Talk:Grand Orient of the United States of America

Notability needs to be established

This article does not establish notability under WP:ORG. The only source is the website of the organization itself. To establish notability one needs to be able to cite sources that are independant of the organization. Blueboar (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Improved... somewhat. Blueboar (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it will be hard to argue in an AfD that this does not meet notability requirements. And yes, it is ironic that a Grand Lodge with ten times as many lodges under it (Grand Lodge of Switzerland) is seriously being talked about for deletion. But this is English language, and the other is not so systematic bias comes into play. JASpencer (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a non-masonic source that discusses the GOUS... but given that GOUS is only 3 years old and still quite small (what is it... only 5 lodges?) my guess is that such sources do not yet exist.

Still they are certainly independent of the subject. JASpencer (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I said things were improved. Just wish we had more on them. But then again, given what masonicinfo.com says about them, that does not surprise me. I'll take the tag off... for now. I may revisit the issue after I do some more research. I am concerned by the claims on masonicinfo.com... especially the claims that "GOOFUS" is essentially a hoax (one that GOdF seems to have fallen for)... if this really is just a few self promoters with a website, then I have a problem with Wikipedia giving them attention. If it is a legit attempt to bring "continental style" Freemasonry to the US, then I really don't have a problem. Blueboar (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Again we get to the questionable notability question. There could quite easily be a "Continental Freemasonry in North America" article with GOOFUS the George Washingtion Union, the various GOdF and other expat lodges and whatever else comes up. Many of these could prove themselves to be notable in their own right, given time, but there would be no rush and so they could develop as a section.

JASpencer (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree as to GWU (it is clearly a small but legitimate part of the Continental Masonic tradition ... I am much less sure about GOUSA/GOOFUS. if half of what masonicinfo says is true, these guys could well be more of a Fringe group than a legit Grand Orient. If so, I have to question whether they really warrant mention in any article. But as I said, I need to look into it further before I reach any discision.Blueboar (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please use the acronym GOUSA, the GOOFUS acronym is a slur against our organization meant to make fun of us. As the Immediate Past Grand Master, let me assure you that Ed King knows nothing of the business of the GOUSA. His site is rife with negative speculation concerning groups that he has had no more contact with than through his reading of their websites and the gossip that makes it to him through 3rd party communications. Also, I would submit that considering the highly biased motives and unsubstantiable claims of the masonicinfo.com website, that all references to it be removed from this article. Additionally, in light of the allegations that he has made and the fact that they are being aired on this site, I will submit the following sites for your perusal: 1) [1], 2) [2], 3) [3] (this shows the cover of a prominent French Masonic periodical, which is featuring an article on the GOUSA), 4) [4] (select "Sites maconniques" and you will see the GOUSA site). These are just a few examples of media that is being posted about us in the international community, and I will be glad to provide more if you require it. For future reference, you need to view sources such as masonicinfo.com with much more skepticism and understand that for people like him, we are moving in on his "turf". We could care less for this sort of politics, but there is no middle ground with him. I would be glad to open up a dialogue with anyone that would like to know more about us, which is why we have a phone number and contact form on our website. So, if you really want to know more about us, then contact us and do not blame your lack of knowledge on us. We are not hiding from you, Ed King, or anyone else; they just do not care to talk to us. Concerning the number of Lodges that we have, I can have an individual from each one contact you and confirm that they exist, so I would appreciate it if the insinuation that we are somehow lying about this number would be removed. We are the underdogs in a "turf-war" with a group of Anglo-Masons who do not know how to play nice. You do not see this kind of malevolence between the Grand Orient de France and the other obediences in France; it is a phenomenon that is unique to Anglo-American Freemasonry. You should know that these are the same people that are alleging that I somehow forged or photoshopped our Patent from the GOdF. Obviously, this train of thinking is extremist and should not be taken any more seriously than any anti-Freemason rhetoric. We are growing constantly, but they would still tell you that we are a dozen guys in someone's garage because it is their modus operandi and intent to do us harm. It is just absurd. Aaron Peavy Voltairesghost (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that masonicinfo is not a great site if you're lookig for fair and balanced views, but it does help to show notability and it is a (extreme) reflection on how Anglo-American Freemasonry sees groups such as this. I would certainly want to see better reasons for removing these references. I will stop using the term GOOFUS, and I had no idea it was offensive. JASpencer (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

However, to keep the article balanced and NPOV, we will need to discuss the criticisms that Ed King has made... his site is highly regarded by mainstream Masonry. Blueboar (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Let's remove this slightly from context, apply Wikipedia policy to it, and maybe we can sort something out without getting the Masonic aspect in the way. Let's call GOUSA what it is: an organization with a recognized claim to national scope. It doesn't matter who or what was involved (and having read Jacob's book Origins of Freemasonry, I'm going to leave her out of it too). What is indisputable is that there are not lodges all over the country - anonymity precludes verifiability. Also, five local chapters isn't very much either, even for a state-wide group. Notability based on future growth is a definite violation of WP:CRYSTAL. So I see a little trouble with it from a fundamental organizational notability standpoint. Putting Masonry back into it, what helps notability is histories and other documentary evidence. Some UGLE branch GLs have none available, despite being over one hundred years old. So size really isn't an indication so much as age. I'm not going to argue growth or size, because I know what my jurisdiction's numbers were for the year and they far outweigh GOUSA's total growth. I could also point to five lodges in some single towns. None of that really matters as far as encyclopedic notability goes. Sources are really the key, and GOUSA is simply too new to really have good ones at this juncture. MSJapan (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It meets notability, but why not put a more general article such as "Continental Freemasonry in North America" which could include other groups, past groups (and past attempts to set up groups) and Spanish and French speaking groups. These would easily meet notability. JASpencer (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As you know, I am working on an article at User:Blueboar/drafts with an even broader scope... addressing all of "Freemasonry in North America", which I believe will put the entire issue into proper context and better meet NPOV. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

And it's a good start, but it would not be a good idea to replace this article with one on general Freemasonry in North America. Wikipedia is not paper, so we can have two articles. Easy. JASpencer (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

My concern is NPOV. By discussing all of Freemasonry... both "mainstream" and "continental"... we maintain neutrality. To only discuss one branch is POV. I have no problem with a "Continental Freemasonry" article as an overview of that branch... and I suppose we could create a "Mainstream Freemasonry" article to balance it... but I do have a problem with regional articles that only present part of the issue.Blueboar (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but "mainstream" as far as who is concerned? We're going to get into another terminology problem again. It's getting to the point where we need a MoS for Masonic articles, so I'm going to bash one out. If we all agree on it, it's at least internally consistent. MSJapan (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

'Mainstream" as far as reliable sources are concerned... I did some quick google searches (both regular google and google books) and the term "Mainstream Freemasonry" seems to always refer to the Anglo/US form of Masonry. I didn't find any hits that use it to refer to other branches.

But that gets us off topic... my point is that while I have no problem with having a sub-article of the main Freemasonry article that is devoted to discussing Continental Freemasonry as a concept, I do have a serious problem with creating "Continental Masonry in X" articles. We have already established a need for neutral "Freemasonry in X" articles. That is how we should continue. "Freemasonry in X" articles can discuss all branches of Freemasonry in the given region, giving each branch its proper weight as per WP:NPOV. "Continental Freemasonry in X" articles will give undue weight to Continental bodies in regions where such lodges are tiny and significantly in the minority (even to the point of being the fringe). Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

After further review... and more questions

OK... having looked into this in more depth, I think that the GOUSA is definitley boarderline as to notability (primarily due to its tiny membership) ... but, due to coverage by folks like Ed King, it does indeed lie in the notable side of the grey zone. Also, while it is Fringe when compared to the rest of US Masonry, I think it is acceptable Fringe as per Wikipedia policy and guidelines (ie WP:FRINGE)... since it has been discussed in a serious manner by mainstream masonic sources.

