Talk:List of Freemasons/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Edit request on 23 July 2012

Steven Nicol. New Zealand champion boxer (96,97) . Initiated at Indroopilly Lodge 155 in 2011.

101.119.19.157 (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Please provide sources for your claim. Also, this person may not meet notability guidelines. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 14:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Scottish Rite Journal

I have noticed that some links to the Scottish Rite Journal appear to be permanently down, altered on their site. Charles Lindbergh was removed from this list by an editor of the Lindbergh article page due to a broken reference. I undid the revision and added unrelated reference sources here, but it may be wise to check and add additional sources as we run across them.Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Yea, dead links, especially to periodicals, is a challenge for all of Wikipedia, not just this list. The best we can do is flag them as[dead link] when found and do our best to fix them. Eric Cable  |  Talk  13:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 July 2012

Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark, Hesiod Lodge No. 49, Athens http://www.grandlodge.gr/el/ΜεγάληΣτοάτηςΕλλάδος/ΤεκτονικέςΣτοές.aspx

37.6.53.221 (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I took a look at the source provided... and I can not determine where it says that he is/was a Mason. I am not saying the information isn't there... only that I can not locate it. Part of the problem is that I don't really understand Greek - and the "translate into English" button (a little UK flag at the top right of the page) is not working (instead of translating, it takes you to another page that is also in Greek). It may be that someone who knows the language can point us to where the information is... in which case we will be happy to add him. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Yea... without a good English translation it is hard to use this as a cite. Maybe there's a book somewhere with all these listed. Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    • This is the Famous Greek Masons page of the site of the Grand Lodge of Greece. The list of links is the list of bios. It is a reliable source. Others referenced:

--37.6.53.221 (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You are going to have to help us out a bit more, IP, because I don't see anything that looks like a list of famous Masons on the specific page you provided (I see what looks like a list of lodges under the GL of Greece, but not a list of people). I assume (but can not confirm) that there is another sub-page attached to the GL website that lists the famous Greek Masons. But unfortunately, given my minimal understanding of Greek, I don't know how to find that sub-page. I hope you will forgive my inability to read/understand anything not in English... but, because I don't, it is very difficult for me to navigate non-English websites. I simply don't know what to click on to get from page to page on the site. I suspect the other editors of this Wikipedia article are in a similar situation.
This means that you will have to do most of the work for us... you are going to have to provide us with more specific links (direct links to the specific bio page for each person you wish to add)... and if you could provide links to English language translations, that would be even better. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
What do you actually... BLOODY HELL! Sorry, I posted the wrong page! I am really sorry. That's the right page http://www.grandlodge.gr/el/ΟΤεκτονισμός/ΔιακεκριμένοιΈλληνεςΤέκτονες.aspx

--37.6.53.221 (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah... now we are cooking with retsina... that page looks more like a list of people with pop-up bios. Thanks.
Even though I personally would not be able to tell whether the pops up are masonic bios or a bunch of baklava recipes ... if you say they are masonic bios, I will assume good faith and believe you. So... as far as I am concerned, we can probably start adding these people. Anyone else have any objections or questions? Blueboar (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 August 2012

http://encyclopediaoffreemasonry.com/p/pro-grand-master/ The Following people were Pro Grand Masters of the UGLE:

46.190.58.197 (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: I'm looking over your list right now, please bear with me. I notice that encyclopediaoffreemasonry.com is not cited in the article at all. http://encyclopediaoffreemasonry.com/about/ mentions Albert G. Mackey’s Encyclopedia of Freemasonry. I'm not clear on the exact viability of the reference but that's not a show-stopper. BigNate37(T) 16:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Note: Francis Rawdon-Hastings is already on the list. I have added two references to the entry, giving it three. If I remember, I will also move this list's original reference for him over to his article. BigNate37(T) 17:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Done [1]. BigNate37(T) 17:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I just want to insert a caution here... encyclopediaoffreemasonry.com says it uses Mackey's encyclopedia as its main source... However, Mackey is considered somewhat outdated. Subsequent masonic research has shown that in a few cases, people that Mackey asserted were members of the craft - were not actually Freemasons. I don't know if this is the case for any of the people listed below - so I am willing to add them (at least temporarily)... however, I do think we should double check. Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Thomas Howard and John Lambton would be the first to look at then, since there is no mention to their membership elsewhere here. The rest of these names are identified as Freemasons either in their articles or those of their kin. BigNate37(T) 18:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles that mention subject membership

Articles that do not mention subject membership

Alphabetical order with references in place

British vs. English

Vtr1781249 has tried twice to change all instances of "English" or "Sottish" to "British," claiming that that is the correct term since the Union. Notwithstanding the fact that even modern people have problems identifying as British - see Robbie Keane, VTRL has applied the change wholesale, including to Elias Ashmole, who died ten years before the Union took place in 1706 (that Union being of England and Scotland; the later with Ireland was 1800, IIRC). Therefore, I do not think that we should be identifying Scottish, Welsh, and/or Irish Freemasons as "British" unless we have proof that those individuals self-identified as such historically. I would very much like to see some input on this. MSJapan (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I think will agree to disagree on this okay?, Although I'd be grateful if you re-added the names that I added to the list, which were lost when you reverted back Vtr1781249 (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This matter has been discussed to death. See WP:UKNATIONALS for a thorough treatment of this topic. BigNate37(T) 03:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that WP:UKNATIONALS is pretty clear, that the best terms to use depend upon the context. For example, in sport there is a single British Olympic team, but in a majority of other contexts the individual countries (England, Scotland, Wales, N Ireland) have individual national teams and governing bodies. The same is true of the Church - an "English clergyman" and a "Scottish clergyman" are two very different things, and nobody would dream of referring to the "Church of Britain" (apart from anything else, the Church of England is Anglican, whilst the Church of Scotland is Presbyterian) - indeed, as both churches are Established, the separateness of 'England' and 'Scotland' in this regard is a specific point of the 1707 Act of Union, as is the separate identity of English and Scottish Law, and legal systems. It is wrong to refer to "British Law", as English Law and Scottish Law are quite different. The same with the churches or the national football teams. This also applies to Freemasonry, which is administered entirely separately in England, Scotland, and Ireland. There are three Grand Lodges which, although in amity with one another, remain entirely independent from each other - and this despite the fact that all three were formed after the 1707 Union. To refer to a "British Freemason" would make no sense, as there is no "Grand Lodge of Britain". The changes made by Vtr1781249 were unnecessary, and also made the list less accurate, and less informative. MSJapan was correct to revert, and the list should be left as it is. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 04:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we shall agree to disagree folks, but I'll stick to the agreed consensus, Okay? Vtr1781249 (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Vtr... and we will keep your concerns in mind... while I agree with the consensus (that in most cases it is better to use specific sub-nationalities for this list), there may be a few individuals where (on a case by case basis) it actually makes more sense to use "British" (Example: Ralph Abercromby: he was a Scot... but he is primarily known for being a British Army general. So I have tried a compromise that may work.) Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Should we include birth/death dates to bio information

I think it would be helpful to indicate when each person lived (a simple parenthetical would do it). It would give each entry some historical context. This would be a time consuming project, but not too difficult (the information should be easy to copy over from the various bio articles)... I am willing to take it on if people think it worth doing. Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It would make the list much more user-friendly. Lots of work, but well worth the effort in my opinion. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 16:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
OK... I have added the birth and death dates for about a third of the "A"s... just so we can see what it looks like. Any comments on the format I have chosen, or objections to my continuing? Blueboar (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I like it! Timothy Titus Talk To TT 19:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
In that case, I will continue. It will take a while, and I only have time to do it in small chunks... everyone feel free to help out. Blueboar (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

John André?

