Freemasonry

This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freemasonry articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to join us in our labors, please join the discussion and add your name to the list of participants. The "Top of the Trestleboard" section below can offer some ideas on where to start and what to do.FreemasonryWikipedia:WikiProject FreemasonryTemplate:WikiProject FreemasonryFreemasonry ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. ◆  WikiProject Freemasonry's "Top of the Trestleboard": Improve to Featured Article status Freemasonry Tracing board Isaac Newton University Lodge Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia Operative Masonry Primitive Scottish Rite Add content to stubs… Check recently changed articles for possible improvement, to remove vandalism, etc. Requests Articles for all United Grand Lodge of England-recognized Grand Lodges (if notable) Participate in articles listed for deletion Need images Scottish Rite York Rite Sovereign Grand Lodge of Malta New Article to be created Adonhiramite Rite Portuguese Rite Brazilian Rite Irish Rite Moorish Rite Rite Français Moderne Rétabli Articles to be re-written Freemasonry in Cuba - Entirely AI generated.

This article began as a partial translation from the french wikipedia:

• fr:Liste d'obédiences maçonniques

--Christophe Dioux (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this list indicates that it includes any Tom, Dick and Harry who forms a Grand Lodge... I have added a few fringe groups that claim to be Masons. More to come, unless the article is either deleted or limited in scope. Blueboar (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal view may be getting the better of you. I don't think we should be making any changes to the page until we have come to an agreement on wither deleting or keeping. Making changes at this point alters the content of the article from the original point of deletion. If the article is voted on as a keep, then go ahead and bloat it with all the information you want. After, you can put it back up for a deletion. I have not reverted your submition. Zef (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the AfD is over and defauted to "keep" I shall continue. Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, what part of this list is frustrating you all so much? Why don't we all work together to improve the page. Possibly renaming it to something more spacific instead of a General List Of. Please list the lodges that need discusion and a reason why we think they should be removed/keep: Zef (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I've got nothing Zef (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know enough about the politics of Grand Lodges outside of Canada.

I don't appreciate the insinuation that this is a personal issue. Fundamentally, the list as it stands violates WP:N. We already have the other list, which isn't great, but covers a lot of ground. This one makes no attempt whatsoever to assert any minimal criteria of notability, nor does it address regularity or amity. Effectively, I could create a webpage, call it the GL of <whatever>, make up a few officers' names and an address (because there's no real way to verify that unless you dig), and have a pretty good case made to get on this list. Therefore, what's the encyclopedic value of this list? Not only is WP not a Lodge visitation reference, it's not an information dump either. In order to improve this, we'd have to basically make it something else entirely, so we might as well delete it. MSJapan (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest problem with this is that it is almost a word for word copy from Paul Bessel's page, and therefore, extraneous, if not copyvio. I get that the point is to list lodges who aren't UGLE recognized, but wiki isn't a list. apparently, it is--Vidkun (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a slight problem with listing UGLE under "international relations" for the "mainstream" GLs, especially the ones in the US. Yes, these grand lodges do recognize UGLE, but UGLE isn't the head of some sort of organization. We could just as easily list GLoNY or any one of well over a hundred other GLs.

I think the concept here is to indicate that a given Grand Lodge or Grand Orient belongs to a "recognition bloc" (sometimes under a formal umbrella organization, such as CLIPSAS, but not always)... but I am not sure if this is the right way to do it. Any suggestions? Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that the Grand Lodges always correspond to secular jurisdctions such as the 50 States of the USA and the 10 provinces of Canada (ie Grand Lodge of Iowa, Texas, Manitoba, Ontario, etc) ? I don't mean to be overly suggestive, but the fact is that the lodge territories almost always overlap with the political jurisdictions of the local legislative assemblies. This is not the case for mainstream religious organizations such as dioceses, who are aligned on cities instead of provinces or states (cf archdiocese of Baltimore, archdiocese of Ottawa, etc). ADM (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, why shouldn't they? To delve further, whether it works or not is dependent on where you look. In Germany, the multiple Grand Lodges are based in cities, and I believe this holds for Brazil as well, unless it's considered provincial jurisdiction. In most of Europe, Grand Lodges are national in scope. The US and Canada are special cases, although some GLs in Canada cover more than one province, and many of the GLs have been in existence since colonial times, and were in the Territories before they became states or provinces.

