Freemasonry High‑importance

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 High This article has been rated as High-importance 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]

I'm responding to this comment five years late, since activity is heating up. I agree with your point that using UGLE as the reference marker is problematic. Since many groups themselves self-elect to use the term "Mainstream" to identify as grand lodges who are part of the dominant English tradition, and those in the orbit of the Grand Orient of France use "Cosmopolitan," perhaps we should adopt "MAIN" and "COSMO" as two of the identifiers. Grand lodges from the Prince Hall Association (PHA) that are recognized by their state MAIN counterpart could list both PHA and MAIN in their notes. Odd as that might seem, it would allow a mechanism to recognize where legitimate, regular PHA grand bodies have worked out the territorial exclusivity agreements with their MAIN counterparts and signal that they welcome similar treaties with other MAIN jurisdictions.

In the US, jurisdictions like the GL of NY would list both MAIN and COGMNA in their notes.

As an example of how this would look in the European context, in Italy, both the Regular Grand Lodge of Italy and the Grand Orient of Italy are regular and are recognized by some of the MAIN jurisdictions. Yet neither of these has worked out a treaty of shared jurisdiction with the other, so UGLE recognizes one, and the American grand lodges, another. Both would be listed as MAIN. We'd leave it to the jurisdictions themselves to declare their own positive recognition list, as that is not our function. Should the mainstream European GLs form a recognition bloc of their own, they might then include that, in addition to MAIN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jax MN (talk • contribs) 14:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much was later written on this subject, as noted below. Sorry for the rehash. Jax MN (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2013 (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]

"Some are "self-proclaimed""

Are not all GL's self-prclaimed ? I remember reading the history of UGLV where prior to the GL being formed, Freemasons here (including the Prov. GM) wrote to UGLE for "permission" to form a GL here in Victoria Australia - UGLE wrote back saying it was not for them to give permission, the idea being Freemasons from several Regular Lodges get together in a geographic region where there is no GL and form one.Melbournemason (talk)

Not the same thing... The tradition in Freemasonry is that three (or more) Lodges can get together and form a new Grand Lodge... but the key is that those Lodges need to exist before they can form the new Grand Lodge. When I used the term "self-proclaimed" above, I was referring to "Grand Lodge" that were was created by an individual, and not by any preexisting lodges. Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gotchya. It is clear (I think) you are saying Lodges forming a GL need to be chartered from a recognised pre-existant GL already, holding warrents from that GL, in order to proclaim themselves together as a new GL. I dont know enough about this topic to provide an example which was done any other way, but would not be surprised to find there was one..Melbournemason (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, yes. UGLE got around that by calling their first four lodges "time immemorial" lodges, but they didn't rally have a choice, being the first one and all. However, in all other cases, GLs have a "lineage" of some sort. If you can find Kodansha's Freemasonry in Japan there's actually a lineage chart for the GL of Japan in the book. MSJapan (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MsJapan - thinking on this more - it was the exact problem which gave Prince Hall GL's - the idea of lineage and one GL to a geographic location. They seemed to have sorted much of that our now :) Melbournemason (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2012 (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]

Thanks for the quick response.

Do we need further discussion on this? --Ronz (talk) 14:49, 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]

I made this point above... but it is worth repeating in its own section for further discussion. This is the English language version of Wikipedia... so I think we should use the English language version of names... "Germany" vs "Deutchland" ... "National Grand Lodge of France" vs "Grande Loge National de France" ... and we definitely need to translate things from non-english lettering (our readers will not know what to make of "Εθνική Μεγάλη Στοά της Ελλάδος" or "Объединенной Великой Ложи России") Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong feeling either way, but I lean toward disagreement. I don't see any other articles where the name of an organization (say, a University in France), is translated to English. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm... you might want to look at:

• List of public universities in France
• List of universities in Spain
• List of universities in Norway
• List of universities in Serbia

I could go on... while it is definitely not universal, it seems we actually translate most University names into English. And we seem to do so for other types of organizations as well. Blueboar (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Then I'd say it's no problem as long as the original name is retained also. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why?... is there a reason to give the names in non-English form? Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the interest of providing full information in an article, it would make sense to do so. For this list, I'm not so sure, because the redirects should exist for those entries that have articles. MSJapan (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many European Grand Lodges have almost identical names, and the exact name is important to be able to tell them apart. Further, Europeans almost always use short letter abbreviations for their grand lodges, and it would be appropriate to include a column for those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.127.112 (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I think I am almost finished merging my version into 129's (which means I think I am almost ready to delete my version)... I do want to double check that all the GLs mentioned in my version are mentioned in the other.

Moving beyond that... I think we should move the various Mexican GLs into the North America section (Mexico is in North America, after all). Also, several of the Mexican GLs are members of GOGMINA (I need to find out which ones are members and which are not... I am planning on going into the Livingston Library here in NY some time in the next few weeks, so I will research this). Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the CGMNA webpage, it's the State GL's of Mexico.--Vidkun (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking that we should change the title of this article to List of Masonic Grand Lodges. I see no reason to have the word "General" in the title. That word was used because this article was originally a POV fork ... it was used to disambiguate this article from another article that only listed the "regular" grand lodges. That other article has subsequently changed its scope and focus, and has been renamed... so there is no longer a need to disambiguate between them. Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking of something along those lines as well the other day when I was poking through my archives and came across something related. "General" is sort of an unnecessary term anyhow. MSJapan (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.... Should we include "District Grand Lodges" or not? These act like Grand Lodges when it comes to supervising the lodges within their jurisdiction... but are also under the supervision and authority of another Grand Lodge. Examples include the various District Grand Lodges in India (which are under UGLE), and the District Grand Lodge of Syria and Lebanon (which is under GL of NY.) Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "No", as these DGL's and PGL's (as used by one or more of the three "home" GL's) are not sovereign unto themselves.--Vidkun (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK... "no" works for me. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the constituent Grand Lodges of Germany? They act more like a federation in that the constituents are partially sovereign, having ceded only two of their sovereign rights to the United Grand Lodges of Germany (which is notably plural) when it was founded - basically the right to represent German Freemasonry to the World of Masons and the right to represent it to non-masons, the United Grand Lodges has no control over matters of internal order and ritual. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... good question. I don't know enough about the relationship between the constituent Grand Lodges and the United Grand Lodges of Germany (ULG) to give an opinion. Could the ULG be described as an "External Organization" in the same way as SIMPLA, CLIPSAS or CGMNA? Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, though I don't really know how those organizations relate to the Grand Lodges that are members. The United Grand Lodges of Germany (VGLvD) holds sovereign rights but only some of them. They say on their website (more or less, as it's in German): "After years of unsuccessful attempts, the organizing of the VGLvD finally succeeded on 27 April 1958, with the help of members of the United Grand Lodge of England; creating a construction unique in the history of Masonry in that each of the five contracting Grand Lodges surrendered only two of its sovereignty rights, namely the representation of all German Freemasons to Masonic organizations outside Germany and the representation of German Freemasons to the non-Masonic world." (original here). Both the American Canadian Grand Lodge and the Grand Lodge of British Freemasons in Germany say simply "within the United Grand Lodges of Germany" beneath their arms on their websites.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Germany is complicated, for sure. As far as I have been able to tell, the various Grand Lodges are still independent of one another. I know that in terms of representation, my jurisdiction only has a representative "to Germany" and not multiple reps for each GL there, so that part is accurate. However the statement also indicates that someone who joins a particular GL is under that GL's jurisdiction, and does not gain membership in another VGLvD constituent GL because of membership in another vGLvD constituent GL. Furthermore, if I recall properly, each GL seems to be based in a particular major city which is its jurisdiction. This I can likely find out more about by asking some folks familiar with the situation. It amy be anecdotal, but it might also lead to some factual documentation. My initial sense, though, is that UGL is not the same sort of umbrella org as othe others mentioned. MSJapan (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I *think* you are right about the membership part, I'm not sure though as I believe even the two English speaking Grand Lodges issue German language certificates, but the rites are highly divergent and one of the Grand Lodges appears to be expressly Christian; however, they have overlapping jurisdictions and I believe all three of the German speaking Lodges are based in Berlin; it appears that all have districts in all of the German federal states. I don't believe there is any geographic basis to the jurisdictions other than Germany. Historically, the GLL FvD and the GNML 3WK appear to have been competing Grand Lodges under entirely different traditions. Based on the VGLvD site and the wikipedia.de info (which I hope to import shortly):