While adding birth/death dates to the "A"s... I noticed the absence of John André (the British Army major who was involved in Benedict Arnold's treason). I remember reading somewhere that he was a Mason ... but I don't remember where, and it may be anecdotal. On checking the usual on-line sources, I am getting mixed results. Anyone feel like researching this further? Blueboar (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

He's not in Poll's revised 10,000 Famous Freemasons. MSJapan (talk) 03:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah... as I look at this more, I am having doubts... a lot of the sources that do claim Andre was a Mason are less than reliable (I am getting a lot of hits to fringe conspiracy sources discussing how Benedict Arnold was a Mason, and conspired with "fellow Freemason" Andre to betray the Americans... the implication being that Arnold's treason must have been a Masonic plot.) Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk?

There was 3 references to proove Atatürk was Mason. One of them were already a dead link so i replaced. The [reference 46] does not even claim Atatürk as a Mason, there is just mentioned Masonary became strong during the Atatürk era, there was some Mason officials on the side of Atatürk and Atatürk banned the lodges himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cemyildiz (talk • contribs) 11:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Re the Abby Lodge ref - the link was not "dead". The problem was that we linked to the main page of the website (which does not say much), and not to the specific sub-page with the information. I have fixed that and returned the reference.
Re the Palestine Lodge web site you say does not even claim Ataturk as a Mason... read it again... it clearly does... it states that Ataturk was "initiated in 1907 into Lodge Veritas - warranted by the French Grand Orient - in Salonica."
If you look through the archives of this talk page, you will find that we have discussed Ataturk's inclusion on the list repeatedly. I remember that at one point we had as many as six references attached to his name. There are plenty of sources. Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Officers of AMD - redlinks

This list has two inclusion criteria ... the first is that there must be a reliable source that says the person must be a Mason... and the second is that the person must be notable ... Notability is established on the list by linking to a Wikipedia bio article on the person. So, please do not add someone to this list unless a bio article about them exists (no "redlinks"). That said... if the only "claim to notability" for someone is that they were/are an officer of a relatively obscure Masonic group like AMD, I seriously doubt that they will be considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

We added their names first, and will link them to the article afterwards (I find it easier that way), the AMD is not an obscure Masonic group in most of the Masonic world, an obscure group would be Tall Trees of Lebanon &c, the only place where I know of obscure Masonic group to mainly exist is in the US? Vtr1781249 (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I beg to differ... Most Freemasons around the world don't even know the AMD exists... much less the general public. AMD is a wonderful body (I know several members)... but... it is relatively unknown, and being an officer of it is not notable. As for the Tall Cedars of Lebanon (to give it the correct name)... Yup... also fairly obscure. I don't think its officers are notable either. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I would disagree when you say "Most Freemasons around the world don't even know the AMD exists...", it may not be well known in the United States, but it is a well known degree in most of Europe, and the former 'pink' bits of the map Vtr1781249 (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

British Honours

Sir Charles Lemon was a Baronet (that is an hereditary knight), so it is incorrect not to put 'Sir' before his name, in the same way a peer who was a Duke, Marquess, Viscount, Earl or Lord is always addressed or designated as Lord. A life peerage which is not hereditary would be shown as Baron X, or X, Baron .... Likewise, a Baronet is always shown as Sir X, whereas a Knight Bachelor could be shown as X, KBE (or whatever grade his knighthood was). I know this is difficult for Americans to understand, but think of it like a military title, where Col. or Major would precede the name Vtr1781249 (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see MOS:HONORIFIC ... "do not add honorific titles to existing instances of a person's name where they are absent, since doing so implies that the existing version is incorrect (similar in spirit to the guideline on British vs. U.S. English spelling)." If you look through the list, you will find that we are consistent in not using the honorific "Sir". Blueboar (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
A Baronet is not an honorific title, that's the distinction I was making!!! It is a part of their name in the same way a peer would be addressed as Lord X, or the Duke of X Vtr1781249 (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
A Baronet is indeed not an honorific title, but the style of "Sir" that comes with it most certainly is. And FYI, a KBE is not a Knight Bachelor, rather it is a Knight Commander of the British Empire. A Knight Bachelor is a knighthood that is not of a particular order. A KBE would be styled Sir XXX YYYY, KBE, while a Knight Bachelor would be styled simply Sir XXX YYY, and in some cases they may add the post-nominals Kt.PoliSciMaster (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Let's dissect this a bit: Charles Lemon is referred to by his full title in the lede of his article, but as you can see from the wl, the article title omits all that material. I would note, BTW, that his title was not inherited until he was 40 years of age. It is precisely to avoid tricky distinctions of title that we do not include them as article titles, and by and large, our list uses article titles as sorting bases. MSJapan (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
A page has now been created for Sir Charles Lemon, will create others in due course Vtr1781249 (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Vtr, STOP... There has been a page for Charles Lemon since 2006... to create a second article purely so it has what you consider the "correct" title is considered both pointy and disruptive. Wikipedia does not need two articles on the same person. I have changed your newly created article into a redirect page pointing to the pre-existing article (if you dislike the title of that article, don't complain to us... raise the issue at Talk:Charles Lemon).
Now, as for what variation of his name we should use here... for me, the key to such questions is to figure out which variation will be most recognizable for the reader. To put it another way, when a typical reader uses our list to see if some notable person is/was a Mason, what will that reader look for? Will they look for "Sir Charles Lemon", or "Charles Lemon"?... Given that the article on him is at the "Charles Lemon", (despite the fact that he has a baronetcy), I suspect that the non-Sir version of his name is more familiar to the typical reader. Blueboar (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Bio information - how much detail?

I think we have a disagreement as to what the bio information is for. My understanding of previous consensus is that the bio information is purely for quick identification purposes... so that someone looking at the list would know that: Yes, we mean the John Aasen who was an American silent film actor... or yes, we mean the José Santos who was Chief Justice of the Philippines, etc. (as opposed to some other John Aasen or José Santos, etc.)

I get the idea, however, that others think the purpose of the bio information is to establish what makes the person notable.

This disagreement has been highlighted in with a mini-edit war between Vtr1781249 and myself over the Donald Bradman entry. My feeling is that all we need to note is the fact that he was an Australian cricket player (ie enough to quickly identify him). Vtr, on the other hand obviously feels strongly that we should also mention that he received a Knighthood (ie state what makes him notable among Australian cricket players).

Rather than continue the edit war... I am seeking third party opinions. Blueboar (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I am very concerned about Vtr's editing at this point. This is in the same vein as the Romanian nationalist dispute of "John" vs. "Ioan" because it's creating a huge issue over a very small item. I don't think anyone outside of a certain interest group really cares if Bradman was a "Sir" or not, and if they are, it's in his article. That being said, I'm going to guess that said knighthood was conferred for "services to sport" perhaps vis a vis his career as, oh, say, an Australian cricketer, perhaps? So looking at cause and effect, if he was not an Australian cricketer, he would not have been a Sir anything. Therefore, the important descriptor is his occupation, not what makes him unique amongst his occupation. MSJapan (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Before this goes further...I really don't want to make this about Vtr... or even about the Bradman entry. I am slowly working my way through the list adding birth/death dates... and as long as I am doing so, I thought I would take the opportunity to conform all the entries to a single standard. However, it seems that we have hit a disagreement as to what that standard should be. So let's focus on that...
If the purpose of the bio information is to simply identify the person, then I think the bio information should be just a brief descriptor ("Romanian Poet", "American actor", "English physicist", etc.). As I go through the list, I would trim the entries to fit this standard. If on the other hand, the purpose is to establish what makes the person notable, then I will go the other route, and expand a lot of the entries beyond just a descriptor.
I want to establish a consensus for which way I should go... so that I don't have to fight the same battle over and over again. Personally, I favor the "just a descriptor" model (leaving it to the person's bio article to establish notability), but I will do which ever has consensus. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
To answer MSJapan's, Bradman's Knighthood was for "Services to Australian Cricket". I too have been adding birth/death dates for the British entries. I commend Blueboar to conforming all the articles to a single standard, and if a standard is used, let it be applied equally to all. Might I also mention that some names appear to be going out of alphabetical order Vtr1781249 (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed standards/conventions