So... the next question for us to look at is the one posed by JASpencer... do we merge this article into a more generalized "Continental Masonry in the US" article (which would also talk about Drouit Humaine, GW Union, and other groups alignend with the Franco-Liberal-Continental tradition) or not? I am actually of mixed mind about this. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think if we do it should be clear that this does not mean that articles can not be carved out later. It will just mean that all those odds and ends like the Grand Omega lodge, the Hispanic lodges and the GOdF lodges can be covered without looking at their individual notability. I saw somewhere that there were 23 lodges including George Washington, GOUSA and a few non-Americans. Add in Grand Omega, the Hispanics, other foreign obediences and who knows what else and you've got a small but notable sub-strata. JASpencer (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree... taken together the "Continental" alligned bodies in the US and Canada are indeed a notable topic. This is especially true if we include Mexico in North America. The question isn't whether we should mention GOUSA in that article (we should)... I think the question is whether we should merge this article into the broader article, or whether we should continue to have a seperate article as well? Is there enough coverage to really merit a seperate article? Or should we wait until there is more to say about it?

I am leaning towards merging until there is more to discuss, but see some possibility of leaving it. To me the determining factor is how much we want to discuss the criticism of folks like Ed King... If we leave it seperate, then we need to explore the criticism in much greater detail. If we merge, I think we can omit heavy discussion of the criticism (a one or two sentence summary should surfice)... as such criticism apply only to GOUSA and the article would be on a much broader topic.

Further Question... if we do merge, should the over arching article be limited to "Continental Freemasonry in North America"... or is that better addressed in a truely over arching article on "Freemasonry in North America"... in which we discuss both "Mainstream" (Anglo-style) Freemasonry and Continental (Franco-style) Freemasonry. I think this can be done in a NPOV way that does not skew the article towards a Mainstream bias. I envision simply starting off with a neutral discussion to explain the differences, then seperate sections on the various alignments that would contain brief discussions of individual groups within those alignments. Just a thought. Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Freemasonry in North America is a missing article, no doubt about it - but I don't think that I would try to merge this article into it. It would get drowned out and so could be seen as inappropriate. JASpencer (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So... would this be ready to go to a stub article: Continental Freemasonry#North America ?

I am not at all sure that it would be inappropriate... We are developing "Freemasonry in <Region> articles" for other regions of the world... that is how we should set things up when discussing North America. Such articles should discuss all of Freemasonry in the region... both Anglo tradition and Continental tradition. There is already a seperate article to discuss Continental Freemasonry as a concept (and it already has a good section to deal with their North American affiliates -I see that you have mentioned GOUSA in it... that is appropriate). The more I think about this, the more I don't see the need for a seperate "Continental Freemasony in North America" article. In fact, I think a seperate article limited to just "Continental Freemasonry in North America" would violate NPOV.

That said, I do not think GOUSA would be drowned out in an all encompassing region article. As I envision such an article, mainstream/UGLE affiliate Freemasonry could be lumped together (as there is a degree of uniformity). I think you could cover all of mainstream Masonry in a few paragraphs. Prince Hall Freemasonry would get its own short subsection. And the rest of the article would be devoted to the Continental affiliates, which would take far more space to discuss simply because there are more permutations to discuss (CLIPSAS affiliated, SIMPA affiliated, other affiliates... and un-affiliated bodies). Blueboar (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not against a Freemasonry in x article, I just don't see any harm in also having a "Continental Freemasonry in x" article as well. I certainly would not merge the GOUSA to a Freemasonry in North America article. The continental tradition in the US seems peculiarly non-English speaking (after all the small and new GOUSA has enough English speaking sources to establish notability, does the older, larger and CLIPSAS founder Spanish speaking Grand Lodge in the USA?) and I'm sure that there are various bits that are currently lost - such as American offshoots Italian and Polish freemasonry, and the Louisiana grand lodge that had a walk in part in the grand schism (the GOdF recognised it, and some American GLs hated that). The article also does not need to violate NPOV and I can't see how it would. All said I don't think we need to think in terms of or, but also and. JASpencer (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would object to having "Continental Freemasonry in x" articles, whether we are talking of x being continents, or countries. Such would only present part of the Masonic picture in any given region and would bias the article. For example... if we look at Mexico, we have a multitude of Grand Lodges... some align with the Continental tradition, some align the US/English tradition, and some have tried to be a blend and end up aligning with neither. To fully understand the history, influence, politics, indeed the entire concept of "Freemasonry in Mexico", you need to discuss all of these in one single article. To just discuss one side of the picture is simply wrong. You have complained in the past that there is a systimatic bias against Continental Freemasonry in some Freemasonry articles here on Wikipedia... and I think that complaint has some valitity ... but that problem is not solved by creating a bias for Continental Freemasonry in a new set of articles. It can only be corrected by discussing Freemasonry in all its various forms. Blueboar (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

GOUSA isn't a hoax - the topic has arisen on research lists, and it does exist. How big it will get, I don't know, though it's not likely to see rapid growth because there's an oversaturated market anyway. Is it worthy of an article? At this juncture, I don't think so, but we have this problem of existence implying notability (i.e., claims a national jurisidction, though has not demonstrated that scope) that we haven't really resolved.

Looking at the larger picture, I think it is a waste of time to be splitting out articles on either "Continental Freemasonry in X" or "Freemasonry in X" unless there's enough information available already (meaning more than a name and address and the existence of a webpage). Otherwise, there's no real benefit to be gained besides another stub that's going to sit for a year with no edits and get deleted because it never asserted anything besides its existence. MSJapan (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, we will only grow at a steady and organic pace. We have never indicated that we are seeking quantity, only quality is needed. Not to throw a tool into the works, but I have some additional questions and comments that may redirect the thoughts behind some of this logic. What membership size constitutes notoriety? There are a few "regular" jurisdictions that are near to the point of having no active members in America and on the verge of non-existence. Sure they can pull out a membership roll and show their numbers, but most of them are over 50 and just renewing their dues. What about lifetime members that pass away and are left on the rolls for years? All of this is happening today, yet American Masonry still boasts its 1 million or more membership. There are numerous papers on this topic of discussion and perhaps it would make for a good wiki topic as well. (Among those papers, one can be found through the Scottish Rite, Southern Jurisdiction.) However, my point in examining it here is in regard to the following: If the GOUSA has 1 active, motivated, and industrious member for every thousand that American Freemasonry has sitting on the side-lines and attending lodge once a year (or never), how is it any less worthy of notoriety? We are the topic on the tongue of many Anglo-American Freemasons because they know who we are (at least the ones in power do and some have spoken with us or actively fight against us).

We have given no indication that we are another supper club that is only devoted towards the perpetuation of its own survival and bringing in the masses with a one-day class to be a Master Mason. Which is another point that must be considered in this discussion, if a group has almost consistently lost members for about the past 50 years, is it worthy of notoriety? What makes it relevant in society if it is decaying from within? Please understand, I was raised a Master Mason in a "regular" American Grand Lodge and left of my own free will. (I was not expelled as Ed King would have you believe. He still thinks that I do not exist or that I am Jeff Peace in diguise on the internet.) I harbor no ill will towards "regular" Masons that are willing to dialogue with me, but the "my way is the only way" routine is reminicent of religious radicalism. Freemasonry is not a religion, however there is an element that grew to prominence in the latter half of the 18th century, which displays a clear characteristic of this sort of religious radicalism; they are known as the "Antients" (or "Ancients"). There are numerous papers on the schism in Masonry that took place at this time between the Antients and the Moderns, but the difference in philosophical foundations is still found today. What is here being referred to as "Continental" or "Franco" Freemasonry was, and still is, representative of the first GL of 1717. Any prominent historian knows this and I can suggest some good academic resources to back it up. What eventually led to the overturning of the Moderns was the fact that the Antients were bringing members into their lodges in mass. Not surprising considering that they are doing it again today to try to alleviate the current trend of declining membership and participation. However, we are Moderns and as such we are devoted to selectively choosing the best and brightest from among the petitioners. Not everyone gets across our west gate. Thus, it is also preposterous to be accused of selling degrees in some sort of money making scheme as many have libeled and slandered us as such. Just so everyone knows, our members have a madatory 8 month wait between each degree, which may even be longer depending on the lodge. In addition, we have certain educational standards that must be met before proceeding, which consists of multiple research papers, per degree, among other things.

