Talk:List of Freemasons/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

AbdelKader's flag

I posted a comment previously in this page about AbdelKader's flag, and explained the reasons that make me think it's NOT accurate historically to use the Ottoman flag for him. No one commented back for almost a month (till now, 25days). That made me think that no one has any objection for changing his flag, but apparently I was wrong because as soon as I applied the correction one of the guys so much interested in the Freemasonary rejected my changes for the same old reason, which is 'Algeria didn't exist as an independent country at his time' and I agree, although it's not enough in my opinion to make him choose the Ottoman flag. I sent him a long message in his talk page explaining my point of view with more details. check it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blueboar&oldid=231029261), he eventually deleted the message which means that he read it (according to him) but never answered me (which is up to him). I'll copy and past the message I sent him here for the public, and I'll apply my changes again to the page after 7 days, if there's any other opinion please post it here or let me know in my talk page before that, because it's bad to have any wrong information this long in an encyclopedia like this..

The message:
Mr. Blueboar, I totally understand your will in choosing historically accurate flags to the freemasons in the list.
However, as I previously mentioned in the discussion page of the article, I don't think you're accurate at all in using the Ottoman flag for AbdelKader, for the reasons I stated there (which you didn't even reply to after more than three weeks being posted) because there's no doubt of how Algerian AbdelKader is, what you're doing is actually like giving a British flag for George Washington and saying when Washington became a mason (in 1753) the United States didn't exist!!!
Any way, I'll try to make my point of view more clear:
I quote this from the website of Encyclopedia Britanicca: "Modern Algeria can be understood only by examining the period—nearly a century and a half—that the country was under French colonial rule. The customary beginning date is in April 1827, when Husayn, the last Ottoman provincial ruler..." (URL: http://original.britannica.com/eb/article-220552/Algeria), and please check the page of the history of Algeria in wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Algeria) and the Ottoman rule in Algeria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ottoman_Algeria), you'll find it very clear that the Ottoman rule ended between 1830 or 1831 when Hussein Dey the last Ottoman Dey (or ruler) fell to the French, "Ottoman rule lasted until 1831, when it fell to the French." (URL: http://www.alarab.co.uk/Previouspages/North%20Africa%20Times/2007/11/11-11/NAT281111.pdf --the third paragraph in history of Oran)
Also, it's clear in AbdelKader reference used in the article, where it says: "Initiated on 18th June, 1867, at a specially convened meeting of the Lodge of the Pyramids, Alexandria, Egypt." (http://www.masonicphilatelicclub.org.uk/page7.html), by 1867 all Ottoman Beys (regional rulers) already fell to the French, (the last one being Ahmed Bey in Constantine, which -the city- fell to the French in 1837).
According to the previous, I would say, although Algeria didn't exist as an independent nation in 1867, it was definitely NOT Ottoman.
And -of course- we can't use the French flag and say that AbdelKader was French, simply because he was fighting them! So, if you still don't agree with using the Algerian flag for him, I suggest we use his old Emirate's flag! which is the flag of Mascara or simply use no flag! we just leave it empty (http://www.crwflags.com/FOTW/FLAGS/dz.html), because I think the main purpose of the list is to be a reference for the notable freemasons, not for showing their affiliations or nationalities, and whoever wants to know more needs to click on the name!
Looking forward for your opinion on this..
Respect.
Xander.Dedeche (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
End of the message

Thanks.. Xander.Dedeche (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Citizenship can't change without some legal means of doing so. The sources you are quoting refer to French occupation in the 1830s and later. The flag is based on the fact that Abdelkader was born in 1808, when the area was still part of the Ottoman Empire. When he became a Mason (1864), it was French, and then later (in 1962; long after his death) it became Algeria. Mascara in particular was founded as an Ottoman garrison in 1701, and was destroyed by the French when they occupied it (1830s). It also states clearly in Abdelkader's article: "In 1830, Algeria was invaded by France; French colonial domination over Algeria supplanted what had been domination in name only by the Ottoman Empire." Therefore, there's a lot more weight towards calling him an Ottoman citizen by birth than anything else. In response to why other folks like Washington have US flags and not UK, IIRC they had their British citizenship revoked because they committed treason against the crown, so they became US citizens, but they were also alive when independence happened, Abdelkader was not. I hope that explains the rationale. MSJapan (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition to this, the lodge where he was made a Mason was in Egypt, which was still Ottoman territory at the time that he lived. Blueboar (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you MSJapan for your reply.. you're saying that the flag is based on the fact that AbdelKader was born in 1808, while Blueboar said (in the history of the article) it's based on the date he was made a mason which is 1867 (or 1864 as you mentioned).. This makes a big difference, because he was born in Ottoman Algeria but became a mason the time Algeria was French!

Mascara was indeed destroyed by the French but this doesn't mean that we ignore it at all or we say that its flag can't be used for those who lived in it before it was occupied, specially for AbdelKader who created its flag!

In response to the fact that the lodge was in Egypt, I think it has nothing to do with his citizenship.

Respect.. Xander.Dedeche (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah... I see where the miscommunication is. To my mind, The flags do not represent the citizenship of the person, but where they "hail from" Masonicly. For example, If a Frenchman had been initiated in an American lodge, I would give him an American Flag... not the French Tricolor, as he is a US Mason. To me, the flag represents their "Masonic nationality"... not their political nationality. Does that help clarify things? Blueboar (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, personally, it doesn't make any difference for me what flag being used for AbdelKader or any other mason in the list as long as there's a standard followed in the process of choosing these flags.

So, yes, this indeed does help clarify things, however it opens the door for more work in my opinion.. I suggest you guys -as I'm not a mason- to agree on a standard (place of birth, citizenship, date of becoming a mason, masonic nationality.. whatever) to be followed in the whole list and to be clearly stated in the little introduction of the article to prevent any confusion for the readers. Do you think this can be done? Xander.Dedeche (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point... and I agree. FYI, being a Mason is not a criteria for helping with the article. Blueboar (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar, my last post was not suggesting the addition of the lines you added to the article, which I could've added my self! THERE'S A PROBLEM HERE, WHICH IS YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT FACTOR CONTROLS THE PROCESS OF CHOOSING THE FLAG! You said in the beginning the reason is Algeria didn't exist at the time he became a mason, later, you came up with the 'Masonic Nationality' thing, if this was correct, you could've just said that early in the beginning of this discussion, in addition to that, MSJapan is talking about citizenship and place of birth, for me, I have totally different concept in choosing these flags.. So, there's no AGREEMENT ON WHAT TO FOLLOW HERE! Which we need to initiate!

What I meant by saying 'as long as I'm not a mason' is that I don't know in particular what should be used.. I never heard of Masonic Nationality! which other masons might have heard of.. they definitely can suggest better ideas here..

Please, don't misunderstand my point..

Thanks, Xander.Dedeche (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry... I was being bold and acting upon your request to clearly state a criteria for choosing flags... but if you have an issue with the criteria I chose, we can certainly discuss the matter further. Let me explain my thinking again:

As I see it, the point of this article is to list notable people who were or are Masons. Everything else is secondary to that goal. Since Freemasonry is international in scope... the political nationality or citizenship of any given person is actually irrelevant to the list. If the flags are to be based upon the nationality or citizenship of the person, then we should probably do away with them all together. If, on the other hand, the flags are based upon a Masonic criteria... such as where a person became a Mason... they have some relevance to the scope of the article. In which case the flag should reflect that relevance. Does this make sense to everyone? Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I didn't get to weigh in on this earlier, but I think it is much easier to use country of nationality as the flag - sometimes we don't have the membership location info, and I think it makes more sense. Most of the time it is the same, but in this case, it isn't. It still doesn't make using a flag of a country that didn't exist correct. MSJapan (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, after checking many of the flags and entries in the list, and several similar pages with lists of notable people in different areas in Wikipedia, here's what I ended up with:
Many present flags entries are not accurate or at least controversial like AbdelKader's and including other people with either more than one flag (John Paul Jones for instance has got American and Scotch flag while he became a mason in Les Neuf Sœurs, Paris!) or others with no flag at all.
All the lists that I've seen -of people- in Wikipedia use no flags, they rather use alphabetical orders or other criteria..
Here's some random exsamples: List of anarchist musicians, List of teetotalers, List of Jewish actors and actresses, List of geologists, List of female boxers, List of converts to Islam, List of porn stars who appeared in mainstream films, List of Kurdish people..etc, previous lists vary a lot in terms of time frames, nationalities of people in the list and nature of what the list is based on in the first place; though, they all use no flags.
And -of course- we all agreed on the fact that the use of flags is 'very secondary' thing here.
My suggestion is simply to remove all the flags in the list of Freemasons, and keep a short sentence next to the person's name in the list which might be easily subtracted from his article (more or less like what the situation is now). I think in order to execute this suggestion, I need to get the agreement (and opinions) of many people visiting this article, which requires a new headline with a subject regarding this issue in this discussion page.. What do you guys think? Xander.Dedeche (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that we have three people with different ideas about what the flags are supposed to indicate... I think removing them entirely is a very good idea. No objections on my part. Blueboar (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it as controversial, because Blueboar and I at least state a use for the flags. Xander has come back to this page on multiple occasions because he doesn't agree with one flag, and he wants to change the whole page because what he thinks doesn't match with what others have stated previously. He has shown himself unwilling to accept the consensus made on the page and has shown a willingness to push until he gets what he wants, using inappropriate arguments. Maybe to post-independence generations, Abdelkader is Algerian, but the historical records do not indicate that, and I do not accept that it is appropriate to change a flag based on what someone thinks as opposed to what is. The lists above are poor examples to use, because they are by and large not multinational in scope nor are they particularly long. I would rather agree on how to use the flags instead of getting rid of them, and it is my contention that it is easier to locate a flag of citizenship than for any other possibility. MSJapan (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What user MSJapan said is very true, I have come back to this page on multiple occasions because I don't agree with one flag, and I want to change the whole page because what I think doesn't match with what others have stated previously. I don't see any problem with this! at least I'm discussing it with every one here!