OK... To deal with several recent issues at once, and establish a record of consensus... I propose we adopt the following set of standards/conventions for this list:
  • Names:
    • Names should follow those used at the bio article's title (as this will generally result in the most direct link)... so, if the bio article is entitled "Fred Smith" we would list him as "Fred Smith" and not some other variant such as "Frederick Smith". One obvious exception to this is where the bio article's title includes disambiguation that is unnecessary in the context of this list... For example: Suppose the bio article title is "Fred Smith (architect)"; since we probably include the fact that Fred Smith is an architect in our bio detail, there is no need for this list to include the parenthetical disambiguation as part of the person's name. In such cases we would use the "[[Fred Smith (architect)|Fred Smith]]" format. I am sure that there will be other logical exceptions to the "we follow the bio article" concept that will crop up as I go through the list, but these can be discussed on a case by case basis as we get to them.
    • Peers etc. - Generally we would follow the bio article title, as above... When in doubt, follow the guidance set out at WP:NCPEER.
  • Bio detail:
    • Bio detail is for simple identification purposes and should be be as brief as possible... in most cases this will be a simple descriptor ("American politician", "Italian journalist", "Chinese play-write and philosopher"), but more can be added if further disambiguation is needed.
    • Notability (one criteria for inclusion on this list) is demonstrated by linking the person's name to a bio article on the person (which presumably establishes what makes the person notable)... links should usually be as direct as possible (ie we should avoid linking to redirects).
    • As for debates over national identities in the bio info... We will follow the usage in the bio article... if the bio article calls someone English or Serb, we will call him English or Serb (and not British or Yugoslav). Note - the reason for this is as follows: it is quite likely that a debate over the person's national identity has already taken place at the bio article, and settled by consensus. It would be disruptive to re-open a similar debate on this page.
Are there any objections to these standards/conventions? Are their other issues that need resolving that I did not think of? Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
As far as names go, let's simplify it: we're pretty much all set by following article naming convention. As everyone on this list is someone with an article, any other naming schemes aside from the title of the article should not come into play. NCPEER is designed to prevent the sort of changes we've been seeing on the list, not set a framework for them. Any actual "NCPEER issues" discussion should have been held at the article's talk page. The same goes for ethnicities: what the article says goes, and should there be a desire to see that changed, it should be handled at the article level as well. MSJapan (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that is essentially what I said above (I just used more words to say it). :>) Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I have watched with great interest as a number of issues have arisen here over recent days. At times I have found myself in agreement with our American cousins, and at times I have found myself in agreement with Vtr. I'm not suggesting this is either (a) a personal issue, or (b) a cultural one, but I am on record as having said previously that cultural issues often cause problems on Wikipedia, and I have been a silent supporter of Vtr over such issues as the relative prominence/obscurity of the AMD in English masonry, and the importance to British/Commonwealth subjects of issues such as Knighthoods (and therefore the extent to which they are part of notability) as compared to their seemingly lower importance to those who do not live in a Monarchy, where the honours system is an integral part of society. However, all that said, I would like to support the above proposals, BUT with a massive reference back to the Fifth Pillar of Wikipedia. Making "hard and fast" rules is sometimes necessary, but always to be done mindful of the truism that "every rule must have exceptions". I am a huge fan of the principle of WP:IAR and would want to see the above suggestions as a set of guidelines, not a straightjacket. In particular, I have a gut feeling that the very brief biog line suggested will, in quite a few cases, be of less value to the reader of the list than a slightly more extended version. To illustrate what I mean, and using the hypothetical example of a non-mason, if Richard Trevithick were included in a list under the above proposals, his biog would simply be "English engineer", whereas I believe that the slightly expanded "English engineer, inventor of the first steam locomotive" would be more useful to the casual reader of the list. I'm basically agreeing, but not wanting us to legislate ourselves into a list which is less useful to the user. WP:IAR. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 17:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment TT... its good to get opinions from as many people as possible. I am curious as to why you think adding "inventor of the first steam locomotive" would make the entry more "useful". I could see saying it makes the entry more "interesting", but I don't see what makes it more "useful". To my way of thinking, the useful information in this list is fact that these people were/are Masons (and, if known, where and when they became so). But perhaps you have a different concept of why someone would come to this list in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm an inveterate surfer (technologically speaking), and spend lots of time on pages upon which I have stumbled randomly! I suppose it is the random visitor landing on the list that I am thinking of. In the case cited, "English engineer" would be entirely accurate, of course, but a bit dull. It's certainly not what makes him notable (otherwise we'd be listing every English engineer, ever). The extra few words adds the interest about the man - the thing that actually makes him stand out from other English engineers - the sort of thing that might make me want to "surf on" to his full article. That's what I mean when I say it makes his entry on the list more useful. Of course RT was a random example, and not actually a mason (as far as I know...!), but there are plenty of characters on the actual list who are quite unknown to me - I would find it more useful, when looking at the list, to have that extra little piece of information that tells me why they were special; not perhaps in every case, but in many, I think. However, I'm in complete agreement that we need to keep each entry concise. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 19:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah...OK... I was thinking that the page would be used more by who already know who the person is, and wanted to find out if he was a Mason, rather than by surfers who don't already know who the person is. Blueboar (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 August 2012

Guys, there are many brothers at UGLE's famous masons that haven't been put yet.http://www.ugle.org.uk/what-is-masonry/famous-masons/ 176.58.235.198 (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks... there are definitely people on that list that could go in this one. Please join the fun... log in, and help us build the article. Blueboar (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Giacomo Puccini?

Hey guys. Looking at Giacomo Puccini. I can only find anecdotal evidence of him being a freemason. Any suggestions on where I might look? Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you checked the "standard sources"... Denslow's 10,000 Famous Freemasons, the BC&Y webpage, etc.? Does the Grand Orient of Italy have a "list of famous Italian Masons"? Blueboar (talk) 11:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I think I just found a good one:
"Freemasonry and Music". The Harvard Dictionary of Music (Google eBook) (Fourth Edition ed.). 2003. pp. 333–334. ISBN 0-674-01163-5. Retrieved 8/31/2012. Other composer-masons include Spohr, Meyerbeer, Mendelssohn, Listz, Puccini, John Philip Sousa, and Irving Berlin {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |editorn-first= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |editorn-last= ignored (help)
I will go ahead and add him. Eric Cable  |  Talk  13:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I will also add Mendelssohn using the same cite. Eric Cable  |  Talk  13:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Barring any source that contradicts, I would say this is fine. Blueboar (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Imperial Potentate..