This is only our beginning stage and yet we are taking from the rolls of "regular" Freemasonry as well as gaining new non-Mason membership among those who have been alienated due to race, creed, religion (or lack thereof), and orientation. There are entire lodges in the "Antient" or "regular" Grand Lodges that are contacting us and petitioning us for membership. It is unfortunate if this article is removed because our list of lodges will grow in the next year, as it will for years to come.

I appreciate your time in reading this long-winded post, but really feel that we are being compared like "apples to oranges".Voltairesghost (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Voltairesghost... all that is fine... but it really is besides the point. No, offence intended, but you sound like you are trying to convince us to join (and given that MSJapan and I are firm and active "mainstream" Masons, and JASpencer is a very devout Roman Catholic, who takes the Papal ban on Freemasonry seriously, you are waisting your time if this is the case). That isn't the purpose of Wikipedia. The question that we are dealing with isn't how wonderful or how dispicable GOUSA is... it is simply this: is GOUSA notable at this moment in time. Dispite its grand claims and hopes, I think it is still too small to really be called notable. It is certainly worth a mention in the context of other articles (the Continental Freemasonry article comes to mind) but I just don't think it merits its own article.

FYI... I am going to draft up a "Freemasonry in North America" article on my talk page (actually my "drafts" sub-page). It is currently in a very preliminary stage, but when I am done, it should given you an idea of how I think such an article should be structured and handled with NPOV. Feel free to swing by and make comments and suggestions. Blueboar (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Voltaire's Ghost - do you have a link for either the analogy between the ancients and moderns and do you also have some links about lodges petitioning for membership? These two areas look really interesting. JASpencer (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

JASpencer, Dr. Margaret Jacob is a well known UCLA Historian and author of many good works on this subject. She is also friends with our current Grand Master, John Slifko.

Some of the lodges wish to remain anonymous for the moment (as is their right in our form of system), but Halcyon is by far the most visible at this time. I cannot comment further on it or its involvement until some affairs are settled with the GLOH, but I am sure that it will be cleared up soon enough. A couple of our lodges were entire groups of men that voluntarily left their lodges to join us, perhaps to say that it is the entire lodge may have been a bit too far, but it was certainly a good portion. The issue at hand in regards to lodges reaffiliating is the fact that the current lodges in the Anglo-American GLs are entirely beholden to their GL. In many cases to the point that they forfeit all their land and property if they decide to leave. For a group that once was supposed to represent liberty and freedom, it has strayed far from its origin. Of course, that is if you believe that they are the same group that the Freemason Founding Fathers had joined. There is much evidence that the Antient GLs, once present in America, were highly influenced by English politics. This was about the same time when the discussion of religion and politics was forbidden in lodges. For an example of how they treated the Founding Fathers, just look up what they did to Benjamin Franklin. The GLofPA just recently gave him a Masonic funeral, only 200 year late. He was a Modern Mason if ever there was one; he even belonged to some French lodges. The French lodges never came under the influence of the Antients. So, it goes to reason that, although they use the Founding Fathers as their poster boys today, they were not a part of the Antient GLs. This point can be argued, but I believe that the evidence speaks for itself.Voltairesghost (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL... geeze Voltairesghost (can we shorten that to VG for the sake of simplicity?)... Ed King would have a field day with that reply... talk about saying a lot without providing anything specific! You talked around the question without actually answering it. You say there is a historian who is friends of your Grand Master... but don't tell us what she says on the topic... you have anonymous lodges and a lodge that you can't comment about except for giving us a name. You say there is evidence that the Ancients were highly influenced by English Politics, but don't give any indication as to what that evidence is. None of that really answers JAS's question (JAS... if you want to read up on the Ancients and politics ... Andrew Prescott has a good essay about it... I'll see if I can find the link for you.) Seriously, I can see why King gets so vitriolic. In any case, we seem to be off on a tangent with this. Can we get back to discussing whether to merge the article or not? Blueboar (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar, no offence taken, but the tone of your posts sound a little defensive. Perhaps this is not a subject that you are unbiased on? Considering that you are a "firm and active 'mainstream'" Mason, I wonder why you have such an interest in trying to remove this article? I imagine that when you began this quest that you did not expect a real GOUSA Mason to speak up. I have nothing against you personally and am sure that you are a fine person, but I believe that your obvious bias in this situation may make you a less than worthy candidate in making suggestions regarding "Continental" Freemasonry. No offense. Also, perhaps you should read more real history. Dr. Jacob is one of the best known (non-Mason) Masonic scholars in America. (I would recommend an non-Mason historian's work over a Mason due to their objectivity to the subject.) Please read this.[5] Considering that she is on the Academic Committee for the International Conference on the History of Freemasonry, which is being held in Edinburgh on 29-31 May 2009, I find it unfortunate for you that you do not know anything about her works. Oh, look who's name shows up next to hers...none other than Andrew Prescott. Many of her works are easy to obtain through Google or Amazon.com. Google works wonders for those names I gave you, Blueboar.

As I said in my previous post, I was attempting to show that comparing your system to ours is simply "apples and oranges". By the way, have any of you ever looked up Ed King to find out what other people are saying about him? If not, you may want to reference that in regards to his links. Have you noticed his link that says it is an email from the GM (me), at that time. He left out the part where I told him that I thought that one day we could be Brothers of the same fraternity and would gladly embrace him as a friend if he would stop his libel. Somehow, he left that off of his site; he has to keep up appearances, after all. Since we are now putting sections on these articles regarding the detractors, perhaps I should quote from the history of the GLofAL on why it will not allow blacks into its lodges. It says that "no negro or other of the inferior races may become a Mason". I have a photo-scanned copy of this and it is easy to find on the internet. (Yes, this is the GL that I left, and for obvious reasons.) However, if that was my agenda, then I would have done it already. So, I am asking you, why do you intend to disgrace us in such a manner as to link us to such libel? Herein lies the true difference between our systems of Freemasonry. Whereas, you seek to destroy that which is different, we seek to embrace it into a greater whole. (Please refer to the terms "recognition", "clandestine", and "bogus Masonry" for examples of this sectarian divisivness.) This is the brotherhood of humanity and it is not built by hate and division.Voltairesghost (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting... my tone probably sounds defensive because I was trying not to make it sound overly antagonistic and offensive. In any case... you are correct that I have a bias... but I try not to let it affect my editing here on Wikipedia (and when I slip, people like JASpencer are excellent at pointing out my error). I freely admit that my views towards GOUSA my initial reaction to your group (and thus to this article) was based upon what was said at Masonicinfo.com. That is a site that I find usually gets it right, and which I have a high respect for. To be brutally honest, if all I had to go on to counter Ed King's remarks were the things you have said here, my view would not have changed. I tend not to take people at their word... I need actual citations and links to things before I believe them. However, I am always willing to consider that I could be wrong.

What has somewhat changed my mind about GOUSA is simply the fact that GOdF has recognized you. That gives you some degree of legitimacy in my book. So, my personal opinion has changed... while I still think GOUSA is a bit of a fraud (making lots of claims about themselves that do not completely match reality)... I no longer think it is a complete hoax. In fact, I now consider it a legitimate (if misguided) attempt to reform what you view as problems within mainstream Masonry. I don't agree with your view, but do agree that you are entitled to them.

Such is my personal opinion, and my opinion as a Mason... As I said, I will try not to let that affect my editing. My opinion as a Wikipedia Editor, is that GOUSA is, at this point in time, still too small to merit a seperate article on Wikipedia. I don't find it notable enough according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This opinion has nothing to do with my Masonic affiliation, nor with my personal views of GOUSA... it has to do with the small number of members you currently have (especially when compared with mainstream masonry), and the dirth of discussion of your group by reliable secondary sources. This may change with time, at which point so will my opinion as to GOUSA's notability. Unless you can point to more sources that talk about GOUSA my view as to notability isn't going to change. Blueboar (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

How many members do we have? It seems that everyone thinks that they know this, but the reality is that nobody outside of our Executive Board has any clue.