Another simple explanation is that there's a residence requirement to join, so it would make sense that the GL should cover the the extent of the residence requirement. I'd also point out, most importantly, that almost every town and city has some sort of legislature, so I could just as easily turn around and ask you why your archdioceses are only concerned with the believers in major metropolitan areas, which one would hope is not the case, but it is suggestive, is it not? In spite of your statement, you're trying to make some sort of political point, and your understanding of the underlying principles involved is flawed and/or superficial. MSJapan (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the various Christian diocese were originally based on territorial legislative units ... those of the late Roman Empire (See: Diocese#History). It only looks like things are based on cities when you look at it from a purely modern (and American) perspective. Blueboar (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed two from the list:

• Antioch Grand Lodge of Texas AGL-TX - after a closer look at the website... this appears to actually be nothing more than a link page to a commercial gambling site
• Brighter Light Grand Lodge of Texas, does not seem to have a valid website anymore, and thus no way to verify that it still exists (a lot of these small self-created Grand Lodges go into and out of existance quickly).

We should probably check other entires as well. Blueboar (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this page is going to live up to its promise and include all of Freemasonry, it has to do a better job of listing the various Prince Hall Jurisdictions, factions and schisms. Many states in the US have multiple Prince Hall Grand Lodges. Some of these are recognized by the "mainstream" GLs ... others are not. Some are "self-proclaimed" (although from what has been said in previous threads, I guess these should be included in this list)... but others are outright hoaxes and scams (which I don't think should be included). This website (although definitely biased towards a particular "chain of legitimacy" in Prince Hall Masonry) should be helpful in figuring out which are which. Blueboar (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We use English name for the majority of the Grand Lodges and Grand Orients on this list... but not for all. I think we should use the English name... but perhaps include the non-English name in a parenthesis. Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we can use the variant most often used when writing about them in English. I do not find it necessary to translate all just to treat them all in a uniform way. I believe some are known mostly in their original language [would you agree that is the case? I am not sure but base it just on a vague feeling, I haven't done anything like any research about it] (e.g. Grande Loge de France, Grand Orient de France and Grande Oriente d'Italia) and then we can also use those names. However, I have not any strong preference for this and accept that we translate all should that option be preferred.

I believe that for the ones that we do translate it is a good idea to include the name in the original language in parenthesis. Then there should be no uncertainty for the reader exactly which GL that is specified and they have the original name should they want to search more information. Ergo-Nord (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me... except that a lot of these are not discussed in any English language sources, so there is no "variant most often used when writing about them in English" for us to use... should we just use the non-English version, or try to translate? Blueboar (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would say that we could translate them. Ergo-Nord (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a second issue here that some Grand Lodges work in English. I was going to translate the York Grand Lodge of Mexico into whatever it calls itself in Spanish, until I went to its website and found that the website is in English, and that GL says it works in English. I think that the name (in whatever language) a GL calls itself should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.127.244 (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could we please get some citations for the lodge and membership numbers... In a few cases the info is supported by Grand Lodge website that is linked, but for most it isn't. Blueboar (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This column bothers me... it gives the appearance that, when it comes to "mainstream", "regular", "Anglo/American tradition" GLs, UGLE determines relations for other Grand Lodges... but this is not how it works. In the Anglo tradition, each GL determines recognition on its own. Yes, UGLE is the 1000 pound elephant in the room, but they are not the be-all-and-end-all of recognition, and occasionally other Grand Lodges (especially in the US) will disagree with them.