Would you guys say the Imperial Potentate of Shriners is notable? I have five sources:[2],[3], [4], [5],[6]. Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No. If the holder of that office is notable for some other reason then he should be listed, but an otherwise-unknown person who is (or has been) Imperial Potentate is not notable. If we go down that route, then we have to start listing the heads of every masonic order in the world - potentially thousands of otherwise unknown men! I appreciate that the Shriners are quite important in American masonry, but they're of zero importance to masonry in many other countries - it isn't even a recognised masonic order in England, for example. So we really would be opening the floodgates for every head of every masonic order around the world to be listed. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 10:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Eh, I see your point. Don't be surprised if Shriners come to the U.K. soon. The above-mentioned Imperial Potentate has already opened a Shrine Temple in Germany and is dedicated to spreading the organization across Europe. Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm... interesting that this push to expand the Shrine is occurring at a time when the relationship between the Shrine and the various American Grand Lodges is becoming increasingly strained. But that is besides the point... TT's comment on being notable for something other that Freemasonry is apt. There are very few people who are notable because of their Masonic connection. Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 October 2012

Would like to add Fredericksburg Lodge No. 4 to George Washington as his Mother Lodge where he was initiated an Entered Apprentice on November 4th, 1752, Passed a Fellow Craft on March 3, 1753, and raised to a Master Mason on August 4, 1753. Fredericksburg, VA

I am new and not entirely sure of the format but these facts can be proven many places here are a few:

http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/washington_as_a_freemason.htm http://www.pagrandlodge.org/mlam/presidents/washington.html http://masoniclodge4.org Denysd (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

We already note that he was initiated in Fredricksburg... although we don't give the dates. Blueboar (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully.. He was initiated, passed and raised in Fredericksburg. It is his Mother Lodge the way it reads it doesn't lead one to see the importance of Lodge 4 in his Masonic career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denysd (talk • contribs) 22:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it would make more sense for there to be a well written and will cited section on Freemasonry in the Washington Article. The purpose of this, as I'm told, is not so much to list each person's entire Masonic career. Eric Cable  |  Talk  12:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 October 2012

Please, add the following brothers who were present at bro. Robert Burns's inauguration as poet laureate of Lodge Canongate Kilwinning, per http://www.lodge76.wanadoo.co.uk/poet%20laureate.htm

Thank you very much! 94.65.35.192 (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Not Done: We really try to NOT use the websites of individual lodges as references on this list as they are not reliable. Is there a better source that you can find? Perhaps something on the United Grand Lodge of England? Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that who posted at their site the legend for a famous painting is really a big deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.35.192 (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
The problem with a painting is that the artist may include people who where not actually present (the famous Trumbull's Declaration of Independence painting is a good example of this)... not a good source. Blueboar (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I did a little research and found that Monboddo, Grose, Mackenzie and Stewart are in the 10.000. So we can put those four and try to find sources for the other two.--94.65.35.192 (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, I found Grose and Mackenzie...
Here:Denslow, William (1957). 10,000 Famous Freemasons from A to J Part 1. p. 148. Retrieved 10/8/2012. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
and...
Here:Denslow, William (1957). 10,000 Famous Freemasons from K to Z Part 2. p. 411. Retrieved 10/8/2012. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
But, did not find Monboddo or Stewart... possible that the book on Google books is incomplete. Do you have page numbers for those? Eric Cable  |  Talk  12:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

As for "don't think that who posted at their site the legend for a famous painting is really a big deal." Look at it this way: I could, right now, edit my Lodge's website to say that... I don't know maybe... Adolph Hitler was a Freemason. Would that make it true? Of course not. Also, I recently said in conversation, "I found it on Wikipedia." and a woman I know, who is both a librarian and a bitch, smarted-off "Wikipedia is not a reliable source." Using less-than-great sources just adds fuel to that argument. As you can see, with a little effort we foud a GOOD cite for two of the individuals instead of just posting them with the painting source you list above and then having someone come along later and say "See! Wikipedia is not a reliable source! Neener! Neener! Neener!" Eric Cable  |  Talk  12:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Monboddo is here http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/10,000_famous_freemasons/Volume_1_A_to_D.htm and Stewart is here http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/10,000_famous_freemasons/Volume_4_Q_to_Z.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.35.192 (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Now you're really gonna hate me. That is not a primary source, it's a secondary source. Meaning, it's where someone/thing is citing someone/thing else. Like I said above, I think the book on google is incomplete. You see, somtimes books on Google Books are missing pages when they are still under copyright. If we had page numbers for those guys, I think we'd be OK just citing the book and not linking to it anywhere. Eric Cable  |  Talk  17:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

So I was thinkin'

It seems to me that if person is listed in Denslow's 10,000 Famous Freemasons... and has an article on Wikipedia... they should be on this list, right? On the first page of 10K I see three people to add. I want to compile a database... in which I have everyone on this list... and everyone in 10k Masons (easier to do than you think. I'm a data guy by profession). Then compile all the cites on this list... and re-do the entire thing. I will work on it in my userspace. More to come. Eric Cable  |  Talk  19:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Standard Practices

Sorry if this has been argued before, but I wonder if there should be a standard way people are listed. I would suggest: Name (Birth Year-Death Year): Comments.Referneces

Where

Name= the person's name with wikification is needed for example:[[William Polk (colonel)|William Polk]] which yields William Polk.

Dates: both parenthesis, years only (specific dates in indivual articles) with just a hyphen if still living.

No punctuation between name and dates.

Colon after dates

Comments: I believe this section should have NO wiki links in it because there do you draw the line? You could wikilink almost every word in a sentence. By not having wikilinks, you reduce the load time of the whole page... Right?

References: All at the end. Also, sometimes one reference is anough. For example, if in Denslow's 10,000 Masons that should be enough... don't you think?

Thoughts? Eric Cable  |  Talk  20:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's irrelevant but can someone remove all this huge biographical data from Leverhulme?--94.65.35.192 (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

List of Freemasons Page

Im just a normal looker at Wikipedia, I think this page wuold look excellent if it were divided by which countries these individuals are from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.209.225.230 (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

We considered it... but found that an alphabetical listing was better. One problem with a geographical division would be the appearance of bias that would result... the list is dominated by people from the US and UK... not intentionally, but simply due to the fact that more sources exist on US and UK Freemasons than Freemasons in other parts of the world. The current Alphabetical listing avoids that appearance of bias. Also, the country these men come from is essentially irrelevant to the topic of the list. What matters is that they were Freemasons, not what country the were from.
Another option would be to divide them by profession... but again, that is not really what is important. An Alphabetical listing is the most neutral way to organize things. Blueboar (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
What about a complete re-do of the list into a table that could be sorted by name, country, and/or profession? Eric Cable  |  Talk  16:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd avoid profession sorting. There's a lot of people who are notable in multiple areas, like Albert Pike (to choose the obvious), and they don't really need multiple profession boxes in a table. I think the real issue is that we just have a giant list of people, and ending up with a giant table is not going to really help the matter. It's one of the main reasons I don't like any of the Freemasonry list articles all that much - short lists are great, because it pulls a lot of disparate info into a small, easy-to-read format, but at some point they become giant lists that get way too big to do anything with to be useful. MSJapan (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I see your point on not sorting on profession. Honestly, I have the skills to download the entire list, break it down, check all the cites, normalize all the cites (like one cite for 10K Famous Freemasons), and then build a macro (probably in MS Access) to compile all the code for the table. The tricky part is maintaining it afterward. The table would be very technical. For example this trick I recently learned on how to make names display normally, but still sort correctly. People adding items later would likely wreck everything. Eric Cable  |  Talk  13:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, we would have a similar issue with a "sort by country"... there are people on the list who could be sorted under multiple nations (people move... national borders change... new nations are created... etc.) For example, take the hypothetical of a person of German ethnic heritage who was born in Prague in the 1700s, joined a masonic lodge while visiting Paris, and then moved to England ... would we list him under "Germany"?... "Austria" (or "Austrian Empire")?... "Czechoslovakia"?... "Bohemia"?... France?... England? Just think of the fun we can have edit warring over that.
No, the more I think about it... the more I have to say that an alphabetical listing is the only way to do this without lots of problems. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Atatürk wasn't mason.