As far as the perceived illusions, it may be hard to understand from the perspective of Anglo-American Masonry, but "Continental" Freemasonry has its fair share of enemies and threats. Therefore, there are many that choose not to make themselves known in public, even among our group. They all have their reasons, some because they fear retribution from their Anglo-American GL, but choose to stay affiliated with it because they enjoy the social activities (Shrine, etc.). We do not wear the Masonic "bling" or have flashy bumper stickers. It was "Continental" Freemasons that were executed by the Nazis along with other political prisoners of WWII. I hope that the perception of trying to deceive you and others fades with time and is understood in its proper context. You may not agree with the choices that I have made, but as I said before, I became a Master Mason in the GLAL and left it in good standing. So, I ask that you try to take me on my word as a Mason for now. We have nothing to hide and certainly make no money on what we do. It is all a pure labor of love; just alone I have contributed thousands of dollars to the cause and countless hundreds of hours. After all, I was a founding member, the first GM, and now act in other capacities to benefit the fraternity. If you wish, I will subject myself to a third party audit, just to prove to you and the rest of the Anglo-American Masonic fraternity that we have not made a single dollar from any of our activities. Of course, you will need to pay for the audit, but if you happen to raise the money I will gladly submit to it. I have nothing to hide in this regard and want to make that very clear as the allegations of such are the worst kind of libel because its intent is to make us look like criminals.

Regarding Ed King, I would like to point out an obvious flaw in the logic of your messages, if it is not a bother. First, is the general perception that he "usually gets it right". Do you have evidence of this or do you just wish to believe it so? How many libel suits have been filed against Ed King? Will he submit that fact onto his website? If he continues to call people criminals on his website, there is a good chance that he may be facing more in the future as well. Second, I would like for you to show me Ed King's sources. As a wikipedia editor, you have stated that you would like to see the sources for my information. Now, I am asking you to hold Ed King to the same regard. The commentary on his website is his opinion based on his skewed perception of reality, which is that all other Masonic groups are either money making schemes, expelled Masons, or both. In fact, only a very small minority of our members were ever expelled. Actually, let me rephrase that, they were "erased". You see, according to Masonic jurisprudence, they were entitled a trial before being punished. However, due to the overzealousness of the GM at that time, he stepped over the line and told these few in GA that they were never Masons and that their records were to be stricken from the books, so to speak. All of this is well known to Ed King, and his myopia of hatred toward our group has made him focus on this event for some reason. Our GM and GJW are in California, our GS is in Michigan, our GSW and GT are in GA, our GSEF is in Paris, our membership committee is chaired by a Brother in Arizona, and I am in Alabama. So, tell me how Ed King's postulate that we are a dozen guys in Jeff Peace's garage with a bunch of websites is even close to the truth. It could not be further from it and only time will tell. That Brother, is all that I ask from you in regards to judging us. You shall know us by the fruits that we bear, and our relationship with the GOdF is just the beginning. No claims are being made here, just asking that you stay tuned-in if you are sincerely interested in the truth of the matter. I do believe that I now understand your perspective on us very well, for I have encountered many others in your position. Please forgive me if I have come across as rude in any of my posting to this talk; it was not my intention to do so.

Finally, in regards to JASpencer, I would just like to thank you for your unbiased and inquisitive look into our corner of Free-Masonry. It is hard to tell the difference with so much misinformation on the internet (even with Ed King aside, there is a lot of bad information out there), but the difference will become more clear with time. I greatly respect the fact that, although you are unable to become a Mason due to your faith, you seek to understand it in a non-judgmental fashion. English speaking countries have been essentially under the influence of the UGLE for so long that they view all other forms of Masonry through a tinted glass, colored in the shade of their form of the Craft. Having come from Anglo-American Masonry, I feel that there is enough difference in what we do and what our goals are that there is no reason we cannot all coexist as a single fraternity with many flavors. Will this unity occur in my lifetime, perhaps not, but my hope is that the tide will turn and the unbending and divisive mindsets will fall away. Maybe we are a group of idealists, but then again, so where the Founding Fathers of America. (As an aside note, you may have noticed the hyphenation of 'Free-Mason'. Some Anglo-American Masons make fun of this distinction, but it is the original form of the word as used in Anderson's Constitutions. We have chosen to use it to further align ourselves with the Moderns and their progressive philosophy.)Voltairesghost (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The only judgement I am making is whether your group is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. I don't think it is. One of my concerns is size... you seem to take exception to my claim that your organization is too small. OK... Can you at least give us an estimate as to membership numbers to demonstrate my error? (I am not asking for exact figures... your informed guess will be good enough at the moment). The other concern is coverage... Besides your website, and Ed King's website, there really aren't a lot of sources that discuss GOUSA. At the moment we have a short article on the GOdF website and a brief passing mention on another website. I just don't think that is enough. Blueboar (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Notable enough or not

The previous section is getting overly long... so I wanted to move the discussion to a new thread. I have already stated that I don't think GOUSA is (yet) notable enough for a seperate article. VG, am I correct in assuming that you disagree with my opinion?

My proposal is that at least part of this article be merged into a future "Freemasonry in North America" article (I am working on a draft... but it is sitll in very preliminary stages at the moment) as well as keeping the brief mention that is currently in the Continental Freemasonry article. I am also open to other suggestions.

I would prefer not to have to go through the hastle of a formal AfD on this... but, if we can not reach a consensus amoung ourselves, that may be the only way to break the impass and find out what the broader community thinks. Blueboar (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to just gather and post some more links to various sites that make reference to us in one form or another. These do not including the links that were already on my previous post or those of our lodges. There may be multiple references to GOUSA on some of the sites listed here, so I may have linked to the home page instead of each individual page. A search should reveal the finer details.

There are blogs that mention us, some of which are prominent among Masons.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]

There are various forums that discuss us from time to time.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]

Additional sites make mention of us.[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]

Interestingly, some people actually believe that we are a part of some conspiratorial plot.[38]

Enjoy! Not sure how many sites constitutes enough to make one worthy of notoriety?Voltairesghost (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks VG... this is exactly what I have been asking for all along. The blogs and forum postings we can not use... blogs and forum postings are not considered reliable sources per WP:RS (the one exception to this might be Chris Hodapp's blog... he qualifies as a published expert). The final four are somewhat better. Notability isn't just a question of how many sites mention something, we also need to look at who is doing the mentioning and what they say. A passing mention (for example, Paul Bessel listing GOUSA in his list of abreviations) does not really help to demonstrate notability, while a more in depth article (such as appears on the various European webpages) does. While I would still prefer a completely independant source (ie mention by a non-masonic source), I do admit that my preference is a bit unresonable (GOUSA is too new to have been mentioned by scholars of Freemasonry... who tend to look at broad trends within Masonry and not individual bodies). I would say that these citations slightly shift my opinion on notability. I still think it is boarderline... but on the "notable" side of the fence (where as before I placed it on the "not-notable" side).

What about the size issue? Seriously, as a Past Grand Master, you must be able to give us at least a rough estimate of how many members GOUSA has. This is important to notability, as it goes to answering the question of whether GOUSA really qualifies as a "national organization" (which according to WP:ORG is usually considered notable) or not. Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

International can be defined as extending across or transcending national boundaries. By this very definition, we are an international organization because we have a lodge in Greece (soon in other countries too).

Tell me, what number is big enough? It does not matter since this is a subjective evaluation criteria. In other words, it would have to be compared to something else. So, you would compare us to any number of the GLs that have been around for over 100 years. How would that be fair? For this reason, I will not divulge our membership number nor speculate on an estimate. Would the Colonel give out his secret recipe for fried chicken knowing that others would use it against him? Likewise, I believe that we, as an autonomous entity, have certain secrets that must remain so for the time because there are those that would use them against us.