• Großloge der Alten Freien und Angenommenen Maurer von Deutschland (GL AFuAMvD) - was organized after the war and is expressly humanitarian/religiously neutral
• Große Landesloge der Freimaurer von Deutschland (GLL FvD) - appears to be expressly Christian and at least historically Swedish Rite, considered a Prussian Grand Lodge it has an 18th C. history
• Große National-Mutterloge "Zu den drei Weltkugeln" (GNML 3WK) - is the oldest, dating to 1740, was formerly known as the United Grand Lodge of Germany but changed it's name upon the formation of the VGLvD to avoid confusion, and appears to have as many as 7 degrees but neither my German nor Google translate provide enough clarity on this and I'll need to get help from a native speaker familiar with Freemasonry
• American Canadian Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M (ACGL) - originally a military lodge for members of the Occupying Forces in the American Zone and originally limited to military bases, they work in the English language. They now have lodges off the installations and admit Germans and others and they have lodges in the Middle East.
• Grand Lodge of British Freemasons in Germany (GL BFG) - Same as the ACGL except for the British Zone and using an English tradition and working in the English language.

For historical reasons neither of the English speaking Grand Lodges has lodges in the eastern states except Berlin as far as I know and the ACGL tends to be in the south whereas the GL BFG tends to be in the north, but I don't believe there are any formal restrictions on this.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given what has been said here, I am leaning towards listing them as individual grand lodges with VGLvD listed in the "external organizations" column, if only for the sake of completeness. I think this fits the situation well enough that we can use it to indicate that the GLs are at least partially independent, but are also under one umbrella. We can always add a foot note to better explain the exact relationship. Blueboar (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this would probably make the best sense given the structure of the page. Once I get the various pages imported and translated, this will be clearer still.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No dead line. Blueboar (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the entries to reflect the above (I've also added Monaco - they have a new Grand Lodge as of February).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I found out is that VGLvD is a supernumerary org above the GLs in Germany. Membership in one GL allows visits in all the others, although the individual GLs are not all of the same kind. VGLvD has a yearly meeting separate from that of the individual GLs. MSJapan (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "supernumerary org", membership in one GL does appear to allow visits to the others - though I am not sure how the GLL FvD reconciles this with their religious requirement and I'm not sure that this is anything more than they get through ordinary mutual recognition. I'm not sure about an annual meeting, the VGLvD's website only talks about triennial conventions and meetings of the 11 member Senate - representation in the Senate is unequal, with the GL AFuAMvD having 5 members and the GLL FvD having 3 and the others having 1 each.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Böri (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey is in Asia minor (north of Syria and to the east of Greece)

Oh... you mean "Why are there no Grand Lodges listed for Turkey?"... good catch

I have fixed that. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey is in Europe Böri (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A small bit of it, yes. Most of it is in Asia. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than edit war over this question, let's discuss... I think "Jurisdictional Area" is a more accurate term than "Location"... most Grand Lodges/Orients claim jurisdiction over lodges within certain areas... usually, but not always contiguous with state/provincial or national borders. However, others claim broader jurisdictional areas (some claim world wide jurisdiction). The term Location would be more appropriate if we listed what city the headquarters are in. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the latest revert to "Location" states: We know where the Grand Lodge is located. We do not know what area is claimed as its jurisdition. I disagree. For example, we know that the location of the Grand Lodge of New York is at Masonic Hall in New York City, and its Jurisdictional Area covers New York State. The location of the George Washington Union, on the other hand, is also in New York City... however its Jurisdictional Area covers the entire US. Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Jurisdiction is also the appropriate term - in the long term, a GL can change its location, but not its jurisdiction. MSJapan (talk) 04:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... now we are in an edit war over whether the column header should say "Jurisdictional area" or just "Jurisdiction". Again, rather than get into a revert war... we should discuss. The argument for "Jurisdiction" appears to be that this is what Grand Lodges call it. The argument for "Jurisdictional area" appears to be that this is clearer to a non-mason (the majority of our readers). Could we get some outside opinions? Blueboar (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As the IP is being non-cooperative and has apparently left Wikipedia already since he couldn't get his way, I think the discussion is moot. I personally prefer "area" added, because "jurisdiction" alone implies a universal recognition that isn't there. For example, a law enforcement agency has a jurisdiction recognized by all other law enforcement agencies (personal opinions notwithstanding). Grand Lodges, on the other hand, do not have that universal recognition. GLs do not recognize the jurisdictions or members of GLs in other streams, for example. We also have the claimed worldwide scope of certain groups to consider. So I think the term conveys a little more to the reader as "jurisdictional area." MSJapan (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop threatening edit wars. i don't know where your hostility comes from, but if you are unable to edit civilly, you may wish to do something else with your time.