But, by saying I showed myself unwilling to accept the consensus made on the page is very wrong! because simply there's NO CONSENSUS MADE!! and I'm trying to get it made..

AbdelKader is indeed Algerian for post-independence generations (including me), that's why I discussed changing his flag to the Algerian one early in the beginning, but I've been convinced that it's not accurate historically, and instead I suggested the use of Mascara's, which was not accepted for some reason! after that I stated very clearly that it makes no difference for me what flag being used as long as there's a standard in choosing this flag which must be applied to the whole list, which my friends here failed to fulfill, which is the consensus MSJapan mentioned..

Let me list our options here Mr. MSJapan, and again don't take it personal please, because this page isn't yours nor mine:

You want to use the Ottoman flag, fine, all you need is to convince me that it's the correct choice, which I doubt, why? I'll tell you why: You're insisting on using the citizenship of the people in the list, well in the case of AbdelKader there's no citizenship in the modern concept of it, the Ottomans didn't have citizenships for their people, your opinion was based on the fact that he was born in an Ottoman territory, that's not enough because citizenship is simply NOT where an individual was born, and because not ALL countries follow the rule of naturalizing people born in their lands or territories, so you can't simply say AbdelKader was Ottoman because he was born in Ottoman Algeria.

All I want is to be convinced in a professional manner that AbdelKader was Ottoman or his citizenship at that time was Ottoman, if not, the second option is to use Mascara's flag, if not, we can make our lives easier and use no flags which was my last suggestion.

My examples were poor, ok, you want more examples, check this out, Lists of people, go throw them one by one, no flags.

Finally, I think that the use of no flags is the best choice for this article, and I will keep what you called "pushing" until there's an agreement accepted by every one here.

Peace, Xander.Dedeche (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC).

Well, it seems that there is no objections by anyone on using no flags here, if there's any please share.. Xander.Dedeche (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OK... since we clearly have no consensus on how flags should be applied or what they are to indicate, I have removed them all. Hopefully this will end the debate. Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding persons to this list

Additions to this page need to be cited, & if available, include Lodge information. There will almost always be Lodge details in the reference given.

Please consider searching the archived talk pages for a person before adding them.

article improvement: format

In working on this page, I was invariably led to List of Skull and Bones members article, & noticed a couple of things that are applicable here:

1. people without wikilinks are acceptable, with a reason, i.e. what they did/what they are notable for, which seems reasonable here, since we cannot say someone is not notable just because they aren't here. Go back do day-one of wikipedia: would that hold true? No.
2. Several things from there do not hold true here, like the subsections by professio etcs. That is one organization, with one source, & one body.
3. Their Category:Bonesmen survives, while this subject matter's Cat:Freemason does not? What's up with that? Not that I'm complaining, a cat: tag is entirely unciteable, I'm just sayin...

Grye 03:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Cat:Freemason is gone because it got CfDed and no one on the Project got notified. I think it got noticed because User:Stijn Calle went overboard and subcatted it to death. We could always send it to DRV. MSJapan 05:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Save me from my incompetence, i.e. kindly help out with the references

In trying to make some worthwhile additions to this list it occurred to me that I don't know how to cite reference in code like this. So, if you'd all like, I'll list the name and a credible citation and then if someone with more skills than I could fill out the reference that would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance!

Mozart: http://www.freedomdomain.com/freemasons/mozart01.html

Jean Sibelius: http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/sibelius_j/sibelius_j.html

Alexander Pushkin: http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/pushkin_a/pushkin_a.html LeNordique 14:45, 11 April 2007

Hey, sorry about that, I didn't see this here. I'll look at em, check the refs, & if they're good I'll make ref tags for you & replace them ;~) Grye 20:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Done Grye 21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, hey, in the future, assuming you checked the refs, you can add the reference for the source of information for the data you want to cite, at the end (& after punctuation, like"."), i.e. Lodge name, degree, etc. with this code:

<ref> website, book, etc</ref>.

That'll put a ref# there, & what you wrote between the ref /ref into the ref section.

The general article & section to look at, for day-1 starts, would probably be Wikipedia:Citing sources#Footnotes

& hey, all: We really do need to have this at the header of the article &/or Talk page...

Grye 21:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! I've also noted the format for how you've made the entries so I'll be sure to be consistent with that in the future. LeNordique 10:00 25 April 2007 (UTC)

DeWitt Clinton

I know DeWitt Clinton - Early 1800s Mayor of NYC, Gov. of NY State (during the Morgan Affair), US Senator, Presidential Candidate, and credited with being the main inspiration behind the building the Erie Cannal - should be on this list ... but I am having difficulty coming up with citations. The BC&Y website has confirmation that he was Grand Master of NY, and I can find reference to his being the Grand High Priest of the Grand Chapter of NY... but I can not find a ref. to his lodge info on line. He was raised in Holland Lodge No. 8, in New York in 1793, and was Master of that lodge a few years later. The lodge has self-published a history that includes this info, but I am not sure if this is a reliable source under WP:V. Blueboar 15:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it is, especially if you consider that a lot of sources only have 1° info, which does not mean they ever actually were raised... while GM & GHP does require 3°. so yeah, absolutely... Grye 17:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. In which case I'll add him in. The lodge's history discusses several other historical figures who were members of the lodge... I think several of them might be notable enough for the list... I'll bounce the names and details off of you (here) before I add anyone. Blueboar 13:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Theron Dunn

What criteria is used to determine if someone is worthy of being on the list?

I was added to this list by someone who apparently admires the work I have done on behalf of freemasonry. The day he entered me, he sent me a link, and shortly thereafter, Gyre removed it, noting I was not "noteworthy" enough. I replaced it, correcting misinformation from the original posting, and gyre removed it.

So, if a brother decides George Washington was worthy of being added, and Gyre decided he was not, who decides?

Thanks

That's a good question. Obviously we cannot add every Freemason who ever lived to the list, but we shouldn't leave out important people either. The easiest criteria to use is to only include individuals who already have a Wikipedia article about them. George Washington has a Wikipedia article about him because he's notable enough to warrant it, Theron Dunn doesn't because he probably isn't. (If he is, somebody other than Mr. Dunn himself will at some point create the article, at which point we may include Mr. Dunn in the list. We have Autobiography policies against creating articles about yourself.) Philwelch 05:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that this list should be limited to people who are notable outside of Freemasonry. By this I mean that 1) your average non-Freemason will have heard of them, and 2) their notability can be established without mention of their membership in the fraternity. I can think of one or two people that are notable because of their membership (Albert Pike, for example), but those are rare exceptions. For boarderline cases, I would say the rule should be to discuss them here first. If the consensus is that someone is notable enough, we add them. If consensus is that they are not notable enough, we don't. Blueboar 13:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Barton

, Edmund [1]

• I would like this person to be included on the list. He is nOtable and has a reference. I restored Benes, with a reference, and can not see how its addition was "vandalism". WP:OWN needs referring to here, it is starting to get a bit out of hand. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 07:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It is quite simple... for a name to be placed on the list, a citation must be provided (as you have now done). It is easy to claim that someone is/was a Freemason... not all of them are. Blueboar 14:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

TOC

I removed the compact TOC, as it appears multiple times within the article, including at the top. There is another alphabetical TOC that moreover also only gives you the letters that you actually have in the article, but the one article I saw it in was deleted. I'll look at the contents options and get a different one. MSJapan 14:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. If people want to add multiple instances of the TOC within the list (not that it helps that much), please c/p the template and parameters I've already created. MSJapan 15:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rename

I think there needs to be a clearer inclusion criteria for this list. If the goal is to list every single Freemason in history we'll end up with a list with tens of thousands names on it. I suggest as a first step that the article is moved to "List of notable Freemasons". Comments? Pax:Vobiscum 14:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand the point you raise... my only comment is that, since someone needs to be notable to be on Wikipedia in the first place, doesn't that in itself limit who gets put on this list? Blueboar 14:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I rather see the point being made, and whilst it's implicit that inclusion demands a fuller article, that's not clear. We then get into a debate as to whether this is best as an article, or a category. I appreciate I don't pay much attention here, not really my thing, but I'd lean towards a category as being more meaningful, I'm not keen on lists, but there may be a higher maintenance overhead there.