I am not trying to avoid your question, but it has already been established that the amount of membership is irrelevant to establishing notability. So, let me answer your question in an indirect manner. We have less members than the current Anglo-American GLs in North America. In the same manner, I will say that people like Ed King have vastly underestimated our numbers. However, let me restate an assertion that I had made in a previous post: we are looking for quality not quantity and do not intend to bring in large amounts of new candidates. We will grow organically, not in large leaps. There are no one-day classes in our system and there never will be.

FYI, the other post with links below was in the works before you posted, so please be more patient.Voltairesghost (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I ran across some more sites that are talking about us.

Here are some more forums.[39][40][41][42]

I hesitated in posting this link initially as this Brother has now passed away, but he was one of the few that often really tried to view us in an objective manner.[43]

Some more blogs that talk about us.[44][45][46]

More sites and resources that mention or link to us.[47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54]

Again, enjoy! I will post more as I come across them.Voltairesghost (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Again... blogs and forum posts are not helpful... they do not count as reliable sources on Wikipedia. And you seem to be avoiding the size issue. Please answer that.Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The claim to being International is questionable... I don't think having one lodge oversees makes an organization "International in scope". You say that more will come... fine... when that happens you will have a better claim to being International.

As to size, notability, and what I would use as a comparison... yes, I would compare GOUSA to other Grand Lodges and Grand Orients, both old and new, both "Mainstream" and "Continental". I think that such a comparison is appropriate... comparison to other, similar organizations is part of what determines whether any organization is notable or not. This is going to be true of any organization... masonic or non-masonic. As for your assertion that the size of an organization does not matter on Wikipedia... that isn't quite correct. We have recently deleted several articles on masonic organizations for exactly that reason.

What is unfortunate here is that, since you refuse to give an estimate as to size, we are forced to rely on your detractors (such as Ed King) for information. If they are correct, and GOUSA is actually relatively tiny... it has a direct impact on whether we can really call it national or international in scope, and that impacts its notability. An orgainization that consists of perhaps 100 people in toto (as Ed King seems to indicate) isn't notable, no matter how many states or countries they live in. Blueboar (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You may think as you will on the word 'international', I copied the definition directly from an online dictionary.[55] "Refuse" is a very strong word for what I am saying to you. It is more like I am protecting my interests and my organization from would-be attacks by the likes of people like Ed King. We are certainly the underdogs when a group of men takes the exaggerated claims of a hate-monger for truth; I should have the right to protect our interests when all reason and friendly debate are replaced by religious-like zealousness, bigotry, and hate. There is no magic number that would satisfy him, and, unless we were bigger than all the other GLs combined, he would give us hell about it. I am not ashamed of our numbers, in fact I am very pleased with the amount of growth that we are seeing. We have had to play on the battlefield of minds in order to show that Ed King is nothing more than a scared, old man that is channeling his fear into a seething hatred of others. Considering the enormity of our enemies and the fact that they far outnumber us, I think that we are doing pretty dang good. Perhaps that fact should be a wake-up call to Anglo-American GLs to reform rather than to fight. Yes, we are relatively small compared to Anglo-American Masonry in America, but you already know that. So, why are you baiting me to try to divulge specifics when it does not make any difference? I have never said that in the context of a purely relative and subjective viewpoint in comparison to the size of Anglo-American Masonry that we could compete in numbers. In fact, I have asserted the opposite in my prior post. So, why do you persist in this line of thought? You guys have been in America for over 100 years and we have been here for only 2+ years. Do you actually expect that we will match you in that time?

Just so you know, over the past 48 years, Anglo-American Masonry has seen an average decline of over 2% per year. This rate of decline has accelerated in the past 20 years to an average of about 3% per year. So, you guys really do not have room to talk when your membership is decaying and falling apart.[56] (The GOUSA is living evidence of this fact, which is why people like King hate us so much. The majority of our membership has left a GL of their own free will through demitting. It burns him up to see us succeed at anything. He has been predicting our failure since before we officially formed and has been proven wrong over-and-over again.) The Anglo-American GLs always count their membership as a whole, which came out to 1,483,449 members in 2007. However, if you actually look at the breakdown of the distribution of this membership only two GLs have more than 100,000 members, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The number of those that are either already below 10,000 or are relatively close to dipping below it is growing year-over-year. So, does an organization still have notoriety when it has not had an increase in membership in 48 years? What do you think is going to happen when some of the smaller GLs can no longer afford to operate? Food for thought.Voltairesghost (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Not here, though; this talk page (and Wikipedia in general) is not for espousing a position, but to improve articles. This conversation is turning into a position piece as to why you are better than the Anglo lodges, and it is inappropriate - leave the advertising on your official webpage. What has not been addressed is the lack of reliable sources as per WP policy. If you cannot address that issue, then the discussion is over. We are not going to go back and forth doing "he said, he said" for the next six weeks.

I will also add that from my experience that this is a general problem on WP - the officers of non-UGLE bodies come on here and try to justify their existence rather than addressing the sourcing problem, because somehow one offsets the other, or so I would imagine. Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle, nor is it the arbiter of any sort of legitimacy. Furthermore, we don't deal in possibilities and futures - it's pretty clear through policy what's notable and what isn't, and if a group isn't, then there's nothing to be done aside from waiting and seeing what develops, and revisiting the issue after something develops. MSJapan (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is taking a position? I merely quoted some facts and asked some questions. If this offends you or you disagree with it, that is not my problem. However, I think you may need to consider the fact that it is Blueboar that brings up Ed King and tries to bait me. In light of this passive-aggressive style of attack, I think that I have the right to defend.

We are not better, we are just different. Apparently, that is threatening to you. I have never said that we are better, and your insinuation that I did just further illustrates your bias in this matter. If this was a court room and you were the judge you would have already recused yourself due to your involvement in Anglo-American Masonry.

Either you have not been paying attention or you have intentionally overlooked my previous posts regarding the sourcing. Try checking out the links that were posted above. FYI, I already know about the blog and forums links, so you do not need to comment on them too.

What is your hangup on dealing with the future? You have said this in multiple posts now. I have not asked you to use your crystal ball. In fact, I believe that looking up and posting the links was a clear indication that I am trying to establish notoriety in the present. Please deal with your bias before trying to contribute to a discussion. Thanks.Voltairesghost (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's baiting you; it's easier for you to see attacks when they suit your purpose. Your sources don't indicate very much; you weren't kidding when you say they "make mention", because that really is all they do. The questions you ask are inappropriate - you are trying to show some sort of inadequacy in the system you don't agree with, and this is not what Wikipedia is for, which is exactly why I stated that you are trying to espouse a position. MSJapan (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not know who you think you are kidding, but your bias in this manner is obvious to any outside observer. Point-in-case, some of the reference links that I provided have articles on the GOUSA, but you refuse to acknowledge that fact. In the context of a response to a comment by Blueboar regarding Ed King and the quantity of the GOUSA membership, the questions that I asked were entirely appropriate. However, being a person that has a personal stake in the matter, you are unable to see this fact. You are biased in this matter and now you are attacking me on a personal level. Sir, you should consider recusing yourself in this matter and preserving your honor.Voltairesghost (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to recuse myself, I simply need to stop assuming you're interested in resolving the questions asked if the answer is not in your favor. Simple question: do you have sources that are not fora, not blogs, not in a foreign language and make more than a passing mention of your website? By the way, I'm not biased; I could care less what you do, and my own jurisdiction is in absolutely no "danger" from your organization, so no, I don't have a personal stake in the matter. I just don't buy the "existence = notability" argument. MSJapan (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