< Atatürk wasn't mason. He did close masonic lodges.

Please refer back to the archived former discussions on this talk page (which you can access via the header at the top of the page). This issue has been discussed in great detail previously. We are well aware of evidence of Ataturk's possible ambivalence on the subject of masonry at stages of his life, but there is also overwhelming evidence that he was a Freemason - several sources are cited at his entry on the list. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 19:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I took at stab at converting this whole thing into a table...

OK, I took at stab at converting this whole thing into a table. Sortable by name (properly! that's a neat trick), birth date and death date. I invite you to take a look: User:EricCable/sandbox.  Eric Cable  |  Talk  23:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Holy Cow! 266,000 bytes! Eric Cable  |  Talk  23:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
So I guess nobody cares. Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
While I appreciate the time you have spent on this, I think the current alphabetical list in text format is fine... and certainly easier for the average person to edit. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Yea, I hear ya. I did find a number of alphabetizing errors on the current list while doing this. Also, the cites on the list are a mess. Eric Cable  |  Talk  15:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I just redid the whole thing...

OK, If you look at my note about putting it into a table above, you will note I took the whole thing and broke it down. During that process, I found a lot of alphabetixing errors. So, I just took my data, and re-did the whole list. Now don't freak-out. The only changes should be to alphabetizing and some other minor techincal fixes. Eric Cable  |  Talk  16:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 December 2012

I don't suggest adding her, but I'd like to make it known: Eileen Gray (cyclist) http://www.hfaf.org/photo_album.htm http://www.hfaf.org/EileenGray.jpg http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4629813.stm 94.65.5.207 (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Why do you not suggest adding her? Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done - kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 18:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute, wasn't it agreed that we include only regular Masons? This order doesn't look that regular to me.--94.65.5.207 (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it was agreed or not, but some knowledgeable editor does and will fix me good (and fix the edit) if I've made a mistake. On another note, I've entered a welcome at your talk page and encourage you to consider creating an account.
kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 21:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Oh, if only you knew how many times have I seen this...--94.65.5.207 (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

And, you'd better remove her, as she doesn't fit the list. --94.65.5.207 (talk)

Why? That is, please direct me to the discussion when concluded that. I'm not arguing with you, just seeking knowledge.
kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 23:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Pol430 talk to me 00:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Regularity is self-defined by different groups of masons, and can't sensibly be a reason for exclusion from an encyclopedia list. UGLE admits that Ms Gray's lot are completely regular, apart from the lumps in their vests. They have a dimmer opinion of Grand Orient masons, who are included in the list. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
@Pol430: What wasn't done? What's the edit protection warning about?
kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 02:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Subpages

List is getting somewhat long in the tooth. Is it time to divide it into subpages?
kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 01:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

OK... Shall we start with two subpages: A-M and N-Z? (or do we need more?) Blueboar (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, When I did my major re-do earlier this month (see #OK, I just redid the whole thing... above) there were 822 names on the list. The break-down by letter was...
Break-Down of List of Freemasons by First Letter of Last Name
Letter Count
A
52
B
110
C
67
D
60
E
19
F
29
G
36
H
40
I
3
J
19
K
17
L
35
M
75
N
12
O
10
P
49
Q
1
R
45
S
63
T
26
U
0
V
7
W
37
X
0
Y
4
Z
6

Y=4, Z=6... I think the bar chart template blows-up after 25 rows. Anyhow, if you want o divide it down the middle, then it would be A-H and I-Z. So there you have it. QUESTION: If we break it into two, would there be two talk pages? That could get ugly/confusing. Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Curious that there is such a predominance of notable Freemasons who's names begin with "B". Must be a conspiracy! Blueboar (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 January 2013

Alain Bernheim, http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/bernheimfr.html 94.65.29.101 (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Dianna (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 April 2013

Walt Disney, film producer and co-founder of The Walt Disney Company. 201.241.149.25 (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Walt Disney was never actually a Freemason. He was a member of the Order of DeMolay, the masonic youth group, but he never joined the freemasons.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding 14 names

Adding Thomas Abernethy, Edmond François Valentin About, Benjamin Abrams, Franz Abt, Sir Allan Adair, 6th Baronet, E. Ross Adair, Alva Adams, Alva B. Adams, Andrew Adams, Charles Adams, Frank R. Adams, Jasper Adams, James Hamilton, 7th Earl of Abercorn, and George Gordon, 9th Marquess of Huntly all of whom are listed in Denslow. Eric Cable  |  Talk  15:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Santa Anna confirmed

While going through our archived discussions concerning the "Ataturk debate" (see above), I came across our discussions of another debated entry... that of Santa Anna (the Mexican general and politician). The question of whether Santa Anna was or was not a Freemason has long divided Masonic Scholars. The evidence in favor of his membership was mostly anecdotal. After a lot of discussion, we finally reached a consensus to include him in our list (based on Jasper Ridley's conclusions) but it was not a unanimous decision. Turns out our decision was correct.
His membership has now been conclusively confirmed. A Texas researcher has apparently located Santa Anna's original Scottish Rite membership certificate (buried in the archives in the Livingston Masonic Library here in New York). See: this recent posting on Hodapp's blog. Just though I would give everyone an update. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - very interesting. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 13:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Denslow

OK, We all agree that Denslow's 10,000 Famous Freemasons is a good cite. What we don't seem to agree on is how to cite it. Part of the problem is there are a lot of different versions. There's the transcribed copy on the Phoenix Masonry site, there's the pdf from Cornerstone Publishing, and then there are a few of us with fifty-year-old copies on our bookshelf, etc. That being said, I propose that simply stating 'found in Denslow' is good enough as it's in alphbetical order so page numbers are not needed... and vary from version to version. Therefore, I propose to cite Denslow as follows:

<ref name="Denslow">{{cite book | last = Denslow | first = William R. | title = 10,000 Famous Freemasons | year = 1957 | publisher = Missouri Lodge of Research | location = Columbia, Missouri, USA}}</ref> and then <ref name=Denslow/> thereafter.
 Eric Cable  |  Talk  12:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

As with any source, we want to take the information from the most recent up-to-date edition (which presumably corrects any errors in previous editions)... but if we use an older edition, we should cite the version we actually used. This is addressed by WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. So... if you take the information from the transcribed copy on the Phoenix Masonry website, cite that in your citation... if you use the pdf from Cornerstone, cite the pdf from Cornerstone... and if you use your fifty year old copy, cite that. Only update the citation to a more recent version if you have actually checked that more recent version. Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Disagree. Eric Cable  |  Talk  17:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
You are entitled to your disagreement, but last time I checked, that's what the guideline says to do.  :>) Is there a reason to ignore the guideline? Blueboar (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Besides it being the guidelines, the reason to have a reference cite is to make the information reproducible. If you don't accurately cite the used reference, it is possible that information look up is not reproducible. Using the reproducible cite reduces the chances of future disagreements. Ahwiv (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I think Denslow's 'goodness' is highly dependent on the entry. For example, Henry F. Ashurst I would not consider Denslow a good reference, at least without other supporting documentation. There are others of a similar nature. There are probably another 9,000 good references. In general, I'm not sure I would use Denslow unless there is a reference to a specific lodge or location and a date. While I would not initially do it for Denslow, we should also be able to properly identify the lodge. (cf Soho Lodge No 3 for Phil Collins discussion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahwiv (talk • contribs) 14:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Atatürk

Why Atatürk is in this list?? That is added this list not reliable sources!!

I removed that according to the these reasons:

updated link is: http://abbey.lodge.ws/100-freemasons-from-around-the-world/

Primary sources (Wikipedia:PSTS) are not acceptable for these sources. Some mason lodges declare it but they do not show any signed document.