The question is... what are we trying to convey when we note "International Relations"? I think we currently combine two distinct, but related concepts... 1) which masonic tradition does the grand body follow... Anglo vs. Continental... and 2) does the grand body belong to a specific organization (CLIPSAS, SIMPA, Etc.). We need to come up with a better way to indicate all this. Please share your thoughts and ideas. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking about this for time to time. I saw your question earlier today and gave it some more focused thought.

I think that it could be beneficial to have information about which tradition a Grand Lodge belongs to. But I think that we should not have details as to which Grand Lodge is recognised by (some) other Grand Lodges, because we then really should list every Grand Lodge that recognises one particular Grand Lodge, and that is to much information that also changes. And as you write recognition by UGLE isn't really different than recognition by any other Grand Lodge. Anybody really interested in the recognition issue should better consult the different Grand Lodges for a current and correct list. The wikipedia articles for particular Grand Lodges could perhaps treat the subject in a cursory way should it for any reason be interesting to mention it regarding at particular Grand Lodge.

I do not think that membership in a particular organisation is interesting here. I guess that they were added more to show what type of Grand Lodge it was and not really to show membership in the organisation. I think that details like that can be included in the specific articles about different Grand Lodges and not here.

I think that one problem is defining which categories to use. I believe that just using two, like “Mainstream” and “Continental” (or any of the alternatives to the respectively category name) will be to blunt. How to handle an all women Grand Lodge that requires a belief in a Supreme Being?

Could a way forward be to add more information in the questions that are divisive? Like having two categories; one category where the sex of the members are indicated (“Male”, Female” or “Mixed”) and one where the question of belief is indicated (“Requires belief in Supreme Being”, “Do not require belief in Supreme Being” or “Require Christian belief”). Any more categories needed? I guess that something like would give the readers some useful information. They would be able to quite quickly understand what type of Grand Lodge they are reading about. Ergo-Nord (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I definitely agree that a column for "Sex" is a good idea... I was thinking of having a column titled "Masonic Tradition", and listing "Continental", "Anglo-US", "Prince Hall", etc (there will be some that don't fit any label... in which case we can use "Other"). I do think noting whether a body belongs to an international organization like CLIPSAS is useful information, but this is really only is an issue with the Continental Lodges... perhaps "Continental (CLIPSAS)" and "Continental (SIMPA)" etc. Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That could also be a good idea though I believe it could potentially be more problematic. I think that it requires us to come up with good categories with good descriptions and that we make it perfectly clear that it is relates to the tradition the Grand Lodge works according, and not about if it is recognised and is in amity with a (majority) of other Grand Lodges or any specific Grand Lodge, like the UGLE.

I am thinking about the Grand Lodges that could become targets for repeated changes by different users if it is not perfectly clear what information we wants to convey; e.g. the GLdF which work in the anglo/american tradition but isn't recognised by the majority of the bigger Grand Lodges (will it be accepted that we list them as “anglo/american” or will it be constant confusion with the issue of recognition and it will be changes back and forth between “anglo/american” and “other”), or the GOI that is recognised by most/all US Grand Lodges but not by the British (will it be accepted that we list them as “anglo/american” or will e.g. British writers change to “other” and american writer change back to “anglo/american”), or the Order of Women Freemason which operate in anglo/american tradition with regard to the belief of its members etc with the exception that they only accept women (will it be accepted that we list them as “anglo/american” since that is what they work after in every detail with the exception of gender, which we indicate in another column, or will it be changed to “other”, I believe most would understand "anglo/american" as all male and requires belief in Supreme Being but if we have a special category for gender that definition of "anglo/american" would make the categories overlap and create confusion).