VG, your statement that MSJ should recuse himself from this article can be pointed back at you... as an active and prominent member of the the group in question, if anyone has a bias it is you. What is needed is for everyone involved in this debate to overcome what ever bias they may have, and focus whether the article meets with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. This isn't about whether GOUSA is a "good thing" or a "bad thing" ... it is about whether it is notable by Wikipedia's' standards. GOUSA may be the best thing to ever happen to Freemasonry, but without independant reliable secondary sources that establish notability, we should not have an article about it. I have outlined what is needed in a new section below. Let's see if the standards set out by Wikipedia can be met. Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you both are blinded to your bias. I readily admit that I am biased for the GOUSA, but the only reason I jumped into the discussion in the first place was because of the two of you. If it was left up to non-Masons, that would have been fine by me as they are independent of the subject and generally unbiased in the matter. However, in light of the fact that you both are agents of a body that is in opposition to us (not the other way around), you both are unfit to make any subjective or judgment statements in regards to this matter. This is a very simple matter of ethics, which, I am afraid to say, the both of you need a lesson in. Anytime you are in a position to judge someone, be it as a manager or court judge, if you have a personal attachment to said judgement that could in any way sway your decision, you should recuse yourself. Even if you are not biased, which thus far I have not seen sufficient evidence to prove, your affiliation with an opposing, and often aggressive, organization makes you look biased. Furthermore, the fact that you refuse to admit so, is almost an admission of a certain guilt in the matter. I will further address the guidelines below in another post.Voltairesghost (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is what is needed

WP:ORG, the notability guideline that covers this topic, states the following:

• From Primary criteria: A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.

• From Non-commercial organizations: Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization. In other words, they satisfy the primary criterion above.

Now... VG has given us lot of sources that include mention of GOUSA... but we do not have many relaible secondary sources that include significant coverage. The depth of coverage is what is what concerns me here... the vast majority of sites VG has given us have trivial or incidental coverage... at best a brief announcement of the GOdF recognition, at worst nothing but a link to GOUSA's webpage. We have very little that actually tells us anything about GOUSA itself.

Even if we consider GOUSA national or international in scope (which I don't think we should), I still have a problem... while such organizations are usually notable, I don't think that applies in this case. We still need to meet the primary criteria for sources that demonstrate that it is notable. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The Grand Orient de France and Hodapp are both reliable and independent. While Ed King is a loon, you have said that he is respected by Anglo Freemasons, so should meet reliable and independent. As you would expect with the largest English speaking continental grand lodge in the US (and one that is recognised by the GOdF). This would only lose an AfD if the AfD was done by stealth (and I will try not to let that happen). Of course there's an easy compromise, to do an article on Continental Freemasonry in North America. There is even less question that this is a notable phenomena. JASpencer (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

JASpencer, certainly and I believe that may be the best course-of-action in regards to the question at hand. At least until we have significantly more references to present, which is just a matter of time. It is apparent to me that there will have to be an overwhelming amount of them in order to override the biased objections of the Anglo-American Masons.

Blueboar & MSJapan, in regard to your charges that there are not enough sufficient secondary articles and sources about us, I have taken the time to refilter all of my previous links down to 11 which I believe fit the criteria for the requirement cited above. Neither of the rule citations above names a specific number of sources that must be named. Therefore, it is my estimation that any speculation thereof regarding this number is purely subjective and prone to biased judgment. Perhaps the lack of understanding of depth on your parts is due to an inability to translate the coverage. However, that is not my fault, and the criteria cited above has no limitation on foreign languages. In fact, by the very definition of the scope of an international organization above, it would appear that we do indeed fit such a criteria. This is undeniable given the amount and variety of articles that I have presented here. (Note: The previous statement requires a certain level of objective reason to hold true.)[57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67]Voltairesghost (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's see what our sources say:

Source 1: "GOUSA received a patent from GOdF" - only proves existence and recognition by another body (which does not confer notability; see WP:N), not notability of group.

Source 2: same article, but in French - that's not going to work

Source 3: Blog - no good, and I don't care if it is Hodapp; his book is one thing, and his blog is another.

Source 4: About Slifko's election, not the GOUSA.

Source 5: Doesn't appear to be immediately relevant, and again, it's in French.

Source 6: Only shows existence by a brief mention and website link.

Source 7: Personal blog, misspelled "atheist", very little content period and again only a brief mention of existence - no good.

Source 8: 69 page piece on what to do to revitalize Freemasonry. Substantially not about GOUSA at all.

Source 9: "GOUSA receives patent", which we already know from two other sources.

Source 10: "GOUSA takes shape" - this is even worse, as it dates to March of 2008 before anything was official; you can't claim notability based on a planning idea.

Source 11: Ed King, who I guess you will use if you think it makes you notable, but above you claimed this was a different group. I don't see how an artticle about a different group can make a cxase for your notability.

So what have you shown that meets the criteria of "multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources"? People might even quibble about whether Masonic sources are reliable, but as the info isn't really gong to be anywhere else, that has to slide. The majority of those sources are lucky to have a pertinent sentence in them, and the ones that have more than that simply don't say anything of substance. Have you tried reading the Wikipedia notability policies before deciding it's "big bad Anglo bias" that's the problem? MSJapan (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, the web magazine of the Grand Orient de France put in a massive English language article on these people. You also have Hodapp who's recognised as an authority on the subject of Freemasonry (and whether that's in his book, web page or blog doesn't matter, as you know). You have Ed King's attack piece and he may be about as reliable as freemasonrywatch but he is also as independent of GOUSA and you have the Toronto Society of Masonic Research. Like it or not this is notable, although I expect there will be some wikilawyering around the individual sources a la Hodapp. Still this article has notability on its own although it would be a much better idea to fold this into an article on Continental Freemasonry in North America. JASpencer (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JASpencer on this and believe that the dissecting of the sources in a such a manner is a very subjective art. They have been posted and I am not going to discuss them any longer as I believe that they speak for themselves. I do not disagree with the creation of a Continental Freemasonry in NA article, and believe that this is a good compromise for now. I leave that decision up to those who make it. For the most part, the debate here has been a friendly excercise and I thank you all for allowing me to participate. This being my first foray into the world of wikipedia, I am certainly better informed for my next discussion. Thanks again to the two Brothers and JASpencer for all their input.Voltairesghost (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That article was not in the sources given by VG, so I'd like to know where you found it. The problem with Hodapp's blog is that it is precisely that - a blog. It is by no means held to the same standards as his book was, and that invalidates it as a source, because it is his personal space. VG claimed on this page "GOOFUS" isn't them. There's a lot of "X group said" in your argument. First off, how would you know how important the Toronto Society for Masonic Research is? There might be ten guys in it, and if it's the source I think it is, all it had was a weblink. My question is, JAS, are you judging notability on who says it (or more precisely how important the people saying it sound (i.e., do they use a title that sounds like they're a big deal), or are you basing it on what is said and how much? "Multiple non-trivial" does not mean "two". MSJapan (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I said that GOOFUS is a slur meant to hurt us (although even we find it a little funny that Ed came up with something so creative), not that it was not in reference to us. Please re-read my post if you intend to quote me. Thanks.Voltairesghost (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Even conceding that point, can one prove notability with a source meant to show whatever it is is not worth anyone's time? King's piece is not simple criticism; he doesn't make any bones about saying that GOUSA is worthless and shouldn't be bothered with. I don't think that because something is criticized, it's notable. Also, with Ed, it seems ot be an evolution over a period of years, so how much of that piece really is relevant to the present GOUSA is up for debate. One could always ask him, as he had ot have kept abreast of the topic. MSJapan (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did I find it? I looked on the sources on the main page (ignoring the GOUSA's page, obviously). As far as blogs go in WP:SPS "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Hodapp ticks those boxes. I wouldn't want that to be my only claim for notability (as the rest of that SPS paragraph explains), but as one of the claims that's perfectly OK. But the main claim for notability is simply this, it is currently the largest English language presence of liberal freemasonry in North America at the moment. That's what makes it notable. JASpencer (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd point out that the policy says it "may be acceptable", not that "it is acceptable", and I think in this case that it is not. "largest presence" is subjective - VG has said he has no publically available proof of size. So, you're taking it on his word that his group is the largest, and I take it you'd discount Le Droit Humain and any presence GOdF might have had in the US (assuming that they aren't still in the US anyway)? It's a big leap. MSJapan (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

MSJapan, on this point, you are correct. We are only the largest masculine obedience. LDH may be bigger than us right now, and they are mixed-gender. We certainly have more lodges than GWU, GOdF in NA, GLFF, and GLFB. This is a matter of fact that can be verified either through their sites or our's. However, one point of notability and perhaps the largest reason for the vast amount of discussion found on various blogs and forums is the fact that we are the first Enlgish-speaking masculine obedience that has established a presence in NA to be in amity with the GOdF since the American GLs revoked their recognition. I am not asserting the forums or blogs as a source, just using them to show credibility in this arguement as there is a vast amount of chatter on them about us.Voltairesghost (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In reguards to Hoddap's blog... Having worked extensively on WP:RS and WP:V, I can say that it should be considered an exception to the "No blogs" rule. The problem, however, is that all Hoddap says is that GOUSA exists, and that he (Hoddap) disapproves of the fact that one of GOUSA's leaders remained a member of his 'mainstream" lodge when he GOUSA, essentially violating his obligation. I don't call that substantial coverage.