-Name one grand lodge anywhere in the world that refers to it's "jurisdictional area". One. Any one. -"The argument for "Jurisdictional area" appears to be that this is clearer to a non-mason (the majority of our readers)." Since 'jurisdictional area' makes no sense as a term. Both 'jurisdiction' and 'area' imply three-dimensional geographic reality, nothing more. It is lame bureaucratese that pretends to a specificity it does not have. It is a made up term. It is meaningless. ---It is a laughable joke by people who have no felicity with the English language. -"because "jurisdiction" alone implies a universal recognition that isn't there." It absolutely does not. There is nothing in any definition of jurisdiction that implies mutual recognition. It just is not in the word. No one can construe it to be in the word.

This is like arguing French with someone who doesn't understand French.

You have a compound term, neither part of which elucidates the other, is is a neologism only ever used in this article, it is contrary to the usage of the organization(s). And all it does is add a level of confusion beyond what the subject already presents. A new reader now not only has to decipher what Freemasons mean by it, and then try to figure out what a handful of wikipedia editors mean by it.

That's lousy editing. And you two can sit on this article, prevent any changes, and threaten edit wars, (but you're not right, and the article is worse for your efforts).

By the way, you haven't even begun to address the issues of jurisdiction, (for example, why some American Grand Lodges have overseas lodges, or that England Scotland and Ireland have them worldwide). Hmmm, how are you going to work that into your chart. ---well, you can't not without making major changes to the article, which you are incapable of, and I am not going to waste my time.129.133.127.112 (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one is threatening an edit war... in fact, I opened this discussion in order to stop one from breaking out. Standard practice on Wikipedia is WP:BRD... you were bold and made an edit (which is fine), I disagreed with your edit and reverted it (which is also fine) ... Now we should discuss (which is what we are now doing), and seek outside opinions so we can form a WP:Consensus. It's how Wikipedia works.

My feeling is that we can easily (and briefly) account for the occasional "overseas lodges" by adding a simple sentence to the lede... we can mention that "While most of the lodges under the jurisdiction of a Grand Lodge are located in a defined geographical area, some Grand Lodges have chartered lodges (or even Provincial Grand Lodges) outside of their stated 'Jurisdictional area'".

Just to throw something else into the mix... consider that the official title of the majority of Grand Masters is "Most Worshipful <GM's name>, Grand Master of Masons in <geographic area>". Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Most of the lodges of the UGLE are ovberseas. Most of the lodges of the GLS are overseas. Most of the lodge of the GLIreland are overseas. If there is to be an article called 'jurisdictions in freemasonry', fine. I don't want to write it. And I am not particularly concerned with the topic.

Name a grand lodge that refers to a "jurisdictional area" and not a "jurisdiction".

Name a scholarly article about grand lodges' "jurisdictional area" and not their "jurisdiction".

If 'jurisdictional area' is different than 'jurisdiction', then how many grand lodges have a different 'jurisdictional area' from their 'jurisdiction'?

If there is a 'jurisdictional area' then is there a 'jurisdictional time period'?

If a 'jurisdictional area' is three dimensional, isn't it a 'jurisdictional space'?

Are 'jurisdictional areas' mutually exclusive? Can 'jurisdictional areas' overlap? Are 'jurisdictional areas' recognized?

Name a grand lodge that refers to a "jurisdictional area" and not a "jurisdiction".

Name a grand lodge that refers to a "jurisdictional area" and not a "jurisdiction".

Name a grand lodge that refers to a "jurisdictional area" and not a "jurisdiction".129.133.127.112 (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're not concerned about it, there's nothing wrong with the article as it stands, so the discussion is a waste of time for all parties involved. Let's move on. MSJapan (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both UGLE and GLS maintain District Grand Lodges in many parts of the world (mostly in countries that were once British colonies), but I seriously doubt that either UGLE or GLS has more lodges outside England and Scotland than inside (feel free to count them all up and prove me wrong if you wish to). But even if you are correct, these two Grand Lodges are really exceptions to the general rule. The vast majority of Grand Lodges and Grand Orients maintain very few (or no) oversees lodges.... and confine their activities primarily to one geographic area.

Oh, one other thing, has UGLE has ever chartered lodges in Scotland, or has GLS ever chartered lodges England? I believe both recognize that England is UGLE's jurisdictional area and Scotland is GLS's jurisdiction area... even if they overlap in other parts of the world. Blueboar (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the ultimate question we need to ask is... what term is the most understandable for our readers (most of whom will not be Masons and will not understand the complexities and nuances of the concept of Masonic Jurisdiction)? While "Jurisdictional area" may or may not be the best term in a technical sense, I think it is the best term to use in a conceptual sense. Blueboar (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nigeria recently consecrated a Grand Lodge of Nigeria I believe on the weekend of October 26, 2012. Representatives of the three Grand Lodges in the United Kingdom - GL of England, GL of Scotland, and GL of Ireland - participated in the consecration event. Previously Nigeria operated District Grand Lodges under the charter of the three UK Grand Lodges. With this new Grand Lodge, Nigerian Masons will now operate independently but with amity with other recognized Grand Lodges around the world. Merlin1935 (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Grand Lodge of Nigeria (GLN) was consecrated on 3rd November 2012, with a number of Irish (IC) and Scottish Constitution (SC) Lodges transferring to it. Not all of the SC Lodges transferred and there still exists a SC District Grand Lodge of Nigeria. No English Constitution (EC) Lodges transferred to the new Grand Lodge, indeed the EC were present at the consecration of the new GLN.

It is my understanding that on 11th May 2013 a new Grand Lodge of Ghana (GLG) was consecrated once again with a number of Irish (IC) and Scottish Constitution (SC) Lodges transferring to it. But not all of the SC Lodges transferred and there still exists a SC District Grand Lodge of Ghana. Also no English Constitution (EC) Lodges transferred to the new Grand Lodge, the EC were present at the consecration of the new GLG. It is worth noting that the UGLE web site shows it has DGLs in both Ghana and Nigeria.

Aquizard (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info... It will probably take a bit of time for sources (even simple websites) to develop for these new GLs. Have patience. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is in existence a web site for the GLG, in basic format which is being developed. Nothing yet for GLN. ::Aquizard (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested on the WikiProject:Freemasonry talk page that this lists includes some very questionable entities... groups that are only tenuously "Masonic" in practice... and groups that in reality consist of littel more than two or three people with exaggerated claims and a fancy website. There seems to be a desire to (somehow) separate the wheat from the chaff.