  • Thessaloniki , Hamill, John and, Gilbert, R. A., Freemasonry: A Celebration of the Craft

This is based on declaretaion of Rissorta Lodge Salonica


All the sources based on declaration of Rissorta Lodge (Number 80) Salonica. That lodge shows Ataturk was a member of this lodge. But this is questionable source and it is not verified other sources, documents and letters. If he is a member of this lodge they have to show his sign or any handwriting letter.


By the way, Atatürk ruled to closing of mason lodges in Turkey and lodges stopped their activities on 9 Ekim 1935.


  • Please add your sources and discuss in this section to add Atatürk into this list if you have reliable sources and documents.


Will you write accept here If the Elqaida declared Obama in their member list?

Primary and questionable sources are not acceptable like a mason lodge declaration. --Qwl (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

First... It seems you are confused as to what a primary source is... the Palestine Lodge and Abbey Lodge websites are NOT primary sources. They are secondary sources. The "signed documents" you wish they provided would be primary sources.
Second... we have examined these sources previously (you can go through our archives and see the discussions), and found them reliable... especially Hammill and Gilbert. (John Hamill is one of the most respected Masonic historians in England.) We have discussed the Ataturk entry multiple times, and there is a strong consensus that he should be on the list.
Third... yes, Ataturk closed the lodges in Turkey while he was its President. So what? It does not mean he was not at some point a Mason. Look at the time line: Ataturk joins a lodge as a young man. He does not find what he is looking for, and essentially quits. Years later, as President, he decides to order the lodges closed. No inconsistency. Blueboar (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Just indicating complete agreement with Blueboar (talk) above. As already stated in my edit summary when I first reverted your removal of Ataturk, there is established consensus here, after much previous discussion, and clear confusion in your arguments. The sources quoted are sound and reliable. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 17:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

First: Lodges declarations are primary sources. Their source is copy-paste of Macedonian Lodges declaration. Because there is no any research with any different sources. They have referenced only Macedonian Lodges declaration. Please check Wikipedia:No original research. Do you know what is declaration? They put his photo on their list and they say Atatürk is our member. So so funny :)

where is the other sources? where is signed document or letters??


What is secondary source you know??

Secondary source is a research include primary sources that we can see signed document or letter or any other materials to support their arguments. This lodges are not acceptable for secondary sources. WP:INTEGRITY


Second: archve discussions doesnt mean we never discuss again. I saw your discussions full of your bias. And i couldnt see any consensus! Some user wrote in archive many times who supports my point of view. you removed these point of views to archive and you look like approprate and bias this article.


third: you says Atatürk join in younghood but after he break relation with masons (I refused this and it is your opinion. It is not related to any reliable source). If we accept your view anyway It means Atatürk not Mason when prime minister and you can not write him to this list. You write with notes like in younghood.


Their sources dont have reliability and verifiability. Please how we can accept these sources based on wikipedia rules.

FOURTH: I agree these users user point of view with arguments to remove Atatürk from this list. there is a consensus to remove.

I'm going to add my name to those disagreeing with you, Qwl, and I'm going to also point out that your addition of an "unjustified claims" template when we have 518 sources in this article is disruptive. Your claim that "all the documentation is based on the same source" is unverifiable, because that is your opinion. As a matter of fact, it should all be based off the member record that the Lodge should still have. Regardless of what he did later in life, there are no sources that indicate that he ever renounced his membership.

The reason the discussion went nowhere in the past is because, just like now, the arguments against were not supported by sources that were any better than those that supported. You yourself admit he joined at some point in his life, so you've in fact verified our position, so this discussion will not change anything currently in the article. Lastly, five people in eight years is not a consensus to remove. MSJapan (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Where is consensus to keep it this list? Is there any limit on time to remove attempt?? I saw only 4 people to keep in this list in EIGHT years. Where is the consensus??
  • There are no sources that indicate that he ever renounced his membership, because he never been a member. Only one lodge put his picture and says he is our member :) There is NO any source about membership.
  • I dont accept your position like other users in list and discussion can change everything. This article is NOT your OWN article. You have to show your reliable sources!!
  • This article are full of speculation and one sided info and sources, Full of propaganda. I want to put that template and I want to go arbitration.--Qwl (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, you can take it to arbitration if you want to (although I doubt Arbcom will take the case... they usually don't involve themselves in simple content disputes). The inclusion criteria for this list is simple and standard for Wikipedia... a) the person must be notable b) there must be at least one reliable source that says the person was/is a Mason. In Ataturk's case both criteria are met. End of story. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
As I stated, one dispute (with sources on the entry) when there are 517 other sources in the article is not a reason to put the unjustified template on this article. As I recall, we have multiple sources for Ataturk, and I just found another one written by a Turkish Freemason and published in Freemasonry Today here, which we might already have or might not.
The real problem here is that, according to most easily accessible Turkish sources floating around on the Internet, apparently Ataturk can't be a Freemason because if he was, he would also have to be a Jew and also homosexual, depending on what YouTube video you watch. So the issue actually has more to do with somebody cobbling together disparate pieces of questionable information and someone else disagreeing with it than it does anything else.
Qwl, you also have a history of tendentious editing on Turkish subjects, and the sheer amount of your edits that have been reverted for issues, media files that have been deleted for lack of licensing, and the ArbCom case which was declined because you couldn't be bothered to fill out the form tells me that you are more interested in arguing your point in any given area than building an encyclopedia based on community policies. Wikipedia is not a battleground, so take it elsewhere.MSJapan (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Your source is so funny. ANY LODGE WEB SITE COULDNT ACCEPT AS A RELIABLE SOURCE!! All of them mason group and their source is same; Macedonian Lodge and primary source. It means only one source. We couldnt accept copy-paste confirmation of lodges for a secondary source in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia principles and rules. They don't have any source and they want to use Atatürk name for propaganda!!

  • If you want I can show you a TURKISH source that Atatürk refused the offer to join mason lodge. That is the details of conversation about reordering and closing of masonic lodges in Turkey. 27.12.1938 "Yedi Gün Dergisi":

Tanık olarak, o konuşmanın geçtiği Atatürkün masasında Ağaoğlu Ahmet, Köprülü Fuat, İsmail Hakkı (Muhtemelen Tonguç) Eğitim Bakanı Hikmet (Batur) bulunduğu belirtilen o yazıda, Atatürk ile Dr. Mim. Kemal Öke arasında masonluk konusunda bir tartışma geçtiği ve Atatürkün masonluğun ilkelerinin Halk Partisinin ilkesine tıpatıp uyduğu yolundaki sözler üzerine;"O halde masonluğun hikmet-i vücudu yoktur" dediği, M. Kemalin ise bunun üzerine masonluğun uluslararası niteliğinden söz ettiği ve Mustafa Kemalden; "Ben bu cemiyete girmem. Ben başkalarının yaptığı prensiplere göre değil ancak kendi prensiplerime uyarım" yanıtını aldığı, Mim Kemali susturduğu ileri sürülmektedir.

http://www.dr.com.tr/Kitap/Turkiyede-Masonlar-ve-Masonluk/Ilhami-Soysal/Arastirma-Tarih/Politika-Arastirma/Sivil-Toplum-Orgutleri/urunno=0000000165973


translation of bold (own):


MSJapan, I think you know read but you don't understand what I mean. I am against the bias, systemic bias and propaganda that based on bias in Wikipedia. --Qwl (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I will add on more source. Hürriyet, 24 Aralık Pazar, 1989. Interview with highest level Mason "Üstad-ı azam." Prof. Dr. Orhan Alsaç in Turkey :