In reguards to the GOdF article... it tells us a lot about the ceremony where they recognized GOUSA... but it doesn't discuss much about GOUSA itself. I don't think that counts as substantial coverage either. And that is the big problem here. Really, the only substantial coverage is GOOSA's webpage, and Ed King's webpage.

Finally a reply to VG's last coment... first... the fact that you may have more lodges than GWU, GOdF in NA, or those other bodies is not really important to this debate... those bodies are not considered notable enough for wikipedia either. Being larger than something that isn't notable does not make you notable ... it just makes you slightly less "not-notable" than they are. Second... there is a difference between a claim and verifiable fact. You may claim to be larger than these other bodies... and for all I know, you may well be... but the problem is that to say it on Wikipedia, you would need to provide verification to something other than your self-published website. Given that Ed King challenges your claims, given that he is of the opinion that GOUSA consists of no more than 10 or 20 people and that some of your lodges do not actually exist, I think we need more than just your word for it. Blueboar (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you really believe that the GOdF would have had anything to do with us without verifying our claims first? We had to submit all of our paperwork to them for verification before the amity and patent could be approved. So, again Ed King is shown for what he really is, a sham and libelist. The GOdF would never do something that would bring disgrace upon themselves, such as approving a patent for a small group making outrageous claims. That my friend, you can take to the bank.

Concerning our numbers, I will reiterate a point that I made on JASpencer's talk page. According to Masonic tradition, each lodge must have 7 members, and a GL cannot form without at least 3 lodges. Therefore, any claim that we have less than 21 members can be outright disqualified from the standpoint of reason and basic math in this manner. However, we have more than 3 lodges and I am sure you can do the math to find a minimum number, which is much less than we actually have.Voltairesghost (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point. What the GOdF was able to verify or not is irrelvant. It's what we here on Wikipedia can verify that matters. WP:V states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." So what can we here on Wikipedia verify? On GOUSA's webpage it claims to consist of 8 lodges. On his page Ed King states that at least some of these are bogus. Unfortunately, given the lack of reliable sources, we have no way to know which statement is "true". You say Mr. King is a sham... he says the same about you. The difference is that he has published his views while you have not published your views. Thus, we have to give his views more weight... simply because he prints his version of the "truth" and you don't. We can verify that he says what he says... we can't verify what you are claiming here. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That is circular reasoning. You are spinning your tires with a position like that and it gets you nowhere. I stated my views here for the record, which I do not believe makes any difference in the matter at hand. As far as truth is concerned, I am sure that you and Ed King believe what he says, but he has no evidence to back up his accusations. Likewise, and last I checked, in a free society the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. When the news first came out about the patent and amity with the GOdF, the first reaction from Anglo-American Masonry was that we are a group of liars and that somehow I had forged or concocted the document image on our site. Since then, you all have had to eat crow and I think it is leaving a bad taste in your mouth, which is why Ed King is so popular. The Anglo-American Masons "want" to believe he is telling the truth. However, as I said before, there is absolutely no evidence to back his accusations. All-in-all, this line of discussion is irrelevant to the topic, so get over it. The fact remains that there is sufficient documented occasions where the GOUSA has been a topic of an article. The citations regarding sources that you posted before never indicated that you get to pick and choose which ones you subjectively view as "truth". However, I will submit this article for deletion myself if you can convince Ed King to delete his article and not put it back up.Voltairesghost (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No... it's simply how Wikipedia works. We can only base our articles, or decisions as to whether something is notable or not, on what has been published in reliable sources. What you think, what I think, or what anyone else thinks is irrelevant. At the moment, the only estimate for membership of GOUSA that has been published is that given by Ed King... If I remember correctly, he estimates it as being under 30. That may be incorrect, but it is the only number that we can verify. At the moment, Ed King presents the accusation that some of GOUSA's lodges are bogus, and there are no statements from independant reliable sources that say anything differently. Heck, even your self-published website does not really address the issue, since it simply lists lodge names without giving an address or any contact info whereby anyone could verify that they exist. It doesn't matter that you have what you think are valid reasons for not doing so... Wikipedia does not care about that. All that matters is that you don't do so. Blueboar (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning "GOOFUS"

The fact that Ed King continues to use "GOOFUS" after being asked not to do so is important... while he states that he originally used this simply as an acronym, the fact that he continues to do so is indicative of his opinion of GOUSA... "GOOFUS" discribes his opinion of the organization's founders (ie that they are "Goofy") and their conduct (that they are "Goofing us"... ie GOUSA is a con job). Please note that the article makes it clear that this is Ed King's acronym, and not the one preferred by GOUSA. It may be derogatory, but it is Ed King's term, not ours. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It's like quoting freemasonrywatch to justify the use of the term. JASpencer (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Masonicinfo has a much better reptuation for accuracy than Freemasonrywatch. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

So where is GOOFUS used outside Ed King, Wikipedia and some blog and forum comments? JASpencer (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere... that is the point, it is part of Ed King's criticism of the groop. That's why I think it should be mentioned in the paragraph on his criticism. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so tied to this? It simply appears disruptive and needlessly provocative to this outsider. JASpencer (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't my provocation, it's Ed King's. I simply feel it should be mentioned as part of the discussion of King's criticism. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As they say on your side of the pond, "guns don't kill people, people kill people". If it were repeated by others (other than blog comments) or said by someone who actually matters then it would make sense to have this, otherwise it just looks like taunting. JASpencer (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Blueboar (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's not employ double standards - by that same reasoning that a Grand Lodge qualifies as a "living person" means I can tag Grand Lodge of West Virginia as the same - the lawsuit is so far not proven, only claimed. Clearly, that doesn't make sense - King's criticism as used here is not of an individual, but of a group. MSJapan (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP standards apply to all biographical information of living people, not just biographical articles of living people. JASpencer (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... If using a potentially provocative term is biographical information... and BLP applies to all biographical information... does this mean I should remove all those claims and allegations that are made against Masonry by detractors in all our other Freemasonry articles (including those in the Catholicism and Freemasonry article)... after all those might be seen as being provocative by Masons. Or do I misunderstand what you are saying. Blueboar (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP applies to unsourced statements, etc. The BLP notice was pre-emptive as I can see where this is going. If you really think that retailing Ed King's playground taunting is the way to build an encyclopedia then that's your problem. That doesn't come under BLP though. JASpencer (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct, it isn't a BLP problem. I am not sure what you mean by you "can see where is this going?" Have I added anything to the article that is not sourced and clearly stated to be the source's opinion? Blueboar (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The real issue is that if we allow the BLP template to stay, it's the equivalent of saying "unsourced criticism of an organization that someone is involved in is the same as unsourced criticism of a person even if the person is not named in the article", and that's simply not true. A similar example would be criticism of a local church being equivalent to criticizing any Archbishop of that church anywhere in the world or in Roman Catholicism, the Pope himself because the individuals are involved in some fashion involved with the organization the local church is part of as part of their lives. A bit absurd, isn't it?