The question is: Can we separate the wheat from the chaff without violating WP:NPOV? I think we can... by adopting an inclusion criteria that is similar to that used at the List of Freemasons article. In order for a body that calls itself a "Grand Lodge" (or "Grand Orient") to be put on this list, two basic criteria would have to be met:

1. Notability - The Grand Lodge must be considered notable enough for Wikipedia to have a stand-alone article about it. And an article should be written before adding the Grand Lodge to the list.
2. Sourcing - The Grand Lodge must be mentioned in at least one reliable source that is independent of the Grand Lodge itself (to substantiate that a) the Grand Lodge actually exists... and b) someone other than themselves agrees that it actually is a Grand Lodge.) This source must be cited at the time that the GL is added to the list.

Note... this will mean that, at least initially, a lot of the GLs currently on this list will be removed (Wikipedia currently has very few articles on Grand Lodges). That can be fixed by encouraging the creation of the necessary articles. It will also mean that some very legitimate Grand Lodges may never get listed ... if there are no sources to support an article on the Grand Lodge of X, then we would not list it... no matter how legitimate the Grand Lodge of X is.) However, this limitation would at least be NEUTRAL in regards to all the various factions and schisms in Freemasonry. It would not matter which branch of Freemasonry the GL fell into.

What do people think of this idea?... Thoughts, concerns and comments please. Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree that this article is an albatross, but since we seem to be stuck with it, we may as well try to make it work. Your outline is good in principle, but I think it will fall down in execution. National bodies won't be mentioned for years because nobody can be bothered, or because nobody can understand the language of the necessary texts to write even a stub. There will be a bias towards English-speaking GLs, which is neither useful nor encyclopedic. Either we work an old-fashioned cleanup, checking everything on the list, or we start again with UGLE + CLIPSAS, and add others on merit. This still begs the question of the criteria we should use for inclusion as a GL. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your consideration of this rather extensive project. Certainly it will be a lot of work. Yet I think the value of such a list is increasing, and the time is right: During the early days of the internet and Wikipedia, recognition issues weren't played out on this venue. Key sources of information for mainstream GLs were 1) Pantagraph Publishing's List of Lodges, 2) Bessel's list, 3) Virginia's Smith Lodge of Research's grid/list, MSA, and the reports of the COGMNA Commission on Recognition. Soon after, UGLE's list made it to their website, as did World Conference data, followed by CLIPSAS information, PHA and finally, the more routine appearance of websites for new (regular) and/or fringe groups. Today, the classic sources of information tend to lag more noticeably. Pantagraph is only updated after ten regular jurisdictions in the US send them a report that they recognize a new grand lodge, and that data comes to them only slowly. Bessel's web pages, a pioneer as he is on the topic, are nevertheless sporadically updated (he's a pal, and I mean no disrespect by this. The velocity of change has increased and he's only one man.) Yet in my experience, foreign jurisdictions seek visibility in those sources AND increasingly point to Wikipedia listings to hint at or explain their groups' validity, especially across the language barrier.

Thus, for two reasons, I support the contemplation of this Herculean task. First, I too, think a solid list would help weed out the chaff while supporting identification of valid but new grand lodges who seek recognition, by using reasonable criteria as previously noted. Further, I think that fair-minded US Masons, wherever they may come from, would benefit from helping to identify the legitimate, regular PHA grand lodges (even while unrecognized by some mainstream state GLs) as opposed to the spurious PHO GLs, the clandestine St. John's Grand Lodges, and the purely fraudulent mail order degree houses and scam artists. Far more than the mainstream GLs, Prince Hall groups are in a pitched battle against bogus grand lodges, and I don't mind helping them explain the difference. Further, I think we can maintain an NPV with a fair set of criteria like this.

There is a website, once mentioned in an earlier comment at the top of this Talk page, which may help us as a starter: List of Masonic Obediences (in French). And as a final suggestion to Blueboar's criteria list, I'd like to also require a declared number of lodges and of Masons, with supporting citations. Jax MN (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to point out one benefit from having an all-inclusive list of everyone who even remotely claims to be a Grand Lodge... a benefit that is purely internal to Wikipedia. When someone writes a stub article about a tiny, non-notable masonic entity, it is very difficult to delete it... if you take that article to AFD, there is an immediate knee-jerk reaction by non-masons who say "Keep... Grand Lodges are inherently notable"... because they don't understand the difference between one Grand Lodge and another... they don't understand how schismatic Freemasonry can be, and they don't know how many tiny self-proclaimed "Grand Lodges" there actually are. As soon as you point them to this list, however, they begin to understand. They come away from this list with a better understanding of reality... that just because something claims to be a "Grand Lodge" it does not mean all that much. The non-masonic readers begins to understand that not all "Grand Lodges" are the same... and that some "Grand Lodges" are not all that "Grand". Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like Blueboar's idea and am willing to work on the Grand Lodge of North Carolina article. I started it before, but lost interest when my Masonic Lodges of North Carolina got deleted by a bunch of Wikinazis. We need to agree that if GL articles are created and then nominated for deletion and they will that we all rush to protect said articles. Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree to a blanket statement like that, Eric... The decision to Keep or Delete (or merge) an article should be based on our WP:Notability policy and subsidiary guidelines (in this case WP:ORG), not our own desires... the determination is based on whether reliable sources that are independent of the subject exist to support the article. No sources, no article. Unfortunately, that might well mean that a specific GL will not merit an article... or that an article on a topic related to a particular GL (such as a list of lodges under that GL) should be merged. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, but if I speant dozens of hours researching and writing a GOOD article and then some pimple-faced, unemployed English major came along and said "Not notable! Delete! Delete! Delete!" and then I did not get the support of the people in the discussion, then I would NOT be happy. Eric Cable  |  Talk  15:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is how anyone would feel. No one likes having their hard work disparaged. OK... sure, if you (or anyone else) wrote an article that is properly sourced, I would support it (although, depending on the specifics, I might !vote to merge... as opposed to keep or delete)... I just wanted to make it clear that I judge articles on their individual merits and would not treat any GL article as being "inherently notable".

