyable (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about the double edit - leaving this at the same level. It's also worth noting that there are more than just HFAF and OWF women-only obediences. I'm pretty sure parts of Europe (maybe Poland?) has some women-only obediences that are definitively Continental based on constitutional history, mutual recognition, etc. Lumping HFAF & OWF in with those groups is a bit misleading, as this notion of masonic lineage is extremely important to most masonic bodies in deciding whether or not you are even eligible for being recognized vs fully "clandestine." I think there's a bit more nuance here that we're not really capturing than "if women are there it's continental" when the lineage doesn't really support that. -- Seemlyable (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

@Seemlyable I definitely think that it is worthy to mention that there are women-only Grand Lodges that try to keep good relations with UGLE or men-only american GLs (with sources, e.g.: shared public events, shared announcements...). I can see how to categorise them as part of the "continental" world, without any distinction, might not align with their interests and self-perception. However, we should be careful not to imply that all women-only GLs, because of their admission policy, are automatically closer to the UGLE culture or do not see themselves as "liberal"... For instance, some women-only GLs that belong to the CLIMAF association (https://www.climaf.eu/) have links to the GOdF, so I suppose they feel quite "continental". Mitelmo (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Hamisi 102.221.20.218 (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Pedophilia allegations

Is there some reason why we are not allowing allegations of pedophilia against multiple Freemason leaders to be shown? Nobody claimed it was representative of everyone but enough similar instances begin to indicate a pattern. Tooli Mars (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Referring mostly to Blueboar's remark that I was referring to "one expelled guy" when in reality I sourced no less than three, so the stated reason for the revert is invalid. Tooli Mars (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Meh, I read the sources quickly and thought all three referred to the same incident. But even with three, I think this UNDUE to highlight (especially in the lead section). There are millions of Masons… the fact that there are a few bad apples among those millions is to be expected. Indeed the surprising thing is how few bad apples there are given that the fraternity represents such a broad cross section of society. Such men are not representative of the fraternity and are quickly expelled when discovered. If there is any “pattern” it’s that Freemasonry abhors such conduct. Blueboar (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I recognize on your talk page that you are a Mason yourself, correct? I mean no offense by bringing this up nor an attack on your order, I recognize it can be a touchy subject. However I also think it's important to not to skim over somebody's edit before casually reverting it like it's nothing. Especially considering these were very prominent figures within said organization.

That said, if you dispute its presence in the lead, I am willing to turn this into an edit request for its own section in the article. Highlighting the allegations specifically, of course. If you believe that these incidents and how they were handled actually reflects positively on the fraternity, then I expect you will be all for that suggestion. Tooli Mars (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

As you can see from my user page, I do work as the curator of a Masonic museum… and in that capacity, I am very familiar with the Fraternity, its history and customs.

As for the individuals being “prominent”… not really. It does appear that at least two of them served as Worshipful Master (ie Chapter President) of their local lodges at some point, but that isn’t all that impressive - think “Mayor of a rural village” rather than “Member of Parliament” (and definitely not “Cabinet Minister”). Most are locally respected, but hardly “prominent”. Blueboar (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

With all due respect, at this point, that's pretty much a distinction without a difference. Pretty sure it's not a requirement on Wikipedia that every single member of an organization involved in such controversies be higher than "mayor rank" and that the numbers have to hit an arbitrary threshold out of millions of members before people are allowed to see the information publicly for themselves.

Again, if you don't want it in the lead I can understand that. Though my edit request for it either to be given its own section or at least places somewhere within remains. I reiterate, if it reflects positively on the organization as a whole, I see no reason for you to be opposed to it--unless it really doesn't? Tooli Mars (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

And again, three isolated incidents does not make any sort of “pattern”. These incidents make news precisely because they are rare (and thus shocking)… but given how extremely rare such scandals actually are, I think mentioning them (at all) blows them out of proportion and gives them UNDUE WEIGHT.

Consider also that these incidents all occurred in one country, and this particular article takes a world wide scope. To mention these local scandals in this article would be like mentioning wrongdoing by local politicians in our article on the United Nations. It just isn’t the right venue to mention them. Blueboar (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I also reverted the edit as WP:Undue despite being not only not a freemason, but strongly anti-freemasonry personally. Jahaza (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Allegations alone are never worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Anyone can make allegations. HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Were the incidents covered up or otherwise linked to any large-scale organizational misdeeds beyond individual lodges? Because otherwise it seems unreasonable to put this on the general page for Freemasonry. 38.186.38.133 (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know the specific cases you are referring to, but I would be extremely surprised if there was any sort of “cover up”. Masons take the reputation of their fraternity very seriously… and members who are convicted of a crime are quickly expelled.

