Talk:List of Masonic Grand Lodges/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

GFDL origin

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

• fr:Liste d'obédiences maçonniques

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

Some small loonies added

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

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

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

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

Some Anger Issues :)

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

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

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

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

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

Secular jurisdictions

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

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

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

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

Two from Texas?

I have removed two from the list:

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

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

Lodge and membership numbers

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

International Relations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grand Lodge names... what language should we use?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redesign

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Linkfarm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third opinion

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the quick response.

Do we need further discussion on this? --Ronz (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Should we change the title?

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

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

Merging versions - North America

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

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

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

Two issues to discuss

No consensus for change, disruptive and frivolous sockpuppet accusations aside.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Before I begin, I note that 129.133's latest edits were reverted by an automated program (a "bot")... 129, this will continue to happen as long as you don't register a user name. There are several bots that patrol Wikipedia for vandalism by IP editors, they assume that any large edit by an IP is vandalism (even when, as in your case, it was not) Now, there are some issues with 129's format that should be discussed before we merge versions.... shading vs repeating jurisdiction area I really prefer the "shaded by jurisdiction area" format that I used, over the unshaded "repeat the name of the jurisdiction area" format chosen by 129. Shading makes it very clear where a Jurisdiction area begins and ends. While I don't object to repeating the name of the Jurisdiction Area over and over again, I have yet to hear a convincing reason why we need to repeat "Arizona" for every Grand Lodge in Arizona. I think shading makes that obvious and is easier for the reader to follow. (in fact, as we expand the list, I would suggest extending my format through out). I know 129 thinks we should be prepared in case someone comes up with a way to sort list articles... I don't think this is likely in the near future. Blueboar (talk) All the tables but for one are now sortable.129.133.127.244 (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC) OK... when I am wrong, I admit it. Sortability is nice... but do the entries really need to be sortable? Does sortability off-set ease of reading? I would like to get some other opinions on this before we settle in on one format. 129, please slow down a bit, and get consensus before you make large edits. There is no rush here, we can both take the time to discuss our ideas and preferences before we edit. And we should solicit comments from others if we find that our ideas are too far apart. It is best if everyone who works on this article agrees, rather than tugging and pulling in opposite directions. Blueboar (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC) This page has been more or less ignored since March prior to me coming to it and putting a little time into it. Not that that gives my changes precedence over any other editors, but it's not like there was some consensus that I am disturbing. This article only barely survived more than one 'delete' suggestion. Any editor can make any good faith edit. And yes, of course sortability offsets shading. Functionality over aesthetics.129.133.127.244 (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC) And titling this titling this section "129.133's latest" personalizes the discussion in an unwarranted fashion.129.133.127.244 (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC) I wasn't asking about aesthetics (ie which looks prettier)... I was asking about ease of reading. Ease of reading is an aspect of a pages functionality. I think my preferred format is easier to read than your preferred format. But perhaps we can blend the two and still achieve the same result. Do you know if {{ligne grise}} breaks will mess up the ability to sort? (I have shaded the Africa section as an experiment so we can find out). Blueboar (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC) And please don't take things so personally. I did not mean offense with the section title. When I started the thread, it was to discuss the edits you had just made ... so I thought the title was appropriate. I hope you find the new title and sub-heading clearer and less offensive. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC) As for your comment about the page sitting since March before you came to it... Yes, but I could say the exact same thing. The only difference is that I chose to perform my work on my user draft page (after notifying people of my intent on the talk page) while you chose to do your work here at the article. In fact, looking at the edit history, we both started our revisions on the exact same day. Neither of us is "wrong" in what we did... but because there were two editors making major changes to the article at the same time (but in different places) we now have conflicts. We drifted apart in how we formatted our two versions... to the point that we are now having a little difficulty merging them. I think we can over come the difficulty... which is why I am asking you slow down and work towards consensus. I am not appealing to some past consensus of how things have always been.... I am talking about getting a current consensus on how best to move forward. We need to reach out to other editors in the Freemasonry WikiProject, get them to come to the article so that when and if we disagree (as we seem to be doing now), there are other editors who can help us over come that disagreement. And who knows... they might have some brilliant ideas that neither of us thought of. Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC) OK... I experimented with adding shading to the Africa section... it does not impact the sorting. So, I think we can probably combine both approaches. Yes, when you sort by something other than Jurisdiction Area, the shading is not in a block... but I find that the fact that some of the lines are shaded still makes it easier to locate a given Grand Lodge and read the list. Take a look and see if it is acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Basically, you're set on something, and you're going to do it regardless...129.133.127.244 (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Recognition Network I very much object to the category of "Recognition Network". This may work for some of the organizations listed, but not for organizations like the Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America. This conference is not a "recognition network". Recognition is up to each individual Grand Lodge. It is quite possible for one Grand Lodge represented in the Conference to not recognize one of the others in the Conference (for example, when the Grand Lodge of New York withdrew its recognition of the Grand Lodge of DC, a year or so ago, it had no impact on membership in CoGMiNA). The entire point of renaming this category in my version was to get us away from the issue of "who recognizes who" or "who consideres who" legitimate. I have always had a problem with this... and especially listing UGLE as if it were the determinator of recognition in mainstream Freemasonry... as if UGLE was the head of some sort of faction. UGLE is very respected, and yes, being recognized by UGLE does influence other Grand Lodges. But there are a lot of situations where UGLE will recognize a particular Grand Lodge but that recognition is not followed by other Grand Lodges. Because regularity is determined by each Grand Lodge individually, Grand Lodge A might recognize Grand Lodge B and Grand Lodge C... while B might not recognize C and instead recognize C's rival D (which is not recognized by either A or C). Let's hash these issues out before we merge versions. I am going to reinstate my version until we have a consensus (and ask others to make sure there is a consensus to merge them before we do so. Blueboar (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry about that. I should have looked closer at the edits. --Ronz (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Since the term 'recognition network' was created to suit the purposes of this article, it can mean whatever it needs to say. CGMNA is certainly a recognition network in that it has an internal committee that makes decisions on recognition, decisions that are adopted by a network of Grand Lodges. The pecularites of its function are the subject of an article that you are free to write. It is entirely possible to strip the column out of the article, and just have names and no idea how grand lodges relate to each other. We can strip out all uncited grand lodges, too. And we can keep stripping out information until the article says nothing.129.133.127.244 (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC) "CGMNA is certainly a recognition network in that it has an internal committee that makes decisions on recognition, decisions that are adopted by a network of Grand Lodges."... I don't know where you are getting your information from... but no, absolutely not. The committee does not "make decisions on recognition"... it has no authority to do so. It discusses recognition issues, and may issue a report that contains a recommendation... but that recommendation has absolutely no authority behind it. If a Grand Lodge wishes to ignore it, they can. Recognition is completely up to the individual Grand Lodges to determine. They often disagree. I agree that membership in an external organization can often tell you a lot about a Grand Lodge ... the members of CLIPSAS, for example, have all signed the Strasbourg Accord and hold to a specific set of principles (although you don't have to belong to CLIPSAS to hold those principles). This is why I included a column to list such organizations in my version of the list. But, it is incorrect to say that these organizations are "recognition networks"... CLIPSAS is not about recognition... CLIPSAS is about principles. The various Grand Lodges and Grand Orients that belong to CLIPSAS all recognize Grand Lodges and Grand Orients that don't belong to CLIPSAS. And between them, they are not uniform in who they recognize or do not recognize. CGMNA is not about recognition... it is about very independent Grand Lodges coming together (often grudgingly) to discuss common concerns and share ideas on how to solve to those concerns. (Blueboar (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC) "but that recommendation has absolutely no authority behind it" ---so