ALR 14:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A well maintained list offers several advantages over a category (the essay Wikipedia:Categories vs lists raises some good points), but that is a separate discussion. Pax:Vobiscum 15:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to be notable to have your own article, but you don't have to be notable to be mentioned in a wikipedia article (WP:NOTE). Since the article only lists notable people (which is a good thing) it should be made clear somehow, either by adding notable to the article name or by saying so in the lead section. Pax:Vobiscum 15:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The policy I mentioned actually says that list articles are expected to include only notable people, but it's always good to be explicit. Pax:Vobiscum 15:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth Aldworth

Elizabeth Aldworth did not receive 3 degrees, she was not a Master Mason, & Master Mason is pretty universally thought of when refering to one as being a Freemason. If the reference source is good enough for Sir Donald Bradman's citation, then consider what else it says: "Mason" generally refers to a Master Mason, or one who has received all three of the initiatory degrees of Freemasonry. Those who have received only the Entered Apprentice or Fellow Craft degrees are initiated members, but without all the rights and privileges accorded to Master Masons.

Grye 23:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, she's certainly a special case. It's probably worth keeping, but where to list her is a good question.MSJapan 02:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Those who have received only the Entered Apprentice or Fellow Craft degrees are initiated members, but without all the rights and privileges accorded to Master Masons.

Depends on your GL, in both of mine EAs are full members of the craft, although not entitled to the righs and privs of a MM, like the Masters word etc. In that sense the Duke of Edinburgh is a Mason, although he only rx'd the EA degree.

ALR 05:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be a difference between US tradition and English tradition.

In the US, Lodges work on the Third Degree (and "lower" the lodge to Entered Aprentice or Fellowcraft for degree work) ... while EAs and FCs are considered "Masons" (for example they are called "Brother", and they are entitled to have a Masonic funeral if they die) they are not full members of the Lodge... they can not attend most business meetings, nor vote on lodge issues or on candidates. However, since candidates in the US tend to go through all three degrees fairly quickly (typically about a month between each degree, although this will vary from Lodge to Lodge), this time spent as some sort of "half-mason" does not really matter... they gain full rights in short order.

In England, on the other hand, Lodges work on the First Degree (and "raise" the lodge to Fellowcraft or Master Mason for degree work). An EA has full voting rights... at least where basic lodge business is concerned. Candidates may spend years between degrees, and some never progress beyond EA.

Neither tradition is "right" or "wrong"... they are just different.

As for Elizabeth Aldworth ... Do we know if everyone else on our list was Raised? Do we list other EAs and FCs?... If so, I don't see that there is any justification for dropping her (as one of the few women who is documented as belonging to a regular lodge, she is certainly notable enough for inclusion). Blueboar 12:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand it's no longer consistent in the US either, with many GLs now working, or allowing Lodges to work, in the first, passing and raising as required.

If we look at the ritual we see that the EA is obligated to protect the secrets of freemasonry which may now, or at any future point, be communicated...., implying that an EA is in possession of at least some of the secrets.

ALR 19:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As interesting as this is... I think we are off track. The question is: should we include Aldworth? I think we probably should... I go back to my last question, have we listed others who did not take the third degree? If so, I can not see any justification for not including Elizabeth Aldworth. Blueboar 19:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to, I am however sensitive to Grye having issues with including irregular or clandestine Masons in this list.ALR 19:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

We used to have Lyndon Baines Johnson, who took his EA and that was it. Not sure if there were any other notables who stopped partway. MSJapan 20:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In looking at AQC article http://www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/aqc/aldworth.html, the date was 1710 which might have put it prior to the 3° going into the ritual (between 1723 and 1738). If so, she'd be as regular as Ashmole. A footnote might be warranted, but I favor inclusion.

J. J. in PA 01:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

We seem to have a majority opinion in favour of inclusion. Any objections if I embody that?

ALR 08:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I agree she should be included.--SarekOfVulcan 18:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Flags

It will take a bit of research, and may not be readily discernible at 15px, but could we maybe make sure the flags we use are historically accurate? For example, al-Qadir was initiated prior to Algeria's status as a nation, when it used the Ottoman Empire flag (which is similar to but in the same as the modern Turkish flag), and Aldworth was initiated when Ireland wasn't a part of the UK, but did have provincial flags (she is from County Cork in Munster, so I used that one). MSJapan 03:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not the Cross of St. Patrick? Blueboar 21:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

In which case, we will need to change all of the early English and Scottish Masons... anything prior to the Act of Union would need the either the English flag of St. George or the Scottish flag of St. Andrew (for example Elias Ashmole would have to have the English Flag of St. George)... and then there is a period when we should use the old Union Jack (without the Irish Cross). I don't dissagree with your comment (we should be accurate)... but it will be a rather time consuming project. Blueboar 12:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh... actually, it wasn't all that time consuming... we have very few early English and Scottish Masons (in fact our list is heavy on American Freemasons). Done!

One question... For Christohper Wren... should we use the flag appropriate for when he was initiated (St. George's cross flag), or do we put the one that would have been correct at his death (Union Jack w/o Ireland)?... He seems to be the only one on the list who was alive at the time of the Act of Union. Blueboar 22:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

St Patrick saltire was not official (or os the article states), and I was trying to minimize any political issues that might arise from using a flag that might not be appropriate. For Wren, I'd say to use St. George's, because the Act of Union took place relatively late in his life. MSJapan 23:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good (on both not using the St. Patrick saltire and on using St. George Cross for Wren). Blueboar 02:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's not ACCURATE to use the Turkish or the Ottoman flag for AbdelKader, for many reasons, Algeria was not independent at his time but it was not Ottoman, it was under the French Occupation, and AbdelKader himself adopted a unique flag for himself and his state (as an Emir) which developed later to be the Algerian national flag, and he never used the Ottoman flag. And there's no doubt that he's an Algerian symbol not a Turkish one at all. Respect. Xander.Dedeche (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Question?

Why are John Wayne, Billy Wilder, Jeff Winter, Levi Woodbury, William B. Woods, Steve Wozniak & Sir Christopher Wren listed under "T", and what is wrong with the formating in category "V" and "W"? Zef 14:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone forgot to close a ref (no </ref> at the end of the "T" section)... all fixed. Blueboar 15:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Mark Twain

It seems that I have missed something "cannonical" about calling Samuel Clemens: "Mark Twain". I can understand that the article on him chooses his pen name for its title, as his pen name is more widely known... but do we have to follow suit here? Is there some Wikipedia wide rule on this? His connection to Freemasonry was as Bro. Clemens, not "Bro. Twain". My edit (reverted) to Clemens did include an: "AKA Mark Twain" for those who don't know his real name. Blueboar 22:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I changed the "Count Basie" entry slightly (from William Basie) simply because the name is more recognizable, and happens to be what the article is listed under. It's not canonicity, but rather the most well-known name (which avoids a redirect, incidentally). Definitely put his real name there, but leave it under "T". MSJapan 02:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Smith

(pointless digression and series of personal attacks available in page history)

Rating

This list is most definitley not a stub, but I believe that it is at least a B-class. Acidskater 02:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

should we rename?