I think it could work but we need to think carefully about the categories. This approach has, as you write, the benefit that we can give information about such traditions as Prince Hall etc which is good. The benefit of instead having gender and requirement or not of belief in Supreme Being is that it possibly avoids any discussions since it is very specific. We would still convey the same information (since “anglo/american” tradition is all male and requires belief in a Supreme Being etc) with the added benefit that the women and mixed groups could be described in better detail (without the risk of having edit-wars because of objections to the labels). But it has the drawback of not including any information about the Prince Hall etc, but that information could be put in a third column should we so wish. Ergo-Nord (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... it is complicated. I'll have to think on this more. Blueboar (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Websites" column should be removed WP:EL, WP:NOTLINK, and WP:LINKSPAM. --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good, but now how to we go about verifying any of this, seeing as how the material was removed instead of converted to footnotes? MSJapan (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not removed, but put as external links next to the GL name, where it seemed to belong.129.133.127.244 (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They don't belong there as external links at all. --Ronz (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can claim that, but but a flat claim does not convince.129.133.127.244 (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided links to the relevant guidelines and policies. Are you saying they don't apply? --Ronz (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. They do not apply at all. In fact, the first one specifically calls for these types of links. You should follow the guidelines.129.133.127.244 (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just the opposite. The first sentence of WP:EL is, "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, which are external links, but they should not normally be used in the body of an article."

WP:ELNO #20 states, "External links as entries in stand-alone lists. List entries should always have non-redirect articles on Wikipedia or a reasonable expectation that such an article is forthcoming, and thus be internally-linked only. --Ronz (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. You're wrong. WP:ELNO"What should be linked - Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any." That clearly applies here. Your first quote refers to 1) articles, and 2) using them in the body of the text. This is a list, not an article, and we are not cluttering up any paragraph here. Your second quote applies to "External links as entries in stand-alone lists" These links are not entries, they are attached to entries.

So you're not reading the policy guideline right at all.129.133.127.244 (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try some WP:DR such as WP:THIRD or WP:ELNO. --Ronz (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With pleasure.129.133.127.244 (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz is correct. This isn't an article about an organization. It is a list of many organizations. Therefore, the guideline to include official links isn't applicable. Putting a link next to an organization name is equivalent to having an external link as an entry in a list; whether you surround the name in the link or "attach" the link to the name, it makes no difference.

On the other hand, any data about each organization should be referenced with a footnote.

As an aside, I have seen some list articles go so far as to remove any entry that isn't notable enough to merit its own Wikipedia article. Examples are Bible software and List of twelve-step groups — those lists would be far longer if they included every possible example, but the maintainers of those articles decided by consensus to permit only notable entries. That could be done here, at the risk of making the article extremely short.

That's my opinion, for what it's worth. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the design of the entire list is somewhat flawed. for example, in a previous section we noted how the "external relations" column is somewhat misleading. I think a top to bottom redesign is called for. I have been meaning to get to this for a while... and this gives me a good excuse to attend to it. I am going to copy the page to my user work space, and try a few ideas out. Blueboar (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In a way it could all be one table, with major and minor political subdivisions. That would also allow the columns to be the same from top to bottom. I also would suggest a "informal name" or "common name" column title, since the formal names of most Grand lodges are long. "The Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of the Ancient and Honorable Fraternity of Freemasons of the State of Blahblahblah." 129.133.127.244 (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but that TOC is egregious. There's no information for a good foot of scrolling. I think a different style of TOC is needed, perhaps the alphabetical one. I don't know that there's value in the continental separation scheme in this case. MSJapan (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK... As an experiment... I have played with the formatting a bit at my user draft page (see: User:Blueboar/drafts), using the section on the USA as a template ... Essentially I scrapped the websites column completely (but used the websites as references for the name), and I changed "External relations" to "External Organizations" (hard to explain... just go look). I also have combined the Mainstream and Prince Hall sections into one. Let me know what you think of it. Blueboar (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the work. I'd hope that the names of the lodges could be verified from masonic directories, when they're not already verified by other references already used for the same entry. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your desire... The problem is that there is no single Masonic directory... each Masonic jurisdiction puts out its own version... and these directories usually only list the Grand Lodges that the publishing Grand Lodge considers legitimate. The goal here is to be comprehensive... If someone claims to be a Masonic Grand Lodge, we list them, regardless of who recognizes who. There are a few small Grand Lodges that are not recognized by anyone else... and the only verification for their existence and name may be their website. Another issue is that, very often, the only people that use the "official name" of a Masonic body is that body itself. So if we are going to note that the name is "The Grand Lodge of Free an Accepted Masons in the State of New York" (for example), instead of the more commonly used (but technically inaccurate) "Grand Lodge of New York"... we may have to cite the website to verify it. Blueboar (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That's problematic on many, many levels. I don't think I want to get too involved.