(suggestion... when starting a new article, I like to work on an initial draft of the article in my user space... that "saves" my work while I search for sources, establish notability, etc... Once I think the article is in decent shape, I copy and paste it into article space (take it "live"). Working on articles this way means that if the "live" article gets deleted for some reason... my work has not been completely lost. I can go back to my user draft and continue to improve it, addressing the concerns that caused it be be deleted.) Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am reverting this column back to the original title "External Organizations" ... the original intent of the column was to indicate that the GL belonged to a formal body (such as CLIPSAS or COGMINA). It wasn't intended to be a list of "who recognizes who". Blueboar (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand - although the section which explains the abbreviations is headed "External Organizations or Affiliations". This leaves the lodges with the greatest international support looking like they are hanging in limbo. Shouldn't there be some way of indicating those GLs that are recognised as regular by the majority of the masonic world? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While we're here, SIMPA seems to have fallen off the map - its own members don't mention it on their websites and, since they have rejoined CLIPSAS, it's probably dormant at best. I can't decide if it needs ignoring or removing. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with trying to indicate recognition is this: Who's list do we use? UGLE has a list of Grand Lodges that it recognizes... GLoNY (my Jurisdiction) has a list of Grand Lodges that it recognizes... and while while the two lists substantially overlap, they don't completely agree (there are GLs that UGLE recognizes that NY does not recognize, and vise versa). Regularity has a similar problem... everyone says "My jurisdiction is regular"... and everyone passes judgement on the regularity of every other jurisdiction (based on its own definition of "regularity"). The problem is that GLs don't always agree with each other's judgements. Again, there is significant overlap, but not complete agreement. I am not sure how would we would neutrally indicate the disagreements?

Another option would be to simply omit the column entirely. If we don't list any external organizations, then the issue of who associates with who is moot. Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the SIMPA question... I think we need to contact someone to confirm its current status. If it has officially disbanded then we should remove it... but if it still exists (even in a semi-moribund condition) we should probably keep it (assuming we don't cut the column completely). Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SIMPA have let their website lapse - never a good sign. I'll leave it until I can unearth more information, but since they don't seem to be meeting anymore, I think it's simply been shelved. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RGLE being a small schismatic group, I was surprised to find a lot of foreign lodges which it claimed sprang from its loins. Picking my way down the list, the first is the Masonic High Council of Egypt, which has one lodge, it says on the RGLE website, and all references to this lodge trace back to there, NOT to Cairo, where the lodge is supposed to be. I propose to threat this as a Castle in the air. This, and any similar pipe dreams of RGLE will be removed unless somebody gives me a sound reason for believing they exist. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do sympathize with what you are talking about... we have a similar issue with GOUSA here in the US... it claims to consists of several lodges, but when you dig deeper there is no real substance behind the claims. However, before we start omitting "bogus" Grand Lodges... we have to be very careful not to slip into Original research. WE may know that the claims of the MHC are "bogus", but we have to be able to substantiate that personal knowledge.

This goes to what I was discussing above... a core problem with this list is VERIFIABILITY. Anyone can create a website... anyone can claim to represent a large world-spanning Masonic entity with lots of subsidiary lodges, districts and grand lodges ... So how do you separate the wheat from the chaff... how do you substantiate the claims and separate the bogus from the legit?

The answer is to require reliable sourcing that is INDEPENDENT OF THE ENTRY... Primary sources such as self-published websites are not good enough... we need reliable secondary sources.

However... that causes a problem: if we do shift to requiring secondary sources, we need to do so with NEUTRALITY... we need to apply the standard to all the entries, no matter what faction or grouping they belong to... no matter how legit WE know the Grand Lodge is. And that will mean that some very legitimate GLs would have to be omitted from the list... because we can not find an independent secondary source to support inclusion. Blueboar (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As this page will attract heavy traffic of passionate, opinionated readers, most of whom will not be experienced Wikipedia editors, should we include a clear summary of these rules, at the top, explaining how readers may effectively offer edits and admonish users to help us find bona fide original and secondary sources to cite? I think it may help us avoid pitfalls. Jax MN (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with that. I think we have reached a consensus that some sort of rules are needed... the next step is to reach consensus on what those rules should be... but once we do that, I think we would all agree that we would need a clear statement (both at the top of this talk page, and in the introduction of the article) to make it clear what those rules are. Blueboar (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a point about omitting legitimate Grand Lodges, but I'm stumped for an example. I don't think we can use self-publicity as a legitimate source. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't find any evidence of ANY Egyptian GLs outside of self-publicity. Bearing in mind that Freemasonry is illegal in Egypt, I propose to cross-check all of the GLS referenced by the RGLE site. This could take time. With RGL Virginia, I found they are no longer linked to RGLE, so I've used their own site and an Italian GL's reference to show they exist. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry is illegal in a number of Mideast countries. However, that hasn't stopped creation and working of lodges. Nor has it stopped all working of lodges under foreign jurisdictions, for example, the GL of NY maintains lodges in Lebanon, one of the less anti-Masonic nations in that part of the world. (Compared to, say Saudi Arabia and Yemen.) I know of several groups, local grand lodges or foreign constitution GLs in hardline Islamic countries that specifically do not want publicity because of fear of terrorism. Until they are ready to announce themselves in even the briefest fashion, we should let them remain in anonymity. In other words, I don't believe in Masonic "outing." Jax MN (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not the point. The GL is advertising itself, and springs from an organisation with a reputation for inventing grand titles, if not entire Grand Lodges. There were originally almost 50 GLs from this source, so far I've found two with a masonic existence outside the RGLE website - and as you say, there remains the question of whether an Egyptian masonic organisation would "out" itself. I don't believe it exists. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last (I hope) update. Having picked through all RGLE referenced GLs, some probably only ever existed on the RGLE website. There were a few real ones in USA and Europe, which have ALL now distanced themselves from their mother GL. The RGLE website is NOT a reliable reference. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... We know that RGLE actually exists (the Grand Secretary of UGLE issued a letter warning UGLE members of its existence)... what is murky is the actual existence of all the other lodges and grand lodges they say are allied to them... ie all the members of the MHC. I would say that the RGLE website might be OK for statements about RGLE itself... but not for its allies. Blueboar (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the "Masonic High Council the Mother High Council of the World of the Most Ancient and Honourable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons"? The main statement of the site is that the RGLE is some sort of world governing body. It is altogether safer not to believe anything published by RGLE. When you have a moment, try reading Masonic Info. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric has asked who Paul Bessel is, and questioned whether he is a reliable source.

He is one of the more highly regarded Masonic scholars in the US. Probably his most important credential is that he was President of the Masonic Library & Museum Association from 1999 to 2001, and Librarian of the George Washington Masonic National Memorial, from 1995 to 2000. He is published (see here), but is probably best known for his very comprehensive website... arguably the "go to" source as far as on-line Masonic research goes.

Here are his full Masonic credentials. Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Eric Cable  |  Talk  17:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It is never wrong to ask when you have a question about a source. Blueboar (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I think one of two things should happen:

1) Add a column to the tables that says "Recognized by the UGLE" and check yes or not according to this site: http://www.ugle.org.uk/about/foreign-grand-lodges

OR

2) Change the opening paragraph to...