Now, I agree fully with the removal of unsourced material, but there are other policies that cover that instance if it isn't a person being talked about, not BLP. Moreover, it's been clearly established that Ed King said it, so it's been sourced adequately. Remember, we don't judge the accuracy of statements, only that they are verifiable; nothing refuting King has been provided as counter-evidence to render his claim spurious, despite King's own stated request for such. In short, there's no reason for BLP even if the material was unsourced. MSJapan (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

From WP:BLP "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page." (Original emphasis). So if it's not biographical material then you can repeat Ed King's playground taunts if they were notable or representative (which they aren't) but Hodapp's criticisms would be harder. JASpencer (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Why what? JASpencer (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would Hodapps criticisms be harder? Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry. Hodapp accuses them of breaking their word and organising some group in secret. It was a direct attack at the conduct of identifiable individuals. Attacks on the actual setup are fine and can be reported if the source is reliable and authoratitive (but let's leave King's status aside for the moment) but the same rules do not apply to individuals. Hence it's OK to say that people say that there are fewer lodges than reported but it's not OK to say that one or two founders are making fraudulent claims unless you have a far higher standard of proof. JASpencer (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying that they are making fraudulent claims... I am saying that King accuses them of making fraudulent claims. Saying this is not a BLP violation. If GOUSA has any degree of notability, it is due to such attacks. King claims of fraud are directly related to the notbility of the organization.

BLP?

To what extent is this article a BLP? And if it is, what statements are in question? Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

They're being accused of being charlatans, etc. They're obviously not liked. BLP applies to non biographical articles. JASpencer (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah... so are you saying that the criticism section should be removed because it includes a discussion of those accusations? Or what? Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Just saying that these are real people's lives and reputations here and this isn't some school playground. So anything unsourced will be removed. JASpencer (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah (again)... I can fully agree with that. Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Criticism section as inadequately sourced. CIreland (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. JASpencer (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

King's allegations of fraud

Is there a reason for removing the statement that King accuses GOUSA of fraud? Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Accused the founders of making fraudulent statements. Yes, it violates WP:BLP. Fraud is a criminal offence. The criticisms of GOUSA as an organisation are fine, but this is beyond decent and King is simply not an adequate source for such serious allegations. JASpencer (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to appear bluff, but this should be discussed before being included. If there is a BLP question then we should be careful. JASpencer (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem... I agree with your intent if not your actions. It isn't a BLP violation... King's accusations go directly to whatever notability the subject has... (you, yourself had noted this). It would be a BLP violation if our article stated that the founders had committed fraud... it is not a BLP violaion to say that King believes they have made fraudulent statements.

But if it makes you happier, I will shift things around to avoid discussing the founders ... we can focus on the organization and its webpage and not discuss the people behind them. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Just remove the allegation of fraud. King's reliability only goes so far, and certainly not that far. That's all you need to do. Why's that so hard? JASpencer (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that King believes that GOUSA (whether we are talking about the organization, its websites or its founders) has made "extraordinarily misleading" and "fraudulent" statements is at the heart of his attacks on the organization. Since you feel that King's page is important to establishing GOUSA's notability, it is equally important that we accurately and completely represent King's view on the matter. I would agree with you as to BLP if we delt with this as fact (ie if we stated that GOUSA's webpage did indeed contain fraudulent statements) ... but we don't... we deal with it as an opinion. We clearly say that King believes this. And that opinion should be stated using the words of the opinion holder. He uses the word "fraudulent" (slightly different in context than "Fraud")... I see nothing wrong with quoting him (using quotes to show that the word is Kings, and clearly attributed and cited to him). Blueboar (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear, King takes this very personally and in most of his attacks he makes it evident. He has attacked many of us on an individual basis, including myself. In the past, it has been our decision to ignore people like Ed King, but after reading some of the comments on this talk page, I feel that it is time for us to take a stand against him. I will add a link to the new site as soon as it is up, and will deal with his allegations as well as the claims made by various GLs. Truly, it is sad that we must even address such ridiculous notions, but if that is what must exist to "counteract" his mad ravings, so be it. Do not say I did not warn you, it will not be pretty.

On a slightly different note, please see my comments in the next section as I agree that a redirect is the most logical choice right now because it appears that we are riding the razor's edge in sourcing. Once I can re-establish the claims of notability beyond any reasonable doubt, then I will appeal for the article to be recreated.Voltairesghost (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

On the notability issue... the way to establish that GOUSA is notable is to find sources that are completely independant of GOUSA (and probably independant of Masonry) that discuss GOUSA in some detail. If you can do that, you should not have any problem with notability. Good luck.Blueboar (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

Better sourcing is desperately needed in this article. I'm certainly not an expert or even terribly familiar with Masonic societies, however it appears that almost all of the sources are Masonic publications talking about themselves or each other. The other sources appear to be a blog, a college newspaper, and a site I'm unsure passes the reliable sources smell test (masonicinfo.com). If some reliable secondary sources cannot be produced, perhaps this should be redirected to another article as a section. AniMate 21:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking an independant look at this AniMate... I think your comments help clarify things significantly.

Folks... I think this brings us back full circle.... to the issue of establishing notability... because we all know that if the sources we currently use are not good enough, then there are no reliable secondary sources. So... to repeat a question I asked about a week ago... shall we redirect this to Continental Freemasonry? Blueboar (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this has to be redirected. We simply cannot have articles where the only references are published by members, associates, or (in this case) other lodges associated in the same overarching organization. As was already pointed out a much larger lodge has already been redirected to Continental Freemasonry. I've done some very cursory googling of this, and the majority of websites I saw (and by all means this was not an exhaustive search), were either blogs or websites affiliated with the masons. Again, are there any reliable secondary sources out there? The best of the bunch cited earlier was a college newspaper, and that seems quite telling. Anyway, if there are not, then all of the arguing on this page is pointless, as a subject without valid references cannot remain an article on Wikipedia. AniMate 10:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps under this line of thinking it is also reasonable to redirect most of the state GLs to Freemasonry? Most of the sources for them are consistent with those that have been cited here (e.g. one Masonic organization talking about another, etc.). Additionally, many of them are as small, if not smaller, than the GL mentioned in the quoted citation above.

I believe that a redirect for GOUSA may be the best remedy for the moment, but it certainly needs to be to a liberal or continental Freemasonry page. To forward to a general Freemason page would be an error as it would not define this organization.Voltairesghost (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of your comments... most of the articles on the various US State Grand Lodges do not meet notability requirements. Those that don't should indeed be redirected or deleted (that is something I have been arguing at the Freemasonry Project page for quite a while). And I have already stated that the best place to redirect the GOUSA article to would be Continental Freemasonry. Let's see if JASpencer (the creator of both articles) has any objections... and if not we can let him carry out the redirect. Blueboar (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with redirecting this to Continental Freemasonry in North America which is easily notable and sourceable. JASpencer (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and redirected it. The information will be in the page history, and if a new article on Continental Freemasonry in North America is written, the redirect can be changed. AniMate 21:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The article has been written to complete this move, and I've changed the relevant redirects. JASpencer (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A heads up to anyone reading this, but Continental Freemasonry in North America has been created. Any interested parties should comment and edit over there. AniMate 23:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I will simply note that I have repeatedly stated on this page and elsewhere that I think that creating a Continental Freemasonry in North America is a violation of NPOV... that JASpencer knows my feelings, and knows that I have been drafting a more neutral Freemasonry in North America article that will deal with both "Mainstream" and "Continental" lodges... and that I only agreed to redirect this to Continental Freemasonry. I find his actions in creating the Continental Freemasonry in NA article, and double redirecting this article to that one, to be extremely bad faith. Blueboar (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Matter of record

When I said "I'm fine with redirecting this to Continental Freemasonry in North America which is easily notable and sourceable." that meant that I was OK if this became a wider article (as I've been arguing for a while) and there was certainly no concensus to redirect this to Continental Freemasonry. JASpencer (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)