Should we rename/redirect this to a more specific title... something like: "List of notable freemasons"? It is clear that some degree of notability is a criteria we currently require for inclusion ... perhaps we should make that criteria more explicit by stating it in the title. Blueboar 14:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I second this. GBobly 14:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really sold on the idea. IMO, notability isn't the issue so much as the dummies who think it's cool to stick their name in WP, or people with a political agenda and no proof. Those types of vandal edits make up the bulk of the bad edits, and if we only list people with WP articles already, we solve the notability problem as a natural result. If we force the issue, we'll get into issues of what's "famous" or "notable", and I'd personally rather have content than get bogged down arguing the merits of said content. MSJapan 05:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ataturk

Ataturk was not a freemason. You can check from the official site of Freemasonry of Turkey [2]. As you can see from the History of Freemasonry in Turkey, Ataturk ordered the closure of the lodges in 1935 [3]. All the lodges were closed upto 10/October/1935. You can check the site yourself, there is nothing about Ataturk's masonry. Regards E104421 12:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually the source does not say that Ataturk was not a Mason... it hardly mentions him at all. Nor does it say he ordered the closure of the lodges. It says freemasonry: "decided to hibernate" ... more exactly it states:

• "In 1935 the English, Germans and Russians transformed Turkey into a vast stage for propaganda and espionage. The Nazi propaganda machine was also stressing the Judeo-Masonic danger. The Ministry of the Interior, Sukru Kaya, a 33° Scottish Rite Mason, in order to curb these activities passed a law from parliament closing all clubs and societies. Freemasonry was not mentioned in the text, but the minister warned his brothers that it would be wiser to stop the activity of Freemasonry by its own free will."

OK, I suppose you could argue that Sukru Kaya was acting on Ataturk's orders... but that does not prove that Ataturk was or was not a Mason. Ataturk could have been a Mason and order the lodges closed. After all, if Sukru Kaya could be both a Mason and responsible for closing lodges, so could Ataturk.

It is true that Ataturk is not specifically mentioned in the text as being a Mason, and I agree with you that this could lead one to believe that he wasn't one. (It is logical to assume that they would mention Ataturk being a Mason if he was one). However, that is supposition. Countering that supposition, we have multiple sources that say he was a Mason (some even giving his lodge) - and that is what is important here.

There are two Wikipedia policies that govern in this situation... WP:V and WP:NOR. WP:V says that things need to be cited to reliable sources. We have sources that specifically say he was a Mason (we cite two, but there are others). Do you have a source that specifically says he wasn't? WP:NOR says that we should not include our own conclusions and suppositions about things in our articles... we have to cite reliable sources and state what those sources say (in context, of course). So, without a source that specifically says that Ataturk wasn't a Mason, we have to go with those sources that say he was. it may or may not be "true"... but Wikipedia relies on "verifiablility not truth". Blueboar 13:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• I know the Wikipedia policies. I recommend you to re-read the no original research. Sources should be reliable. The web sites you provided are presenting their original research in their sites. They do not cite any other source about where they got this information. Furthermore, the sources you provided do not mention anything about the name of the lodges. Secondly, you're misinterpreting the "reliability policy". This does not state that any available web site can be considered reliable. You can google the internet and find websites supporting anything. Internet is full of controversial things. The official site does not include Ataturk in their list. There are statements written by Ilhami Soysal and Mahmut Esat Bozkurt about Ataturk's "anti-masonry". On the other hand, Ataturk's Freemasonry is a just speculative and also provocative statement used mostly by radical islamists in Turkey. For this reason, i'm in favor of removing Ataturk from the list. Regards. E104421 14:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I would indeed call these sites reliable sources in the context of this article. The sites are "official" web sites of Masonic bodies (one in California, the other in England). They are not just some "available web site" off the internet. I am not sure where the lodge info comes from (and if we do not have a source for that, we should indeed remove it), but the fact that Masonic bodies list him as a Mason has to carry some weight on a page about Masons. If you need a more "academic" mention... Andrew Prescott of the University of Sheffield mentions his membership in this paper... the reference is in passing, so it would not do as a citation in the list, but to me it does carry weight. I would be willing to take Ataturk off the list (or, perhaps, to create a "debated" section and list him there) if I could see some reliable sources (such as the ones you name) that counter the sources given. But until they are provided I think we have to keep him on the list. Blueboar 15:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• A. Presscott states that "...the history of freemasonry is such a rich and diverse field that it is very difficult to develop a research programme that does justice to all the aspects of the subject. Just consider the extraordinary range of people who have been freemasons, from authors like Alexander Pope, Edmund Burke, Walter Scott, Robert Burns and Arthur Conan Doyle, and a varied array of statesmen including Washington, Garibaldi, Ataturk and Churchill, to musicians as diverse as Haydn, Sibelius and Duke Ellington, and actors from David Garrick to Peter Sellers." but does not states that it's confirmed that Ataturk was a Freemason. The official site of Turkish Freemasonry would add Ataturk's name in their list if he really was, but they did not. I would prefer to place {{disputed}} tag for the article, in addition to your proposed "debated/disputed" section. In any case, all the sources you provided are secondary sources, in my opinion, reflecting their original research. On the other hand, Ataturk's anti-masonry is confirmed, not only by scholars, but also Ataturk's own actions towards Freemasonry. I'm still in favor of removing him from the list. Regards. E104421 15:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Um... the WP:NOR policy explicitly states that we are supposed to use secondary sources. A secondary source's research may be original, but the whole point is that it is someone else's research and not our research. As for the Turkish GL site... it does not have a list of Turkish Masons - it has a narative history. I have already agreed with your argument that, since that narative history does not mention Ataturk being a Mason, it is logical to assume that Ataturk was not a brother. But it does not confirm this one way or the other. It all comes down to Sources!... we need sources. We do have sources that say he was a Mason. We don't have sources to say he wasn't. Provide some sources that say "nope... not a Mason" and the issue can be re-examined. It's that simple. Blueboar 15:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• The sources should not be original reseach. See WP:Fringe. I already stated Ilhami Soysal's book "Freemasonry". Ataturk was not a Brother, but an anti-mason. He appointed Sukru Kaya, a Freemason, as the Ministry of the Interior,and then ordered him to close the masonic lodges, after that he kicked him off. Your sources does not provide any official information and does not cite any primary sources. I'm still in favor of removing him from the list. Regards. E104421 00:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, now you are "policy hopping" to try to prove your point... and mis-stating the policy to boot... WP:FRINGE does not say sources should not be original research. Furthermore, we have no way of knowing if the two sources listed are original research. More to the point... Between the two sources cited and Prescott's passing reference, it is obvious that several mainstream Masonic scholars believes that Ataturk was a Freemason. They may or may not be correct in this belief, but it does mean that WP:FRINGE does not apply.

All that being said... If the Ilhami Soysel book does say that Ataturk was not a Freemason, that carries some weight. We would have to know more about Soysel and his book (is it in English?) to see what how much weight to give it. We would need to know exactly what he contends, and the context of his contention.

Perhaps one soulution to all of this might be to place a "(disputed)" next to Ataturk's entry... we would cite the two sources we have next to the claim that he was a Mason, and the Soysel book as a citaion next to the "(disputed)" comment. Would that ease your concerns? Blueboar 12:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• I should have wrote as "see also WP:Fringe in addition to WP:No original research". Sorry for that. Ataturk's being Freemason is just a conspricy theory. The web sites you provided are not reliable. A.Prescott is just stating the diffuculty in the task and gives examples to this. He does not say that Ataturk is a Brother. The official Turkish Freemasonry site would obviously mention if he were. This is for sure. Unfortunately, Ilhami Soysal's book is in Turkish. I agree with you that the case is "totally disputed". It's very clear from Ataturk's own actions towards masonry that he's just an anti-mason, not a brother at all. Regards. E104421 15:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the sources are not reliable... they may or may not be accurate, but that is not the same thing as being unreliable under WP:V and WP:RS. As for Prescott... he certainly does say that he thinks Ataturk was a Mason... read the sentence: Just consider the extraordinary range of people who have been freemasons, from authors like Alexander Pope, Edmund Burke, Walter Scott, Robert Burns and Arthur Conan Doyle, and a varied array of statesmen including Washington, Garibaldi, Ataturk and Churchill. He is listing people he believes to be freemasons, and includes Ataturk in that list. He may be wrong, but it is what he states. Now, I am not saying that we should cite Prescott... you are correct that his comments are really discussing something other than the issue of whether Ataturk was a Mason or not. To cite him does take his passing comment out of context somewhat. BUT... when placed in conjunction with two other sources, it goes a long way towards demonstrating that the idea of Ataturk being a Freemason is not just a Fringe "conspiracy theory". We have a notable scholar who lists him as being one.

I have a feeling that we are just going to go in circles on this. The problem here is that your argument is based on an interpretation of Ataturk's actions and not on a source. This interpretation may even be correct... BUT... to include this interpretation without a source for that interpretation would be OR. You can argue that OR here on the talk page, but you can not argue it in the list itself.