Still, there are directories available to use. They should be used as much as possible. If we have nothing but the lodge's website, then we should use it if we're going to include the lodge in the list. --Ronz (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did what I thought would help. If anybody wants to do better, have at it.129.133.127.244 (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to 129.133 for his/her work. It does help with at least some of the issues. As I said, I am attempting to do a more complete re-write on my user "drafts" page... It is a work in progress but feel free to drop by User:Blueboar/drafts and share comments and ideas. Blueboar (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be too difficult to combine work. I took out the "?"s because to me they look busy. And although I understand not repeating the state name in each row, I think you'll find that you have to. For one, people will keep adding to it and screw it up. There is also in some wikitables a sort by feature, and you can put that on top of every column. So it will be sortable by founding year, or by size of membership. But if you leave it your way, states will not work. Affiliations is good. I couldn't think of what the North American grand lodges initials were. On the other hand, UGLE recognition is not an organization.

I like your research. I once spoke with the Grand Secretary of New York, and he said he knew of 25 Grand Lodges in New York City alone.129.133.127.93 (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK... 129.133 (who really needs to register and choose a user name... hint hint) has been doing excellent work. Unfortunately, the more work he does, the more it complicates the work that I have been doing on my user draft page. We seem to be drifting slowly in different directions as to formatting and set up. So... I have transferred what I have done so far into the article, so that the rest of you can at least see what I have done and the direction I think we should go. I realize that this means we will temporarily have duplicative listings where the US is concerned... To resolve this, we will have to blend both versions together. So let's discuss, reach a consensus, and start the process. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I said about you can't have the first column with blanks in it. It will have to be Alabama, Alabama, Alabama, Alaska,.... these tables will be sortable in the future. If someone sorted by state now, that would screw it up. And it is also good spreadsheet standards. And people will screw up the list, if you leave it your way. And within states, it needs to be alphabetical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.127.244 (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think these tables will be sortable in the future? I don't strongly object to repeating the State name over and over, but I think it is unnecessary. I think the use of shading makes it fairly clear where a State starts and stops. Good point about alphabetizing within States however... I will work on that. Blueboar (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I note about your version that needs correcting... this is the English language version of Wikipedia, so we should use standard English type face (one of the entries for Serbia is an example of something that needs to be fixed... what ever that says... it should be in English), and we should use English language names ("Germany" instead of "Deutchland") and English Language spelling (either UK or American spelling is acceptable). Blueboar (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated your information into the main. Since I was doing it, I did it my way. I don't expect you'll be thrilled. There are sortable tables in wikipedia. You just have to add some code at the top. If I see one of those tables, I will cut & paste, & voila, sortable. I also found that repeating the state names over and over makes it a lot easier to navigate the information when in edit mode. I understand your choice of shading, (and would use it in a different situation), but I think since this is a page that many people will add to from time to time, the simpler the better.