...Sometimes there will be only one Grand Lodge in a given area. More often, however, there will be several competing Grand Lodges claiming the same jurisdictional area, or claiming overlapping areas. This leads to debates over legitimacy. Not all Grand Lodges and Grand Orients recognize each other as being legitimate. The majority of Grand Lodges who usually recognize each other as legitimate are those grand lodges which are recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England which it lists on its website. This article, however, attempts to list them all, regardless of recognition or legitimacy debates.

I am willing to do #1, but I think #2 is better as it 1) maintains the neutrality of this article and 2) does what should be done to direct the general public to mainstream Grand Lodges. Eric Cable  |  Talk  18:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand what it is you are trying to indicate... there is a network of mutually recognizing GLs that all hold to the same basic landmarks, and the goal is to have a way to indicate whether a GL is part of that network or not. The problem is that this network has no name, and so we are struggling to figure out what to call it.

I support the goal... but not the name you have given it. I have a problem with singling out UGLE, as if it were the sole arbitrator of who is in and who is out of this network. We could just as accurately call the column: "Recognized by Grand Lodge of Scotland" or "Recognized by the Grand Lodge of New York" or "Recognized by Grand Lodge of Saskatchewan" (etc).

Of course, if we base the column on Scotland, New York or Saskatchewan, the list of which GLs are marked with "YES" and which are marked with "NO" will be slightly different ... there are, after all, a few GLs that are recognized by UGLE, but not recognized GLoNY (and vise versa). My point is that using recognition by one of these other GLs would be just as legitimate as using UGLE. Blueboar (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we accept that modern Freemasonry originated in the British Isles, that all regular lodges must therefore trace ancestry to one of the "time immemorial" GLs, and the three remaining GLs descended from the originals are pretty much singing off the same hymn sheet, then recognition by UGLE is a fair litmus test of traditional regularity. If some sort of disclaimer of the sort Eric suggests is included, lodges could be simply marked next to their name with, say, an asterisk and a common reference to the list. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK... let's use Italy to illustrate the problem... UGLE recognizes the Regular Grand Lodge of Italy, but most (and possibly all) of the US Grand Lodges don't recognize the Regular Grand Lodge of Italy and instead recognize the Grand Orient of Italy. UGLE is actually in the minority here. If we peg this on UGLE's list, we end up giving the reader the wrong impression: That RGLI is a member of the "regular" club, and GOI is not... when in fact the majority of the members of the club say exactly the opposite.

We need some way to indicate who is and is not part of the "club"... and yet also account for the fact that there are occasional disagreements when it comes to specific jurisdictions. We need a way to indicate acceptance within the broader "Anglo/US style" network, without favoring any single GL's list. I'm not sure how to do this (I am thinking on it) but a yes/no list based on UGLE is not the way to do it. Blueboar (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is some difficulty finding publicly accessible lists of recognised GLs. (So far, I've found Indiana, and it has nothing from Italy on the list.) Ideally, if there is a more comprehensive list from a US lodge, it would be possible to indicate amity as AB, A!B, !AB, !A!B, which could be accomplished with references, with a brief intro/disclaimer. More than two lists would have to be inclusive or exclusive ored, or the entire thing becomes unworkable. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you perhaps limiting your search to what you can find on-line. Every US GL publishes a book that lists which GLs it recognizes. If you write to the GL they will send it to you. Another source would be the annual report and recommendations made by COGMINA (which gives a good indication of the US and Canada taken as a whole).

As to your final comment about things being unworkable... that's sort of my point... there are enough variations between GLs as to who recognizes who, that using any single GL's list is by definition POV... the only way to be NPOV would be to have separate columns for every single GL ... and that is obviously unworkable.

What I think might be workable (and NPOV) is something more generalized, a broad scope colunm. Instead of having a narrow focus on who is and is not recognized by any one specific GL... we should have a broad focus on who is and is not recognized by multiple GLs within the broader "Anglo/US faction". Rather than a column for UGLE, and another for GLoNY, and a third for GL of Mass. (etc)... have a single column entitled "Recognized by multiple GLs within the broad network of Anglo/US recognition"... yes and no would be based on looking at multiple GL lists... not just one. If a significant number (not necessarily a majority) of Anglo/US style GLs recognize "GL of X", then we would mark "GL of X" with a Yes.

If we keep it generalized, I would argue that we would include both the RGL of Italy and the GO of Italy as being in the broad network... both would be marked as "Yes" in the column... thereby presenting the reader with an accurate picture of the broader factions in Freemasonry as a whole, rather than the narrow factions within the Anglo/US branch. Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Earlier today I modified the North America table to in make states/provinces, etc. a separate column because it was driving me crazy. In the process I added anchors to the "Outside Organizations" table at the bottom and added links from the main tables to it. Now, when a reader sees "CGMNA" next to a listing they can click on it and it takes them to the list at the bottom for an explanation. So maybe we (I) could add UGLE to the table at the bottom with the explanation like "Grand Lodges noted above with UGLE are recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England." with the link to http://www.ugle.org.uk/about/foreign-grand-lodges. Adding the UGLE to the list would NOT be a mountain of work (because I have som e tricks up my sleeve). If someone gets me a list of Grand Lodges recognized by the Grand Lodge of Scotland I could add it as well. This would yield a result of a reader looking at the list and seeing that some Grand Lodges have a number of items in thier outside organizations list while some Grand Lodges have few or none. Eric Cable  |  Talk  18:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Blueboar's suggestion is excellent, if either of you can access the resources. A screed of columns for different GLs would be cumbersome to read and maintain. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to go off and work on a draft version of what I have in mind (it will, I hope, make more sense when you see it). Drafting will probably take a few days (I won't be continuously on line), so please be patient. I will let you know when done... and then we will be better able to compare our visions on how to proceed and (hopefully) reach a consensus. All I can say now is... I strongly oppose highlighting any single GL's list of recognition. Blueboar (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you strongly oppose highlighting any single GL's list of recognition and I understnad that anything you oppose will never happen because you are after all the self-proclaimed Grand Secretary of Wikipedia with life tenure (insert smiley face). What I was suggesting was adding UGLE to the already existing far right-hand column if applicable. With regard to your rewrite, try to keep the table code in multiple lines per item like it current is. Makes for easier editing later. Eric Cable  |  Talk  16:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nah... You can be Grand Secretary (and do all the mundane work)... I've appointed myself Grand Master! (insert smiley). Seriously... we are all on the level here... and that means we are all entitled to disagree with each other. When editors disagree (as we currently do) the key is to turn to other editors and try to form a consensus. If there is a consensus to do things as you envision, no problem... I may not like it, but I would respect the consensus. All I ask is that you do the same (which, I think, you would).