Hell, since OR interpretations are alowed on talk pages, I'll point out that his Anti-masonic actions do not negate his being a Mason... Things could have changed between his joining the fraternity and his later actions as the leader of Turkey. People grow an change - at one point in his life he could have joined the Masons, and at another point he could have decided that this was a mistake and turned Anti-masonic. Or, he could have privately supported the fraternity, but publicly acted against them due to the political situation at the time. To put it quite simply, without a source we don't know why he acted as he did. We can assume and make conjectures, but we can not add such assumptions or conjectures to an article without a source. Give me a source that essentially says that Ataturk was not a Freemason and we can re-open the discussion. Without that source, we have to go with the sources we do have. And those sources say he was one. Blueboar 17:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• I already stated above a published book by Ilhami Soysal. You're still ignoring in favor of your inofficial web sites. Ataturk was an important figure in history, for this reason, it's impossible for the Turkish Freemasonry official site to skip his name. He's not a Brother, but just an anti-mason. Regards. E104421 15:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that I am somewhat discounting Soysal... since I have not (and can not) read him. I have no idea if he is a reliable source for a claim that Ataturk was not a Mason, or even that he makes that claim. I am assuming good faith that you are presenting what Soysal says accurately, but without more information I can not agree that his book counter-balances the sources we do have. Question, does Soysal actually say something along the lines of "Ataturk was not a Mason"? Or are you just inferring that fact from what he does say? To counter-balance two (and 1/2, counting Prescott) reliable sources that specifically say that Ataturk was a Mason, we need a source that specifically says he wasn't one. If Soysal does not specifically say something like "Ataturk was not a Mason", then anything he does say is fairly irrelevant (as one can be initated into Masonry and also pass anti-masonic laws). Give me one good source (hell, even a bad source) that actually states the fact/conclusion that Ataturk was not a Mason, and I am very willing to discuss this further... but without such a source, we have to go with the sources we do have. Blueboar 15:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, Ilhami Soysal books explains in detail the relations with Freemasons and Ataturk. How and how many times they offered him Brotherhood and how Ataturk refuses them. There is also another book by Mahmut Esat Bozkurt, which depends on his memoirs with Ataturk. I'll try to get the books soon and come back to the issue. Sincere Regards. E104421 16:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Now, i have the book. The explicit name of the book is "Freemasonry and Freemasons in Turkey and in the World" by Ilhami Soysal, Derin Yayinlari (Derin Press), Fifth edition, 2004. In the page 308, it's written that Mustafa Kemal never intended to be a mason even before he became Ataturk. The book also cites the writers Ibrahim Arvas, M.Raif Ogan, Yilanlioglu Ismail Hakki, Cevat Rifat Atilhan, Ahmet Gurkan, Gazi Yigitbas for the Ataturk related cases. The book confirms/proves that Ataturk was not a Brother at all. Is it ok to remove Ataturk from the list now? E104421 10:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• I won't say much, but:

1. Mahmut Esat Bozkurt: He wanted to be a freemason, and applied to the Necat Lodge in Izmir. Signed his pledge (the original is still kept in the Turkish Masonic Museum in Istanbul, Nuruziya Str.), but his application was refused. It is not difficult to understand the reason of his hatred and anger against freemasonry.

2. Ilhami Soysal: An imprisoned communist of his time, and a famous anti-mason. I know and own the guy's book, and can comfortably say that, like most other anti-masonic books, the book is totally unreliable and simply nothing, but full of mistakes. From its first page to the very last, no accuracy is to be seen there. We all know how anti-masonic books are, and this is no exception, with no citations and reliable sources at all. The book is a local book, that was not translated to any other language; neither scientific, nor a research book. I firmly say that it is one of the worst anti-masonic books of all-time, with no basis in any of its chapters. Besides, the author also wanted to join freemasonry in his earlier years, and the result was no different either, then because of his political activities.

3. The given sources are more than enough to indicate Ataturk's masonic affiliation, not even mentioning that his famous and widely-supported words by the Turkish community are mostly (almost thoroughly) taken from masonic ideas and even rituals. There are more than over 10 "regular" citations to be given here, but two is enough I guess. You can also see Ataturk's picture on the walls of various Grand Lodges around the world, as a "Famous Freemason".

4. It is a known and proven fact that Ataturk was one of the earliest members of the Committee of Union and Progress, a secret society which the rituals and labour was based totally on the principles of freemasonry and carbonari. He was then stationed in Aleppo, was traveling to Thassoliniki, his hometown, frequently to attend the meetings of the Union and Progress (a consensus among all historians, as well as the memoires of the Union and Progress members, including Enver Pasha). The society was founded mostly by the modernist Young Turks, consisting mostly of freemasons. Union and Progress was founded in the Masonic temple of Thassoliniki, the building which was then belong to Emanuel Karuso, an Italian freemason. Union and Progress was "only" gathering in the Masonic temple, in two lodges; Veritas and Macedonia Risorta. As we all know that only regular freemasons are allowed to attend the masonic lodge meetings that are held in the masonic temples. And we also do know that Ataturk was participated in these meetings (although he drew a seperate way some time later, after the degeneration and the wrong politization of Union and Progress).

5. After the foundation of Turkish Republic, Ataturk hosted the foreign envoys, in the Masonic Temple of Ankara, many times. The pictures are still on the walls of the Ankara temple today. Ataturk also maintained financial support to this temple, which the records are also still kept.

6. The official magazine of the GL of Italy, Rivista Massonica, showed the greatest proof of Ataturk in its 1973 issue, Vol.LXIV. Ataturk's picture and the record of his matriculé in the Macedonia Risorta Lodge (which was then working under the GL of Italy) was included in this issue of the official magazine of the GL.

7. 1935 "sleeping" event is somewhat different in reality. The circumstances of the period should be taken into consideration. Not only freemasonry, but a lot of societies and associations were under intense pressure at the time, and the officers of all these societies were being imprisoned. However, after Ataturk's discussion with the officers of Turkish GL, no freemasons were arrested, not a single investigation was held, no temple or lodge was destructed at all. It was not a "closing" process, however the freemasons only "slept" for a couple of years, until the heavy ultra-nationalist and anti-masonic wind passes away. After everything was alright again, Turkish freemasonry "officially" started its activities again by the decree of Turkish Grand National Assembly and President Celal Bayar, in 1948. So, freemasonry was never "closed" in Turkey.

- Depayens 11:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your contribution. The discussion was on whether Ataturk was a Brother or not. You said much but did not provided any published work. I'm just looking for neutral and trustable sources (neither masonic or anti-masonic). Regards. E104421 14:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, an issue of an official journal of the Italian Grand Lodge was given as an example, which is high more reliable than a local, non-translated, non-scientific, anti-masonic, and purely a personal, pov work, published by a small, minor publisher in Turkey. Besides, there are undeniable facts, just a few was mentioned here. Since you are eager to learn about Ataturk's affiliation with the society, try to find a Turkish freemason friend, and ask him to buy you a copy of Tamer Ayan's "Ataturk ve Masonluk" (Ataturk and Freemasonry), which was published in 1999 (second edition in 2003), and is only available in the Masonic valleys of Turkey. You'll find all the answers to your existing questions in this 392 page book, full of sources. Please do some "reliable" research before jumping into any kind of discussions. GL of Turkey just does not wish to use Ataturk's name as if like a needed-support behind them (something that "every single society" is trying to do in Turkey), as they also do not mention the names of other Presidents of Turkey who are known Freemasons (you also do not see Suleyman Demirel's name in their own internet list either, do you?), that is just not their style. I also have added some more sources from regular lodges around the world to the article (there are dozens of others). I believe we have seen the end of this discussion now. Thanks for your curiosity. Depayens 11:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Depayens, I agree that the two sources we have (as well as the brief mention by Presscott) are good enough to have him on the list... but if you have better sources, please add them. Blueboar 23:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• I added another source from the published world Freemasonry: A Celebration of the craft. It confirms Ataturk was a mason. It states, however, that the Macedonia Resorta e Veritas was an Italian lodge which perhaps explains why the Turkish site doesn't list him--TheGreatArchitectOfTheUniverse (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Baigenent

We need a better source for him. The source here implies that he is a Mason... but it does not actually say so. Please note that I am not challenging his being on the list... I think it is extremely unlikely that the editor of Freemasonry Today would not be a Freemason. I simply think we need a better source. -- Blueboar (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well actually is says:

Michael Baigent, editor of Freemasonry Today, said he had always felt odd "meeting with friends dressed as though I am attending a funeral". Referring to the origins of the black tie tradition, he added: "This period of mourning became enshrined in tradition, and we have mourned ever since.

This is not implying anything, he says that he meets with friends in the Masonic black tie, and he says that "we" freemasons have mourned since the first world war. It is hardly synthesis to take him at his own word. I know that there is some amount of legalism involved in this, but to claim that commenting on taking part in Masonic meetings is not necesarily saying that he's a freemason is a few steps too far.

-- JASpencer (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No he says he felt odd meeting with "friends", not meeting with fellow Masons. While I think the context does imply that he is talking about Masons, for this page we need more solid sources. After all, it is consevable that he is talking about mourning attire in general.