what? None of these other organizations have that authority either. None of them. They all work the same. "CLIPSAS is not about recognition... CLIPSAS is about principles" if you don't see the absurdity of that statement I don't see how I can communicate with you. I don't care if CGMNA is 99.9999999% about everything else, and .00000001% about recognition, it can be used as indicia of recognition. You seem to be worried about some misrepresentation of CGMNA. Why don't you worry about that in a CGMNA article? ---You can't split hairs about every proper noun in every article. This is one reason why facebook generates so much garbage : everything needs to be fully cited and referenced in each usage, or someone will quibble. It's a useless system.129.133.127.244 (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC) In case you didn't notice, this isn't Facebook. This is an encyclopedia. And yes, every claim, especially contentious ones need to be cited. If you invent terms like "recognition network", that amounts to original research, which shouldn't be in an article either. If an organization is only 0.000001% about recognition, that fact needn't, and shouldn't, be given any mention in the article at all; see WP:UNDUE. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC) And in this case the organization isn't even 0.000001% about recognition... it is about sharing information and ideas to help solve common problems, and about providing a means of informal communication between Grand Lodges that might help resolve disputes between the Grand Lodges. But my concern isn't really about CoGMiNA... it is about the concept of listing "recognition networks" at all. Freemasonry simply does not work like that. Each Grand Lodge and Grand Orient has its own list of other Grand Lodges that it recognizes. Yes, these lists will often be similar from one Grand Lodge to another. This is because recognition is based on whether the Grand Lodge granting recognition thinks the other Grand Lodge adheres to the same landmarks and principals that it adheres to. Thus, the "Mainstream" Grand Lodges tend to recognize each other, and they tend to not recognize the "Continental" Grand Lodges. The "Continental" Grand Lodges, on the other hand, not only tend to recognize each other, they also tend to recognize the "Mainstream" ones. ... the point I am making is that the decision whether to recognize a particular "foreign" Grand Body is made by each Grand Lodge or Grand Orient individually, based on their own criteria... and no two Grand Lodges or Grand Orients will have the same list of recognized "Foreign Jurisdictions". There will often be a lot of overlap, but they are never identical. The entire concept of "Recognition Networks" is flawed. Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC) CGMNA is certainly a recognition network in that it has an internal committee that makes decisions on recognition, decisions that are adopted by a network of Grand Lodges. I'm sorry, but that is both false, and OR, unless you can cite a reliable source for that claim, and, while on a talk page, we don't need citations, to use the term "recognition network", when you cannot show that it is a network determining recognition, in the columns, is pure OR. It IS verifiable that these bodies belong to external associations, as neither of those terms is loaded in the way recognition is.--Vidkun (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Just to strengthen that point, just because a bunch of GLs belong to an umbrella organization doesn't make it a recognition network. At least in the case of COGMINA, the committees only disseminate information - every GL is free to vote as it sees fit. Now, if COGMINA finds that all the requirements for regularity and recognition are met, and passes that info down to a GL, why would the GL vote against recognition? That wouldn't make sense, but it's not COGMINA making the decision. It='s more like an outside audit to help determine a course of action. MSJapan (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC) "why would the GL vote against recognition?" ... I can think of several reasons... from internal Grand Lodge politics to the the question of Exclusive Jurisdiction... or even outright racism (as was the case for so long when it came to recognizing Prince Hall ... and as is, in my personal opinion, still the case when it comes to the remaining hold-outs on that issue). There are lots of reasons why one GL may decide not to recognize another. Blueboar (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC) First, I'd like to thank Amatulic for starting off with an ad hominem attack. I'm fairly confident that's against wikipedia policy as well. I'd report it as an offense, but I am not the kind of person to make issues out of every little offense. It does say something about his character and ability to validly analyze problems. Using a neutral unmrella term is not original research, and he can go where he wants with that claim. Second, grand lodges can be grouped by any criteria. We can group them by the color of their stationery if we want to. Blueboar is up in arms that there might be some connotation of recognition in these criteria, which is an absurd position. To try to hide the recognition issue from readers is equivalent to lying to them. It is hiding the fact that X number of grand lodges do not accept that others are legitimate. ***To note that fact is not to take a side on the issue.