The idea of Masonic cover ups is an old canard. I can remember when, back in the 1980s, the UK press floated a lot of speculation that magistrates and judges who were Masons were being lenient on fellow Freemasons who were accused of crimes… Parliament held an inquiry on this, and found that exactly the opposite took place: Judges and magistrates who were Masons were actually harsher on their fellow Freemasons. They held each other to higher standards. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Lead too long?

I see that an editor has tagged the lead as being too long. I have to agree. I think the recent additions explaning the various traditions and factions were wonderful, but also overly detailed for the lead. It should probably be moved into its own section lower down. The lead should be a brief summary. That said… we could probably do with a reorganization of the entire article while we are at it. It has become a bit unwieldy. So … once we sort out the lead… let’s go through each of the other sections and discuss. Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I honestly think the entire article is too long and spends a lot of time focusing on the differences between various traditions. In my opinion, each tradition's article should have more in depth discussions of its idiosyncrasies while the top level Freemasonry article should likely talk more about commonalities, with potentially a brief introduction into the differences. This would also help with some of the WP:NPOV issues the article has, where the comparisons sometimes trick authors into falsely hinting at a preference for one side or another; in reality, no comparison really needs to be made. As discussed elsewhere, these traditions are not at odds with one another, so comparing every subsection of this article between them gives the false impression of some kind of competition, rather than being two arrangements of the same composition. Seemlyable (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Duplicative history sections

The article effectively has two "history" sections, with geographic subsections under each: "History" (which has subsections for North America, the Middle East, and continental Europe) and "Development and Expansion" (which has subsections for France, Russia, Italy, Latin America, and China) directly below it. We should combine these somehow. Prezbo (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Agree. This article should give the 10,000 foot/meter overview. National histories are best done in Freemasonry in X country articles (of which we have many). Blueboar (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Italy section

Propaganda Due probably deserves a mention. Prezbo (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Nah… UNDUE to mention one lodge that went Fringe. Blueboar (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

My understanding it was a big scandal in Italy, probably one of the first things the average Italian thinks of when they think of Masonry. I could be wrong. I see it’s not mentioned in the lead of the Freemasonry in Italy article, I’ll start there. Prezbo (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that P2 was only marginally connected to actual Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I’ll do more research. But my first thought is: what is “actual” Masonry? Isn’t that like talking about “actual” Communism or Christianity? It’s a fractured social milieu with no central authority. When I’ve read about P2 it’s always described as Masonic or pseudo-Masonic. Prezbo (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

P2 had its charter rescinded in the 70s, and was no longer recognized as a legitimate Masonic lodge. anyone can call themselves “masonry”… but to be legitimate, a lodge must be chartered by a Grand Lodge. Blueboar (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I think for Wikipedia’s purposes, if a group calling themselves Masonic is involved in a big national scandal, that rates prominent coverage in this context, even if the national Masonic hierarchy didn’t consider them legitimate at the time. However I also agree with you that the national sections in this article need to be trimmed in any case. I added a sentence about P2 to the lead of the Freemasonry in Italy article, I think whatever we say about Italy here should be a condensed version of that lead. Prezbo (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Religious opposition

I think this section has ballooned a bit out of proportion… especially the sub-section outlining the objections by the Catholic Church. Wikipedia has multiple articles on this sub-topic that we can point to. I am definitely not saying that we should ignore the Church’s opposition, but THIS article should be a broad overview… linking readers to those (more detailed) articles. Suggestions on how to better summarize? Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, the entire opposition section is far too large, we need a dedicated article for this section. Also the banner about the use of AI is not substantiated while looking at the article I could not find any non-sourced or out-of-context material. Tiestoclublife (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Thing is… We already have a dedicated article for the section. In fact, we have several… see: Christian attitudes towards Freemasonry and Papal ban on Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to take care of it, I just summarized the Political section, (it was smaller) now attempting to do the religion, but there are no dedicated Islam and Free-Masonry article so I might have to create one as well. Tiestoclublife (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Well summarizing the religious section is more difficult than I thought. Tiestoclublife (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2026 (UTC)