In any case... it is a Moot point... I found a better source... the about us page at Freemasonry Today states that it "is edited by Freemasons", and lists him as an editor. While it is still an indirect logical assumption, it is a step closer to having something that actually says "Michael Baigenent is a Freemason" (which I would prefer). -- Blueboar (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll go with that. But I think it is not simply context, he is talking about Masonic dress, not going to funerals. -- JASpencer (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole article is about the end of the tradition of wearing black ties in lodge, so I agree that it's a valid cite. It's absolutely clear from context that he was talking about going to lodge meetings.

Grand Lodge yearbooks or London Metropolitan Grand Lodge Yearbooks would provide a mention, they list each Lodge and the principal officers each year. He is a Grand Officer as I recall, and was Master of a London Lodge a couple of years ago.

ALR (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Jules Anspach

Removed temporarily for discussion... the citation Quelques Maçons célèbres lists him under the heading of "ET EN BELGIQUE ENCORE?" ... I note the question mark, which tells me that the site is uncertain. I also have to question the reliability of the source in general... it has a number of errors. For example it lists President Clinton and he was not a Mason (he was a member of Demolay as a boy, but never joined a Masonic Lodge). Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Look up rhetorical question and then look at "Et en Belgique encore?" or "And also in Belgium?".

I would suspect that a lodge in Belgium would be a reliable source about Freemasons in, well, Belgium. I don't think Clinton is that important as he's not Belgian. JASpencer (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as a rhetorical question... The fact that they include a question mark tells me that they are unsure of his membership... I think we need confirmation from another source. Blueboar (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you provided one... the Grand Orient of Belgium is a much more reliable source. Thank you. Blueboar (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's sophistry. Especially when you look at the last line "Aucun Maçon belge vivant n'est mentionné dans ce paragraphe !" "No living Belgian Mason is named in this paragraph!" The context is clear that they are naming are (1) dead, (2) Belgian and (3) Freemasons, not people they think may have been Freemasons. (They all have dates of death as well if you want to check). JASpencer (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a moot point... we now have a firm source, which is all we need. Blueboar (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No it's not a moot point. It's removing valid references. JASpencer (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

AE Stevenson lk problem

Talk:List of Freemasons/test and Talk:List of Freemasons/verify both include

Adlai E. Stevenson (I)

If the "(I)" means "(It's AES I, the VP, we're talking abt, not the UN ambassador nor the US Senator)", then lk was correct but the entry should now be replaced with

Adlai E. Stevenson I

reflecting the renaming of the VP's bio article.
But if the "(I)" means something else, then the entry can't be falsely lk'd, since Adlai E. Stevenson is now a Rdr to Adlai Stevenson (disambiguation), which covers all the notable possibilities; however, it may mean information (corrrect or not ) haas been lost.
--Jerzy•t 06:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... Talk:List of Freemasons/test can probably be deleted outright as the test is obsolete. Talk:List of Freemasons/verify is a holding pen for names that were at one time included on this list, but have been removed pending verification. I think the issue is that we are not sure which Stevenson was originally intended, but we don't seem to have verification that any of them were Freemasons. As such... a link to the disambig page is not inappropriate... It may encourage people to look into the matter and discover which, if any, of the various Stevensons were Freemasons. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Bessel states it was Adlai the VP. There is a full list here. MSJapan (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing citation....

The citation used and cited as "AASR-hall" for Abner McCall and others has no actual text. Does anyone remember offhand where it came from? I'm finding too many possibilities on Google. MSJapan (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not limited to Abner McCall... it seems to be a problem with several people on the list. I am going to guess that we had a link to a Scottish Rite webpage that listed famous masons ... and, given the ref name "AASR-hall", I am going to guess that it was originally used to verify Manley Palmer Hall's information... unfortunately, at some point, Hall's verification citation was removed and replaced with a {{fact}} tag (I have now updated Hall's info using his bio on BC&Y)... this screwed up the citation where it was used for others. I am going to look through the history and see if I can find when the original info was deleted. Blueboar (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

OK... I found it... I was partly wrong... it was not originally from Manley Hall's info. the cite is to this page: [4]. Blueboar (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Robert Stanfield

The late great Robert Stanfield, full name Robert Lorne Stanfield, was the Premier of the Canadian province of Nova Scotia, and also the leader of the now defunct "Progressive Conservative Party of Canada".

I was told many years ago that Robert Stanfield was a Mason. I've no way of knowing this for certain sure. However, I have a great deal of confidence in the person who told me.

Perhaps someone with knowledge of how to check this will do so. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have checked the websites of several Canadian Grand Lodges, and none mention him. That does not prove he wasn't... but you would think that they would mention it if he were a Mason (they tend to boast about that sort of thing). Blueboar (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

He lived in Nova Scotia, at least primarily. Wanderer57 (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well... he is not mentioned as being a Mason by the Grand Lodge of Nova Scotia, and normally they would mention it if he were one. Probably the best list of famous Canadian Masons is on the BC&Y website... and they do not include him either. Thus, I would have to say it is unlikely that he actually was a Mason. I suppose a lack of mention does not prove it one way or the other, but it does at least cast doubt. In any case, we can not add him to our list without some form of corroboration from a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. Perhaps the information I was given was "embellished". I think that if he was a Mason, it is unlikely to have been a secret as he was one of the best-known people in Nova Scotia in the last fifty years. Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Bernardo O'Higgins

I have a problem with the source that was provided for Bernardo O'Higgins... I don't really think theO'Higgins Clan website can be considered a reliable source for this list. Yes, the site establishes that someone, somewhere, thinks that O'Higgins was a Mason... but anyone can claim a famous person was or is a Mason... we are looking for reliable evidence that the person actually was or is a Mason. The website does not provide any reasonable evidence to back the claim. Given that other, highly reliable sources (such as BC&Y) proundly list all sorts of Latin American revolutionaries/patriots who were Masons, but do not list O'Higgins, I think we need something more than speculation on a "clan" website. I will leave O'Higgins on the list for now (with a citation request)... but let's see if we can find a better source. Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Romanians recently added

Several people were recently added, all Romanians, with the following citation: "Stoica, Stan (coordinator). Dicţionar de Istorie a României, p. 153-5. Bucharest: Editura Merona, 2007." Given that this is a foreign language source... I think we need a bit more information to determine if it is reliable or not. Could we please be told more about this source? Who is Stan Stoica, and what is Dictionar de Istorie a Romaniei? What is the context of any statement about the Masonic membership of these men? Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, your removal of the entry pending discussion was way out of process - first you take things to talk (unless they're obvious vandalism), then you remove a reliable editor's contribution. Be that as it may: Stoica is an historian, a 1997 graduate of the University of Bucharest's History faculty, specialised in Contemporary Romanian History. He's written a dictionary of post-'89 political parties, a chronological history of Romania between 1989 and 2005, and this historical dictionary I cited, with entries on numerous subjects pertaining to Romanian history, including Freemasonry. The context is that he lists a number of 1848 revolutionaries, plus people from Cuza's time in office, then drops some more names (Sadoveanu, Carol, etc), then gives a list of other Masons at the end. Biruitorul (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a reliable source to me, thanks. Does he say where he got his information? (I'm not challenging... I am just curious... ideally, I would like to follow up on your additions, by finding out where these Masons were initiated and when).

A reasonable request - sadly, I only had his book for a brief while, and worked off photographs I took of the pages on Freemasonry, so until I get to see the book again, I couldn't say what his bibliography was. However, I can point you to two places that may be of interest. One is the Lodges' websites - mlnr.ro seems to be down at the moment, but this, this and (rather bad grammar) this might be helpful. The other is the material we have here - see for instance Mihail Sadoveanu and the sources on his Freemasonry, or this for 1848 stuff, Mihail Kogălniceanu's biography, etc. So there's no one answer, but with a little persistence (and, perhaps, some knowledge of Romanian), the puzzle shouldn't be that hard to piece together. Biruitorul (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... I think this will be difficult (I don't read or speak Romanian)... but at least it is a start. Blueboar (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that the exchange above strikes me as odd. Now, does anyone picture many English-language sources that would go out of their way to provide comprehensive lists of Romanian Freemasons (or, for that matter, Bulgarian, Albanian, Sudanese...)? At some point, we would have to prioritize local sources, and, as long as WP:AGF applies, there is no cause for suspicion. Asking where the source gets its information from is like asking for a source for the source - why not then a source for the source for the source for the source and so on? It is also in manifest contrast to the basic tenet of WP:V - "verifiability, not truth"; meaning that, as long as the source is reliable, it can be quoted without further questions, unless someone finds an equally reliable source contradicting it.