As for my draft... Actually, I am considering something more drastic... a fundamental reorganization of the entire list. For example, instead of having each section group GLs by continent, I am thinking of grouping them by "recognition network" (although I am not sure if that is the right phrase to describe what I am talking about)... If this works the way I think it will, it would mean we no longer need a column for the various "external organizations"... as each organization would be grouped in its own separate section. I think this will resolve several issues we have been discussing... but I have to draft it up it before I know for sure (and I have to play with it a bit before I present it to everyone else to see if you like it or not). Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just completed a first pass of Africa, which has taken MUCH longer than anticipated. I anticipate doing this in three passes, the first to find confirmation (or otherwise) that our jurisdictions still exist, the second to reference or delete other information, and possibly a third to put in other bodies recovered from lists (like UGLE Districts) and not yet entered. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddler... could you hold off on your clean-up for a week or so?... As I stated above, I am working on my own draft re-write... and I am considering proposing some fundamental changes to the basic organizational structure of the list.

I want to avoid a situation where you and I both spend a lot of time and effort working at cross purposes. I know that if our positions were reversed, I would be very upset if I had spent hours researching information, only to have you propose a version that did not include any of the information I had just researched. I don't want to upset you like that. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll save the current changes to my sandbox and let you get on with it. I can always put references back in. Thanks for that. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the sections above, we have been discussing various ways to indicate "recognition networks" without giving undue weight to any single Grand Lodge's list of who is and is not recognized. I mentioned that I had some ideas (I think I have come up with a concept that works) ... and that these ideas involves a complete restructuring of how the page is organized... but since I was having difficulty explaining what I had in mind, I said I would go off and create a user-draft version so everyone could actually see what I was talking about. I can now present an initial version... see: User:Blueboar/drafts - Grand Lodges (rewrite)

It is obviously not complete... but it is now far enough along that it should give you a rough idea of what I have in mind.

Please NOTE: what I am presenting is not set in stone... it is an early stage concept. If you like the concept we can move on to discussing specifics about it. If not... no problem... we can try to find some other solution.

I welcome comments, suggestions, and criticism. Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance I think you're doing a lot of work to make it "perfect" when perfection in this case is not going to be achieved. First of all calling one group "Mainstream" seems to fly in the face of what you're been trying to do. Won't some Grand Lodges be listed twice? For example wouldn't the PHA GL of North Carolina be listed under "mainstream" and PHA? I think the list the way you're going at it will be confusing, especially to non-Masons. Eric Cable  |  Talk  19:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it works as a main list. If I was looking for the Grand Orient of Utopia, and didn't have a clue as to affiliation, I'd be a bit annoyed at having to scan a pile of lists. I also need to point out that Droit Humain has not rejoined CLIPSAS - do they get their own table?

Answering own question, why not? And why not have these useful lists either stand-alone or appended to relevant articles, and linked to the last column of the geographical list? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like your work, Blueboar. One unconventional way to weed out the non-serious organizations is to default sort jurisdictions by verifiable date of grand lodge founding, a bar which would be difficult for the fraudulent groups to pass. Not a problem for unrecognized but regular groups. (Some would quibble over my phrasing here, thinking these are mutually exclusive characteristics. They're not.) Maybe not as convenient as alphabetical, but it would highlight the distinction. Also, to Eric's point, I think the most extensive use of this will be by Masons. By weighting this toward groups that have demonstrably more lodges, references and a longer pedigree, I would maintain that it is still fair, according to Wikipedia:Weight. I further have no problem listing the PHA GLs among the other US GLs, if we put in a note for the ten southern holdouts that don't recognize PHA at all. In my experience, those other 41 jurisdictions in the US that do recognize PHA grand lodges do so with some, but not all; and that those still unrecognized simply haven't asked. Jax MN (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the PHA GLs ... the problem is that it isn't just the southern holdouts. PHA recognition is very complex... While most of the "Mainstream" GLs have decided to recognize any PHA GLs that are recognized by their respective "Mainstream" GL... some have adopted different rules that give different results. Some of the "Mainstream" GLs have gone ahead and simply recognized all of the PHA GLs as a block (regardless of what the local state "Mainstream GL" says)... Others recognize the PHA GL in their state... but not the ones in other states (or only recognize some of the ones in other states). It's all in flux right now, and every year it seems to change. That's why listed them as a "sub-network" ... they are generally (but not universally) recognized as being within the mainstream network... but there are enough significant disagreements when it comes to the specifics of who actually recognizes who, that listing them in a sub-section was the only way I could indicate their status and still maintain a Neutral Point of View.

The idea of a "sub-network" also worked for the various Mexican GLs... which are recognized by most US and Canadian GLs... but not recognized by the three UK GLs. Blueboar (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. These treaties are always in flux. Respectfully, your emphasis may be a little off, here. These matters move very slowly, but they do move. I would rather not gum recognition facts up by attempting to, 1) summarize a present case snapshot of the recognition map, nor to, 2) legitimatize a partial step toward full recognition as anything other than a tepid mid-way point. You've heard of jurisdictions that "recognize but don't offer intervisitation," correct? Really - How silly is that, eh? It's a stop on the way to full recognition, that's all. Now, I grant that this may be more of a problem of structure and syntax, versus legalism. If so, by all means, make use of sub-networks, but I think we can provide as much clarity by leaving matters of specific recognition to the GLs themselves, while we paint with a broader brush. Mainstream, PHA, Canadian conference and Mexican conference GLs should all be listed in the mainstream list. That's how almost four fifths of the US jurisdictions see it. The rest is detail that may be found in the Pantagraph, or from a specific grand lodge. Jax MN (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: You've heard of jurisdictions that "recognize but don't offer intervisitation,"... No, I have never heard of that before. Could you give me an example? Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ...Mexican conference GLs should all be listed in the mainstream list. That's how almost four fifths of the US jurisdictions see it.... but it's not how the UK Jurisdictions (and probably others) see it. That's the problem. We can't favor a US POV over a UK POV (or vise versa) and maintain a Neutral POV. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to think that we simply can't indicate recognition in a way that maintains NPOV. No matter how we try to do it, we end up giving undue weight to particular viewpoints. Perhaps it would be better to scrap the idea of indicating recognition completely? Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think scrapping the idea completely is needed. I would suggest leaving the format as-is. Then change the header of the far right-hand column from “External Organizations” to “Affiliations and Recognition.” Then add an acronym to the bottom list for any Grand Lodge who publishes its list of recognition. Then add the acronym (with a link to the bottom) to each recognized grand lodge in the list. For example, add GLBC&Y to the list at the bottom and then add the GLBC&Y note to the far right-hand column to each GL listed here [1]. In doing so you are maintaining neutrality because you are 1) merely stating the face a certain GL is recognized by another GL or member of some other organization such as the CGMNA and 2) only including Grand Lodges at the bottom who publish their lists. You could also include a statement at the bottom that says “Note that individual Grand Lodges of U.S. States are not included as it would make the list to cumbersome, not all state grand lodges publish their list of recognition in easy to access format, and finally membership in the Council of Grand Masters of North America (CGMNA) usually indicates mutual recognition. Eric Cable  |  Talk  15:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: CGMNA... The first problem is that while membership in CGMNA usually indicates mutual recognition... it does not always indicate mutual recognition (there are members of CGMNA that don't recognize each other).