-Atatürk Mason muydu?
-Atatürk"ün Masonluğu konusunda elimizde maalesef bir belge yok. Ama kendisinin konuşmalarından ve yaptığı telkinlerden, bizde Atatürk"ün Mason olduğu kanısı uyanıyor. En azından, kesinlikle biliyoruz ki, Masonluk hakkında çok derin bilgisi vardı ve Masonluğu her zaman himaye etmiştir.

translation of bold (own):

--Qwl (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are differences of opinion on the matter. I am not sure what "highest level Mason in Turkey" means in Dr. Alsaç's case (was he a Grand Master?), but his opinion is contradicted by Kaya Pasakay, who definitely does qualify as one of the "Highest ranking" Freemasons in Turkey (he is a Former Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Turkey) and by John Hamill, who is considered one of the foremost Masonic scholars in the world - author of numerous scholarly papers and books on the history of Freemasonry (and a fairly high ranking Mason himself - he is Director of Communications for the United Grand Lodge of England)
The point is this... Given the known reputation of those who say Ataturk was a Freemason, and balancing their opinion against the questionable reputation of those who say he was not... we have enough to include Ataturk on the list. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
If you're trying to reach a consensus, I agree with Blueboar, MSJapan and others above that he should remain on the list. The arguments by Qwl are more argumentative than enlightening. The links provided show that he was a freemason at one time, regardless of his later statements and actions. I also reviewed the edit log on Ataturk's page and it shows to me a concerted effort by a small band to tightly control information on the Ataturk page, and remove things with which they disagree, including that Ataturk was a freemason. While I would prefer that people on this list have something on their page that identifies them as a freemason, that does not seem likely in this case, so I would make an exception in this instance. Ahwiv (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes Bluebor, "Üstad-ı azam" is Grand Master. He says (own translation. sorry for mistakes):

Unfortunately, we don't have any document about Atatürk is Freemasonry or not. But, In our opinion, his speeches and his indoctrination means there is a possibility of he can be freemasonry, at least, we are confident that he knows many deep information about freemasonry and he always keep freemasonry.


I want to find reality. We need different sources and need support this membership allegation. but sources are contradictive --Qwl (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, so the source you are pointing to actually admits that there is a possibility that Ataturk was a Mason. When combined with the other sources that definitively say he was, your source actually supports keeping him on the list. I think we are done. Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It is their OPINION. POSSIBILITY IS NOT reliable Source. They know what Macedonian Lodge says and they tell we don't have any document about Atatürk is Freemasonry or not. --217.11.66.242 (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Which simply means that "Üstad-ı azam." Prof. Dr. Orhan Alsaç is not a reliable source, and his opinion that Ataturk was not a freemason should be discounted, versus the reliable sources that Blueboar and others have referenced. Qwl, the more you write, the more you prove your assertion is wrong. Each example either does not shw he wasn't a freemason, or that he might have been. Ahwiv (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Circular Reference

Whoops... I have just noticed a problem with a source we use on 13 entries... the Wisdomlodge202.org web page (currently citation #44 - first used to support the entry on general Henry H. Arnold). Wisdomlodge202 links to Wikipedia for its verification. In other words, we end up with a circular reference (they link to WP for verifiability... but WP links to them for verifiability.) We need another source for these 13 people. Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think another thing to add to our "to do" list would be to eliminate all cites that point to "local lodges" like the one you link above. Obvioulsly, an exception to that would be when referencing the "home lodge" of a notable person. Eric Cable  |  Talk  12:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Menawhile, being an Excel developer when I see "circular reference" I have a small stroke. LOL Eric Cable  |  Talk  12:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
A local lodge is certainly reliable as a primary source for verifying its own members. Beyond that, I don't think we should rule out all local lodges, but we should be cautious. We should examine who was responsible for compiling their list, and where they got their information. Some local lodge websites are unreliable ... others are reasonably reliable (I would classify these as: "good enough... but look for something better"), while a few are very reliable. That said... It is never wrong to replace a "good enough" source with a source that is even more reliable . Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I've just looked at the Phil Collins entry. I've never heard of Soho lodge, and it only comes up on search engines next to Mr Collins. No 3 in London is the Lodge of Fidelity, so if Soho no 3 exists, its in the States somewhere. Entry looking dubious. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Interesting... this is repeated on all sorts of local lodge listings... and yeah, this is looking dubious. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

OK... I have removed all the citations to wisdomlodge202.org (replacing them with "citation needed" tags for now.) I have also marked the Phil Collins entry as "dubious", pending more information. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Affected entires are:
Henry H. Arnold
Claire Lee Chennault
Phil Collins (marked as dubious)
Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig
Franz Mesmer
Alphonse Mucha
Ransom E. Olds
Derwyn Owen
Richard Pryor
Eddie Rickenbacker
Thomas Patten Stafford
Alfred von Tirpitz
Florenz Ziegfeld
New sources are needed for all of these. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I was also wondering about the Phil Collins reference. As already stated, Lodge No 3 (London) under UGLE is not called Soho Lodge. I've also now checked the co-masons (both British branches), both of which have a Lodge No 3, but neither is called 'Soho Lodge'. Unless someone can find something concrete, I think this is looking very dubious. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 16:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Removed. MSJapan (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Quickly running down the list using regular expressions, I could not find good references for the following -
Ransom E. Olds
Derwyn Owen
Eddie Rickenbacker
Florenz Ziegfeld
By which I mean that I could only find them in unreferenced lists. I emphasise this was only a quick check. The rest (apart from Collins) are done. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Fiddler. I am sure we can find most of these if we keep digging. Blueboar (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Rickenbacker is listed in Denslow. [7]. I will add the cite to him. Eric Cable  |  Talk  12:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Ziegfeld is also listed in Denslow.[8]. Eric Cable  |  Talk  12:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Derwyn Owen is listed as D.T. Owen in Denslow [9] Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Ransom E. Olds is also list in Denslow.[10] Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Excellent work Eric. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I found one for the Letter X!

The fact we had nobody listed under the letter X was bugging me. I therefore, found one: Emmanuil Xanthos. Eric Cable  |  Talk  16:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Working on the A's from Denslow...

I am continuing to work on the A's from Denslow as I have time. I am about to add..
Samuel Adams, Governor of Arkansas
Wilbur L. Adams
Henry Adamson
Michael Adeane, Baron Adeane
Charles Adkins
Jesse Corcoran Adkins
Julius Ochs Adler
Adolphus Frederick IV, Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz
Adolf Frederick, King of Sweden

Basically, I go down the list in Denslow. If that person is not on our list, then I check to see if they have an existing Wikipedia Article. If they do, I add them to the list with the <ref name=Denslow/> cite. Eric Cable  |  Talk  13:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Eric. Your efforts are appreciated. Out of curiosity... which edition of Denslow are you using? (I don't want you to stop... Just that, if you are using an older edition, then someone will have to follow up on your edits and double check against a more recent edition for any corrections and/or changes that might need to be made).
Side Note... Once again the list is growing... we really do need to consider splitting the list into two or three sub-articles according to alphabetical chunks. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm using the one on Phoenix Masonry just because it's easiest to copy/paste text from. Based on the scan of the cover here:[11] I believe it's the first edition. Eric Cable  |  Talk  16:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks... keep going with that... I have access to the most recent edition, and can follow up with any corrections that are needed. (well... it's at the Livingston Masonic Library here in NYC... but I go there about once a week, so it shouldn't be too difficult. If anyone else has it handier, feel free to help out). Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
On your side note, maybe take a queue from Denslow and break-down the list as he did: A-D, E-J, K-P, and Q-Z. Eric Cable  |  Talk  16:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm... Talk:List of Freemasons/Archive 6#Subpages gives a breakdown of the page prior to your recent additions. The bulk (at this point) seems to be in the earlier letters of the alphabet. I think we could certainly justify breaking off A-D into a sub-article right now... perhaps leaving E-Z to break up later, as you continue to add entries from Denslow. Blueboar (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Yea, I would rather make A-D a page now, and then break up the others later rather than do something like A-H, I-Z and have to re-break the group later. BUT I will say that Denslow compiled 10,000 names and ended-up breaking down his list as I state above. Maybe we trust his calculations and go with that? Eric Cable  |  Talk  17:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Just added 13 more...
Ignacio Agramonte
Archibald Kennedy, 4th Marquess of Ailsa (under K)
Charles Kennedy, 5th Marquess of Ailsa (under K)
William David Blakeslee Ainey
John C. Ainsworth
Milburn Akers
George Edward Akerson
Adeyemo Alakija
Miguel Ricardo de Álava y Esquivel
Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany (under L)
Juan Bautista Alberdi
Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale
Carl Albert
 Eric Cable  |  Talk  17:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding 34 more