The Romanians listed here were not just Freemasons - they were well-known Freemasons, for one reason or another (one could easily find many sources dealing with this aspect of their career, but why bother once we have a more or less comprehensive one? in longer articles, the same information is backed by several sources, including the Freemasonry itself). Allow me to explain. On one hand, there seems to be a difference in approach between America (or, perhaps, the Anglo-Saxon world) and continental Europe (with, perhaps, its former colonies). The latter's tradition of revolutionary liberalism was, most often obviously, connected to the Freemasonry - being a Freemason in 1800s Europe most often meant that you were also involved in Jacobin politics, that you made little secret of this beyond what was necessary for avoiding suspicion from the authoritarian leaders, and that you made plain use of Freemasonry symbolism in your everyday life (even mixing Masonic eye-catchers with national symbolism once in a position of power). This tradition left enduring traces in the 20th century and beyond. I have often heard Freemasons speak of their organization not as a secret one, but as a discreet one - in Romania at least, the secret is not that you are a Freemason, but what it is exactly that you do there. Secretive perhaps, but not hermetic. In America etc., it probably started in the same vein (just think about the images on the dollar), but, for some reason an extreme caution developed in reaction to sharing info on membership - I cannot tell if this because of Freemasons themselves, of the public's reaction to them, or just because some wikipedia editors are overcautious. Let me add: everywhere, and when dealing with any subject, caution should definitely apply - if the info is speculative and not backed by reliable sources.

I do not wish to seem like I'm endorsing the conspiracy theory according to which Freemasons have had an overwhelming influence in Continental Europe or anywhere else. From my point of view, they were quite popular back in the days when "Jacobin" was a scary word, and may have had an important part to play in reshaping politics during that interval. It is, indeed, probable that the European revolutions from 1789 onwards were led by and through a number of lodges (some more influential than the others), but that makes them neither the only factor at work during that age, nor an especially relevant one since that age. It may also mean that people who were already prone on changing the world (for good cause, in many case), joined the Freemasons because they shared some ideas on nature and politics, and because, as suspects to the old regimes, they needed a network of collaborators they could rely on. In this process, they may have actually ideologized the Freemasonry to a degree it hadn't been before. (An ideology which, at least in Europe, has been considered mainstream from as early as the 1860s, that bis unless it is so considered pasée and irrelevant that only children have to learn about it in school.)

In fact, by being overcautious about listing known associations between various individuals and the Freemasonry, we may only be endorsing the image the organization has as a "shady" structure, were "strange things" take place. I for one couldn't care less what they do over there, and reliable sources themselves seem not to bother with speculating about this aspect (I guess that's why they're reliable sources). But, in countries like Romania, the simple fact of notorious people belonging to the (rather factionalized) organization is not a controversial issue, and one will often see present-day self-described Freemasons making a case out of this to prove that they build on a relevant tradition. I'm sure this is also the case in France, Belgium, Switzerland, and many other countries of the world. Dahn (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Members of P2?

Question... I think we need to reach a consensus on whether we should include people who were listed as being members of Propaganda Due (P2)? This is a tricky issue... at one point P2 was a recognized lodge. And there is some debate as to when the Grand Orient of Italy declared them irregular (they sort of waffled a few times until finally declaring them expelled and applying the expulsiona retroactively).

We also have the issue that membership allegations are usually based upon Licio Gelli's list of members... and I am not at all sure that this should count as a reliable source for this list (at least not without reliable secondary source to back up what Gelli claims).

If we do include these men... should we include a disclaimer of some sort? Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Reynato Puno

I added this Chief Justice: * Reynato Puno, Philippines Chief Justice, Grandmaster of Masons, active member of Hiram Lodge No. 88, and the Grand Lodge of Freemasonry of the Philippinesmb.com.ph/, Hail to the Chiefhiramlodge88.org, Hiram Lodge # 88jacquesdemolay305.org, C H A R T E R M E M B E R S--Florentino floro (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

John Salza

The only person who claims he is a Freemason is Salza himself, and the claims he makes don't make sense. He claims to have had a "proficiency card certifying him to teach Scottish Rite ritual" which is, AFAIK, not how it works. He gives a state and a rough timeframe for his membership, so I'm going to see about verifying his membership. If the GL has on record, then he wasn't a Mason. MSJapan (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The entry doesn't pass WP:RS in any case... the cite is to a webpage run by Mr. Salsa, and claims made on a personal website (which is what the webpage essentially is) are not considered reliable. We need a source that is independant of Mr. Salza. I am going to remove, but please confirm by contacting the GL. Blueboar (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... Looking into this further, I am not even sure if Salza is notable. The article on him relies totally on one website - the same unreliable personal website as was used here. There is no real claim to notability. I have nominated it for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: Salza is not notable per AfD. Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "AASR-hall" :
  • [http://www.srmason-sj.org/web/temple-files/hall-of-honor/hallofhonor.html AASR hall of fame]
  • http://www.srmason-sj.org/web/temple-files/hall-of-honor/hallofhonor.html AASR-SJ's "Hall of Honor" page
• "masonicinfo-1" :
  • {{cite web |url= http://www.masonicinfo.com/famous2.htm |accessdate= 2007-08-01 |title= Famous Freemasons, M through Z }}
  • [http://www.masonicinfo.com/famous1.htm Famous Masons A-L<!-- Bot generated title -->]
  • [http://www.masonicinfo.com/blksheep.htm Our "Black Sheep"<!-- Bot generated title -->]
• "gob" :
  • * [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|15px]] [[Luther Burbank]], Santa Rosa Lodge No. 57, horticulturist responsible for the [[burbank potato|Russet Burbank potato]]<ref>John Hamill and Robert Gilert (Eds.), Freemasonry, A Celebration Of The Craft p. 228 (J.G. Press, 1998)
  • [http://www.mason.be/en/celeb.htm Famous Belgian freemasons], [[Grand Orient of Belgium]]

DumZiBoT (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Masóneria en Querétaro, México

Un poco de historia de la Masóneria en México A little history of México Freemasonry http://www.masoneriaregularqueretaro.org/p6.htm 189.163.136.26 (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Von Schiller was not a freemason

According to my informatio sources, standart books on freemasons, Von Schille was not a freemqson. 87.66.197.42 (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 26-11-2008 EMICRA

And according to other masonic sources (which are cited) he was. Blueboar (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Kenneth Noye, British criminal,

Re: Kenneth Noye. This has been in and out several times... the issue seems to be that while he used to be a Mason, he isn't one any more (ie he was expelled). I think the solution is to keep him in the list, but note his expulsion. However, that requires finding a reliable source for that expulsion. Start digging folks. Blueboar (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Agustín I of México

This has been discussed over and over again, there are no reliable sources of information that allow us to know that Agustin de Iturbide was a freemason. It is of general consent that Agustin I of Mexico could be a mason, but it is not proved.189.164.104.152 (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... Jasper Ridley is a reliable source... and he says Agustin was a Mason. Our inclusion criteria allow for inclusion of people who's membership is contested, so long as there are solidly reliable sources that have concluded that the person was indeed a Mason.

That said... This isn't the only "contested" entry. I am thinking that we probably should give a nod to the "not a Mason" viewpoint in these cases (Per WP:NPOV) ... Perhaps the simplest way to deal with this is to add a note to the effect that there is some doubt. Something like "(Membership contested)" along with a citation to a reliable source that says the person was not a Mason. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Little organization

I've put a 'comma' between the name of 'Abd Al-Qadir' and the word of 'Sufi mystic...'
The word Sufi looked like it's a part of the name. I think we should unify this in the whole article, because in some cases there's only a space between the name and the description of it, in other cases there's a comma and sometimes there's a dash!
Xander.Dedeche (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree... put either a comma or a dash between name and discription. Feel free to do start the process and the rest of us will follow suit. Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Titles

I think we need to come up with a consensus on whether to include honorifics and ranks (Sir, Lord, Admiral, General, Honorable, etc.). My feeling is that we should be consistent which ever way we go... and I personally lean towards not including them (it easier to deal with, as we don't have to check to see if someone was knighted etc. Also "Freemasonry reguards no man on account of his worldly wealth or honors"). An exception would be for Kings, who tend to be known by only one name and perhaps a numeral anyway. One advantage is that not including honorifics will usually make linking more direct ... since in most cases the bio articles we link to do not include honorifics in their article title... but not always.

At the moment, I have removed any honorifics that are not in the bio article's title... in other words, if the bio article title is [[Sir John Doe]] I have left our entry as "Sir John Doe"... but if the bio article is entitled [[John Doe]] I have removed the honorific if we listed it (ie if we listed him as "Sir John Doe" - often with a double link as: [[John Doe|Sir John Doe]]).