The second problem is that using CGMNA to indicate "Affiliation and Recognition" actually misrepresents what CGMINA is and does. All CGMNA is is a yearly gathering of Grand Masters to discuss issues of mutual concern. It most definitely does not determine "recognition or affiliation". It does not issue any statement as to who is recognized or not recognized. Yes, sometimes it makes a recommendation in support of granting recognition (or witholding/withdrawing recognition). However, that recommendation just that... a recommendation. It is absolutely not binding on any of the GLs. Each GL determines who it does and does not recognize completely on its own, and is free to accept or ignore the recommendation of CGMNA as it chooses.Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The right-hand column of the list could simply be called Comments and then list CGMNA as appropriate with a link to the CGMNA comments at the bottom where CGMNA could be defined as you state above, UGLE could indicate "Recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England" GLS could indicate "Recognized by the GL of Scotland", etc. So in that aspect, if we say CGMNA all we are saying is they are a member of that organization. Eric Cable  |  Talk  16:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to indicate "recognition or affiliation" in a column, without any POV... each GL listed would have to have over 100 separate notes indicating which other GLs recognize it and which do not. Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You keep bringing this up in your well-intended efforts to make the list perfect. However, if we indicate that the Comments (far right-hand column) are "incomplete" then we could include a disclaimer in the header of the Comments section (at the bottom) saying "Not every mutual recognition Grand Lodge relationship is listed for the sake of space, blah blah." Eric Cable  |  Talk  16:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to several comments, and breaking my answers into paragraphs, I think this is do-able, and need-ful, even if hard. First, to answer Blueboar's query, I looked to see if I happened to have my copy of Pantagraph, where I'd last read of this situation. I sometimes have it in my car. Sadly, I left it at home today. Until I can reference it, I'll do this by memory. At least one of the jurisdictions that recently moved to "normalize" relations with their PHA counterpart in their state has Recognition but not Dual Membership as their policy. They may go so far as to preclude intervisitation for the time being, but I will have to check on that. For them, essentially, the big breach in the dam has been made, but some clean-up has to be finished by future action of another grand master. Meanwhile, many of the French jurisdictions maintain what they consider to be a lower level of cooperation, defacto recognition, while still disallowing intervisitation, dual membership, or other aspects of a full blown recognition agreement. Remember that theirs is the language of diplomacy, and Frenchman relish nuance. Therefore, Recognition ain't always recognition.

I've negotiated these treaties. All they are are letter agreements setting forth terms of mutual cooperation. There is no definitive set of terms that the treaty must contain. The problem for those of us trying to write Wikipedia entries about this is that there is no universal agreement on the definition of terms such as Masonic "regularity," "irregularity," "recognition," "clandestine," "bogus," "amity," etc. It makes communication between some jurisdictions difficult, too, because of preconceptions on both sides as to the meaning of these words. It takes a while for a good grand secretary or foreign relations leader to get the hang of it.

A third example: Whether or not UGLE recognizes a grand lodge or not is not the same as whether they understand them to be Regular. All 51 jurisdictions in the USA (I think) recognize the "Grand Orient of Italy," while the UGLE does NOT. Instead, the UGLE recognizes the "Regular Grand Lodge of Italy." (Names in English, for convenience here.) US Masons, if asked, may give a mis-mash of responses as to whether they think the RGLI is regular or not, but when it comes down to it, GL officers will describe the RGL of I as "regular, but non-recognized" rather than declaring that they are clandestine. Such would be tantamount to declaring that UGLE recognizes clandestine grand lodges. There are several other examples I know of where UGLE doesn't recognize a group, but they wouldn't take negative action about any of us in the US who do. (Conversely, there ARE groups that are considered irregular and clandestine by UGLE, to the point where they would reconsider recognition of a group already in their camp that chooses to make a treaty with such a disfavored organization. The UGLE is more quick to act on this in cases of English and French speaking GLs. I know of some of these two-steps-away problems with Spanish-speaking lodges, but no one in the UGLE has seemed to take action about it. So, I'd frame this club of mainstream GLs more broadly to this end: This is a group among whom we can all correspond with at least a basic level of mutual respect for each other's existence, and we have a pretty good idea of how we each handle the common-to-us Standards of Recognition. Even if some southern jurisdictions, both traditionally black or traditionally white will mis-use the terms and call each other irregular, this is not the same from the truly bogus groups discussed earlier on this Talk page. From this rather large group of grand lodges come the ones we as grand lodges choose to Recognize. And that, to my earlier point, is what should be left to their individual offices to communicate.

Finally, to Blueboar's last comment, not quite right: CGMNA does not make (positive) recommendations about recognition. Instead, its Commission on Recognition investigates to its own satisfaction whether a group meets the standards of recognition previously accepted by CGMNA, and reports on those findings. You are right, though, that a big fat column would be needed to attempt to note all recognition treaties. And I think that means you and I agree that that specific item is outside the scope of this list. Best regards to you all, Jax MN (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to figure out why the "External Organizations" column is unsatisfactory... and perhaps the problem is that the purpose of the column is unclear. It was not intended to be about "recognition or affiliation". But that got me wondering what it's purpose actually is... and in trying to answer this, I hit a snag... While belonging to one of these external organization does imply some degree of cooperation and coordination between Grand Lodges... the purpose of each of the different organizations (what they are cooperating and coordinating about) is not the same from one organization to another.

To make an analogy... what we have done may be similar to creating a list of nations, and noting which are members of the EU, which are members of OPEC, which are members of NATO, etc. All of these organizations imply cooperation and coordination... but the purpose of that cooperation and coordination is very different for each organization. We end up comparing apples to oranges. Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To use your analogy..if you had a list of nations and had a column titled "Notes" then you could put NATO, OPEC, EU, etc. in that column and at the bottom the the list define each term. Easy peasy. Eric Cable  |  Talk  17:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]