Horace M. Albright
James L. Alcorn
Chester Hardy Aldrich
Nelson W. Aldrich
J. Frank Allee
Miguel Alemán Valdés
Alexander I of Russia
George Forrest Alexander
Grover Cleveland Alexander
Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis
Nathaniel Alexander
Alexander, Prince of Orange
Bernardo Soto Alfaro
Eloy Alfaro
Bruce Alger
Russell A. Alger
Sir Archibald Alison, 1st Baronet
Alfred G. Allen
Charles Herbert Allen
Ethan Allen (baseball)
Frank G. Allen
Henry Justin Allen
Ira Allen
John Allen, 3rd Viscount Allen
Oscar K. Allen
Roger Allin
William B. Allison
James Allred
Edward B. Almon
James Lindsay Almond, Jr.
Alfred S. Alschuler
Richard Alsop
Paul Althouse
Carlos María de Alvear
 Eric Cable  |  Talk  12:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding 15 more

Oliver Ames
Roald Amundsen
Clinton Presba Anderson
George T. Anderson
Heartley "Hunk "Anderson
Jack Z. Anderson
Joseph Anderson
Robert Anderson (Civil War)
Robert B. Anderson
Robert H. Anderson
Rudolph Martin Anderson
Sigurd Anderson
Victor Emanuel Anderson
William F. Anderson (bishop)
William Hamilton Anderson
 Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding Ten More

All I have time for today. Ignacio Andrade, Johannes Valentinus Andreae, Charles O. Andrews , Frank Andrews (Texan), Robert Andrews (clergyman), Frank M. Angellotti, Levi Ankeny, Martin Frederick Ansel, Martin C. Ansorge, Matthew Arbuckle Eric Cable  |  Talk  16:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding 18 More

Branch T. Archer, Leslie C. Arends, Richard Arlen, David H. Armstrong, Henry W. Armstrong, Richard Armstrong (British Army officer), Edward F. Arn, Ellis Arnall, Samuel W. (Wat) Arnold, William W. Arnold, J. Hugo Aronson, Harold J. Arthur, Jacob Arvey, Frank G. Ashbrook, William A. Ashbrook, Turner Ashby,Bowman Foster Ashe, James Mitchell Ashley.
Almost done with the A's. Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

At this rate, we will probably end up having to split the A-E sub-article into A-B and C-E ... but keep going. And thanks. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Yea, we'll see. I figure I have maybe 20 or so more for the letter A. Eric Cable  |  Talk  18:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Letter A Done. Adding Final 21 Names

OK, adding Wayne N. Aspinall, David Rice Atchison, King Æthelstan, John Murray, 3rd Duke of Atholl, John Murray, 4th Duke of Atholl, George Murray, 6th Duke of Atholl, John Stewart-Murray, 8th Duke of Atholl, Smith D. Atkins, Arthur K. Atkinson, George W. Atkinson, William Yates Atkinson, William Wallace Atterbury, Henry Aurand, Moses Austin, Warren Austin, William H. Avery (politician), Samuel Beach Axtell, Charles Brantley Aycock, William Augustus Ayres, William Edmondstoune Aytoun, and Miguel de Azcuénaga.
And with that The letter A is complete Eric Cable  |  Talk  15:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Splitting the list into two sub-lists

OK... per our discussion above... I have Split this list into two bite sized chunks... I have created two "sub-lists" -

(with the idea that the second page will be split further as we add more people)

I have also saved a template page with the text of the Lede paragraphs

If the lede text needs to be edited, that is the place to do it.

This lede text should be transcluded (just add: "{{List of Freemasons lead}}" at the appropriate place where you want the lede text to go) at the top of all the various sub-lists, so the lede will be uniform throughout all our sub-articles.

I have kept this page as a "Main Page" to aid searching (Think of it as a dab page with some introductary text)... the idea is that this page will simply point the reader to the appropriate alphabetical groupings on the sub-lists. As we add more people to the list, and eventually split the (E - Z) sub-list, make sure you add a link any newly created lists on this page.

Any thoughts or concerns as we go forward? Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Why not "Anglo-American Tradition" and "others". You could then divide the Anglo Americans by Grand Lodges (or USA vs other) if they become too large and of course divide the "others" into the relevant tradions (Prince Hall, Continental, Co-Freemasonry, etc.) if they get too large. Probably needs more thought than alphebetical. JASpencer (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Because for a lot of history, the "traditions" (as we know them today) did not really exist. And too many historical figures, it is impossible to "classify" them by "tradition". For example, Ben Franklin was raised in a lodge in Philadelphia (eventually becoming Grand Master) - that puts him in the Anglo-American (Antients) tradition. Then he joins Loge Neuf Soeurs, in Paris - that's NOT Anglo-American tradition... but it's not what we today would call the "Continental tradition" either (what would we call it?). When he returns to the US, he finds that his lodge has shifted from the "Antients" to the "Moderns" - which puts him back in the broader Anglo-American tradition... but in a different sub-group So where do we place Franklin? Now go and look at the masonic bio of Giuseppe Garibaldi... like Franklin, he floated around between "traditions" depending on where he was an any given point in his life. At times he would be listed as belonging to a "Continental" tradition lodge... at others he would be listed as belonging to an Anglo-American tradition lodge. Do we put him in more than one list? That's needlessly duplicative.
Then there is the question of Prince Hall... is that considered a separate tradition or within the Anglo-American tradition? Depends on who you ask.
As soon as we try to break this list of people into "traditions", Grand Lodges, etc, we get problems of definition and POV issues to contend with. However, by keeping things alphabetical we avoid all that. It's simply "Mason" or "not Mason". Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Totally agree with Blueboar (talk) - splitting by traditions of Masonry would be highly complex, controversial, impossible to implement universally, and probably not particularly helpful to a majority of readers. However, the alphabetical split is a good idea, and I'm glad the work has begun - the full list had become too large, both in terms of ease of reference and in terms of load time. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 19:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Also agree with Blueboar, no more examples necessary, but there are loads. Didn't like the dead links in the TOC, so I've adjusted. It was a bit of a "quick and dirty" fix, so suggestions for cosmetics are in order. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i "Pro Grand Master". Encyclopedia of Freemasonry: A Complete Masonic Information Resource. 2012. Retrieved 4 August 2012.
  2. ^ Beevor, R. J. (1931). Hastings of Hastings. Printed for Private Circulation. p. 59.
  3. ^ Anonymous (2003). Representative British Freemasons. pp. 12–13. ISBN 978-0766135895.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Freemasons/Archive_6&oldid=1136916654"