On the other hand, there are a couple of entries where the title of the bio article does include the honorific ([[Sir John Doe]])... and we would have to reach consensus on whether should we double link to cut the honorific (making it [[Sir John Doe|John Doe]])? Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a policy defining this at all? My thought would be that for a lot of modern personalities, they seem to be known without titles (Sean Connery, Elton John, Bill Gates, and so on), but the deceased folks tend to be Sir whoever (but not always). So, in lieu of a policy that makes a clear statement, I don't know that we can be consistent, because we're dealing with an historically subjective item. MSJapan (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would rather see all titles included. Many of the entries on this list (without their usual titles) look and 'feel' odd, particularly to British eyes and minds. I think the complete non-use of titles reflects a rather American bias. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 04:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If my preference for omitting titles displays a bias, it's not because I am an American... I approached this from a Masonic perspective. The only forms of address that Freemasonry uses are the Masonic forms ... in a Masonic Lodge "Sir John Doe" (or "The Hon. John Doe" or "Lord John Doe", etc.) would be addressed with their Masonic rank: "Bro. Doe", "Worshipful Bro. Doe", (if he were a Master or Past Master) or Right Worshipful Bro. Doe (if he holds a Grand Lodge office). I am not sure how someone like Prince Philip is addressed (Bro. Philip? Bro. Edinburgh? Bro. Mountbatten?) Royalty may be an exception to the rule.

On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a Masonic lodge, so you may have a point when you say that not including titles seems odd to readers. Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no, no!!!!! I DO say this with all fraternal love and devotion, but you are quite wrong. One of my Lodges has a peer and a knight, a second one has three peers and a knight, the third (my mother lodge) is very large, and I don't have the membership list to hand, but it has a number of peers and knights of the realm. The idea of addressing them without their civil titles sends shivers down my spine! Similarly in the Grand Lodge (UGLE) which always has some titled people in office (not least the Grand Master!) the full civil title is ALWAYS used, without exception. In England we always say "Worshipful Brother Lord Doe", or "Worshipful Brother Sir John Doe". Even as a clergyman, my title in Lodge and in all masonic communications is always "W Bro the Rev'd John Doe" - well, not really, because my name isn't 'John Doe', but I'm just continuing the style for this example! Having said that, I do absolutely understand your point, of course, and it may well be that to American Masonic eyes and ears the "no titles" option makes sense. I'm just pointing out that it is odd to British eyes, including British masonic eyes! Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 17:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh... that definitely runs counter to what I had been told. Never the less, I defer to your direct knowledge (I have to admit that my information is second hand). It certainly runs counter to US practice. (Off topic: you might warn your titled lodge brothers who travel to American Jurisdictions that we do things differently... and no offense is intended if we leave out their titles. Just different customs for different jurisdictions. FYI - a few US jurisdictions take the "we are all on the level" concept even further... and reserve the "Worshipful" and "Right Worshipful" address for current office holders only... "demoteing" them back to "Brother" after their term in office is ended.)

OK... if leaving off titles is not universal practice, then we probably should include them. Blueboar (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would only add that practice in Ontario, Canada, is the same as it is in the US. Civil titles are omitted, without exception. Whether a mason is titled Dr., The Rev., Hon., Rt. Hon., His Worship, His Honour or His Excellency, in masonic correspondence, conversation, and contexts, these styles and titles are omitted. Only M.W.Bro., R.W.Bro., V.W.Bro., W.Bro., and Bro. are used.PoliSciMaster (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to the issue (having some conformity within this article)... I think we have three choices: 1) Omit all titles 2) Include all titles (sub-question: how to format them?) 3) Include only those titles that are contained in the article title of the person's Wikipedia bio article.

Timothy points out that option one is not good, as it sounds odd to UK readers. I think option two has problems... the main one being where do we draw the line?... do we just use titles for British Knights and Peers? What about those who hold elective office: Presidents, Senators, MPs, Justices? How about military ranks? Do we include Hons.?

I am thinking that option three is our best bet... use the same form that is used in the title of the person's Wikipedia bio article... thus we would use "Sir" for Sir Winston Churchill... as the "Sir" is included in the title of his bio article ... but we would not use "Sir" for John Abbott... as the title of his bio article does not contain the "Sir". Does this make sense? Blueboar (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

At first blush there appears to be some logic, but also many problems. The difference in article titles is more stylistic than a question of notability. I would also note than in the case of Sir Winston Churchill, while the file name is Sir Winston Churchill, the article itself is titled "Winston Churchill" with his knighthood indicated in the opening line, just as is the case for John Abbott.PoliSciMaster (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Whilst the non-titled names are odd from a British perspective, I am quite happy to go either way with this list (which is an excellent resource, by the way). If it were purely a list of 'British Freemasons' I would say definitely include all titles, and if a list of 'North American Freemasons' then leave the titles out. However, this list is universal, and 'shared property', so no real solution emerges! I think the problem is unique to lists. In the various bio articles a bare name (eg Rowan Williams, or Winston Churchill) is fine because it is immediately followed by a title line of text or an infobox with the full style included (eg The Most Rev'd & Rt Hon Rowan Williams, or The Rt Hon Sir Winston Churchill). The articles have the luxury of the space to do this. It is the concise nature of a list that causes the difficulty. I do think it all very interesting though (from a purely personal point of view): and rather splendid that the ideals of the fraternity can happily span such broad cultural differences! Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 10:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So basically we all agree that none of us would strongly object one way or the other... sometimes too much Harmony can be a week support. :>) OK, let's take this step by step... perhaps my initial assumption is off base and I am barking up the wrong tree here... so let me ask a more basic question: do we need to have conformity? Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

another idea

And as long as we are discussing formatting... Looking at this list from the point of view of someone checking to see if a person was a Mason or not, it might help if we list people by Last name first (we would of course continue to provide a link ... so the Churchill entry would start with: Winston Churchill and would be entered as: [[Churchill, Winston S.|Winston Churchill]])... just an idea. Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Strangely enough, although I didn't write it down, I was thinking to myself earlier today that putting surnames first might be an advantage for those searching for a particular name; after all, we have quite a long list now! Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 17:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference needed

HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, who is a member of Navy Lodge No 2612, should be on this list, but I am unable to find a good quality citation. There are plenty of sites out there which have this information, but they are all anti-masonic conspiracy sites, or private blogs. Can anyone help with a more authoritative source? Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 23:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've found the reference myself. I should have thought of this option really: Prince Philip's membership of Navy Lodge is listed on part of the Buckingham Palace official website! See here. We should now add him to the list, but what title should we use??!! (Serious question!!!). Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 17:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Royalty are different in that they are not commonly referred to by a last name (Mountbatten in this case). I would list him with the title of his bio article:

• Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh - Husband of Queen Elizabeth II of the UK, Navy Lodge.

The next question is whether we alphabetize by "Philip" or by "Edinburgh"... I would opt for "Philip", the same way we alphabetize kings, but I can understand the arguments for doing it the other way (most people probably search for him using the "Duke of Edinburgh"). Blueboar (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

How about listing him under 'P' for Philip, with an entry at 'E' (maybe in italics) saying something like:

• Edinburgh, Duke of, see below at Prince Philip

Works for me.

Sebottendorf... ref needs fixing

• Rudolf von Sebottendorf, founder of the of the Thule Society

had the following ref....<ref>Goodrick-Clarke 1985: 138 and see Howard 1989: 124 ("In 1901 von Sebottendorff was initiated into a Masonic lodge which, like many in the Middle East, had connections with the French Grand Orient"). Furthermore: "the masonic lodge, which Glauer had joined at [[Bursa]] in 1901, may have been a local cadre of the pre-revolutionary Secret Society of Union and Progress, founded on the model of Freemasonry by Salonican Turks to generate liberal consciousness during the repressive reign of the Sultan." (Goodrick-Clarke, 139).</ref>

This is a very confusing citation... for one thing what author and title is actually being cited? Blueboar (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ignore this entirely, I think. There should be a ref for him on GLBC&Y someplace that will be much clearer. MSJapan (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah... I see now... here is the BC&Y page on Sebottendorf, which casts a very different light on things. It seems there is no real confirmation on this. Sebottendorf apparently claimed that he was initiated in a Lodge in Turkey. Furthermore it seems that the Goodrick-Clark citation (whatever that is), is simply quoting Michael Howard's The Occult Conspiracy: secret societies, their influence and power in world history... which is not a reliable source. (BC&Y includes the same quotation as one of its footnotes by the way.)

I definitely would trust BC&Y in calling this very questionable... so I am now thinking that the entry should be omitted entirely instead of just fixed. At best it would fall into the "Unconfirmed, but Anti-Masons claim he was" category. Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, we have taken the position that we need some sort of proof, and in this case there doesn't appear to be any. I'd toss it. MSJapan (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Consider it tossed. Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

---