You have a far more serious problem in citing all the information. There should be a reference or a webpage or a wikiarticle for every individual Grand Lodge, and there isn't. I recognize a lot of these names from prior lists, et c. My approach is to put something up and give it time to develop the right citations, but there are other people I fight all the time who remove all uncited material. ---And Paul Bessel's website is not enough. He's just a hobbyist.129.133.127.244 (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at my version... each category is cited... so all information in the category (unless other wise cited) comes from the same source. And I disagree as to Paul Bessel's website. He compiled most of this information for the Masonic Service Association, and I think it is highly reliable. He is a respected (and published) scholar, an expert on Freemasonry (and especially Freemasonry in the US). He is far more than a mere Hobbyist. Blueboar (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before I begin, I note that 129.133's latest edits were reverted by an automated program (a "bot")... 129, this will continue to happen as long as you don't register a user name. There are several bots that patrol Wikipedia for vandalism by IP editors, they assume that any large edit by an IP is vandalism (even when, as in your case, it was not)

Now, there are some issues with 129's format that should be discussed before we merge versions....

• 1) I really prefer the "shaded by jurisdiction area" format that I used, over the unshaded "repeat the name of the jurisdiction area" format chosen by 129. Shading makes it very clear where a Jurisdiction area begins and ends. While I don't object to repeating the name of the Jurisdiction Area over and over again, I have yet to hear a convincing reason why we need to repeat "Arizona" for every Grand Lodge in Arizona. I think shading makes that obvious and is easier for the reader to follow. (in fact, as we expand the list, I would suggest extending my format through out). I know 129 thinks we should be prepared in case someone comes up with a way to sort list articles... I don't think this is likely in the near future.
• 2) I very much object to the category of "Recognition Network". This may work for some of the organizations listed, but not for organizations like the Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America. This conference is not a "recognition network". Recognition is up to each individual Grand Lodge. It is quite possible for one Grand Lodge to not recognize one of the others in the Conference (for example, when the Grand Lodge of New York withdrew its recognition of the Grand Lodge of DC a year or so ago, it had no impact on membership in CoGMiNA). The entire point of renaming this category in my version was to get us away from the issue of "who recognizes who" or "who consideres who" legitimate. I have always had a problem with this... and especially listing UGLE as if it were the determinator of recognition in mainstream Freemasonry... the head of some sort of faction. UGLE is very respected, and yes, being recognized by UGLE does influence other Grand Lodges. But there are a lot of situations where UGLE will recognize a particular Grand Lodge and that is not followed by other Grand Lodges. Because regularity is determined by each Grand Lodge individually, Grand Lodge A might recognize Grand Lodge B and Grand Lodge C... but B might not recognize C and instead recognize C's rival D (which is not recognized by either A or C).

Let's hash these issues out before we merge versions. I am going to reinstate my version until we have a consensus (and ask others to make sure there is a consensus to merge them before we do so. Blueboar (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I should have looked closer at the edits. --Ronz (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the tables but for one are now sortable.129.133.127.244 (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice... but do they really need to be sortable? Does sortability off-set ease of reading? I would like to get some other opinions on this before we settle in on one format. 129, please slow down a bit, and get consensus before you make large edits. There is no rush here, we can both take the time to discuss our ideas and preferences before we edit. And we should solicit comments from others if we find that our ideas are too far apart. It is best if everyone who works on this article agrees, rather than tugging and pulling in opposite directions. Blueboar (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been more or less ignored since March prior to me coming to it and putting a little time into it. Not that that gives my changes precedence over any other editors, but it's not like there was some consensus that I am disturbing. This article only barely survived more than one 'delete' suggestion. Any editor can make any good faith edit.

And yes, of course sortability offsets shading. Functionality over aesthetics.129.133.127.244 (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And titling this titling this section "129.133's latest" personalizes the discussion in an unwarranted fashion.129.133.127.244 (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't asking about aesthetics (which looks prettier)... I was asking about ease of reading. Ease of reading is an aspect of a pages functionality. I think my preferred format is easier to read than your preferred format. But perhaps we can blend the two and still achieve the same result. Do you know if "line-gris" breaks will mess up the ability to sort? (If not... why don't we experiment and find out). Blueboar (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And please don't take things so personally. I did not mean offense with the section title. When I started the thread, it was to discuss the edits you had just made ... so I thought the title was appropriate. I hope you find the new one less offensive. Blueboar (talk) 06:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]