*** To try to hide that fact is lying by omission. The fact that the small number of posters here might be willing to lie to the public at large is not proof of the correctness of the attempt. CGMNA is certainly a recognition network in that it has an internal committee that makes decisions on recognition, decisions that are adopted by a network of Grand Lodges. This is certainly correct. It has a committee that acts under its authority to make recommendations regarding recognition. And certainly membership in that organization is dependent on being recognized by the other members (in whatever manner they do so). The rest of you should be ashamed to the extent you're willing to perpetuate a fraud on facebook readers, to the extent you have been willing to do so.129.133.127.244 (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Since the members of COGMINA do not at the moment all recognize each other (Ohio and West Virginia are not in amity), it is clear that you don't know what you are talking about. Blueboar (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Once again, this isn't Facebook. Second of all, you said yourself that it makes recommendations. It does. What it doesn't make are decisions - Blueboar was correct in pointing out that there are times that those recommendations are not carried out by an individual GL (I was apparently suffering from rose-tint). However, I do not believe that membership in the organization is actually predicated on mutual recognition, since that is the choice of the individual GL. The umbrella orgs in Europe fulfill a very different function than that of COGMINA, so we have a bit of apples and oranges and some conflation of cause and effect. I would also put forth that if "recognition network" was invented for this article, then it's OR and can't be used. MSJapan (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Further, it isn't correct to call something like CLIPSAS a "recognition network" either... membership in that organization is based on signing the Strasbourg Appeal, and not on recognition. It is absolutely possible for two GL/GOs to both belong to CLIPSAS and yet not recognize each other (it is also possible for one GL/GO to recognize the other, but for that recognition to not be reciprocated). Again, recognition is the choice of each individual Grand Lodge, and is not something that is "decided" by any external organization. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC) "Once again, this isn't Facebook. " Are you going to persist in making baseless personal attacks?129.133.127.244 (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC) "Since the members of COGMINA do not at the moment all recognize each other (Ohio and West Virginia are not in amity)" how is that relevant whatsoever to whether or not COGMINA is a recognition network. By what logic? How can you make such a conculsion?129.133.127.244 (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Sockpuppets Oh, I didn't realize that we are dealing with a sockpuppetry issue. "In case you didn't notice, this isn't Facebook." (User :Amatulic) 04:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC) "Once again, this isn't Facebook." (User :MSJapan) 14:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Now I call foul. This whole conversation is tainted. Are you Blueboar, too? None of this conversation for the past few weeks is trustworthy anymore.129.133.127.244 (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Both the editors you accuse are established editors. Unless you have something more circumstantial to serve as evidence, besides editors disagreeing with you, please hold off on any further accusations, and withdraw those which you have already made. As a full disclaimer, I became aware of this thread through the SPI channel on IRC.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I am always honored when someone thinks I am a sock puppet of MSJapan, so I do not take offense. If 129 wishes to make a bigger fool of himself by asking at Check user, he is welcome to do so. To get back to the discussion.... 129 stated: "And certainly membership in that organization is dependent on being recognized by the other members"... if this were true, then all the members in COGMINA would have to recognize each other... However, since the members of COGMINA do not all recognize each other, membership can not be dependent on recognition. Blueboar (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Clearly that is a false argument, and I can cite the current practice of COGMINA; and that proves you wrong. Apparently all members of a recognition network do not need to be in full recognition in order for the network to function. QED. Besides, Blueboar, you know that there are degrees of recognition. 'A finding of regularity', 'for the purposes of intervisitation' etc. Moreover, because-what was it, Ohio not recognizing West Virginia?- that does not mean that Ohio recognized some other grand lodge was the true Grand Lodge of West Virginia. Ohio may not recognize the Grand Lodge of West Virginia as regular, but it knows what the 'regular' grand lodge of west virginia is, and at some point expects to be reconciled to it, *in part because they are in the same network of mutual recognition*. Why, Blueboar, do you want to hide and obsfuscate the matter? Why do you make statements you know are unsupportable, or are half-truths which do not stand up? Who are you trying to convince? Of what? What the hell is it you are trying to achieve? What is your point? Do you have an honest point to make?129.133.127.244 (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC) It is likely because he has nothing to hide, and he knows that with the evidence you have now, your report will be declined and nothing will come of it. As stated below, you are better off dropping this issue, and accusation, instead of wasting all of our time.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Daedalus. Think clearly. Was my accusation: "editors disagreeing with" me? Was that my accusation? or was my accusation that two people used a highly unique ad hominem attack, "this isn't facebook". Is that a common expression to you? I can't say I even know what it means. But your evaluation of the situation is a) they are long term editors and to b) widely misstate a clear correlation between two posters comments. Why is the second one even "Once again"? How can MSJapan be repeating himself if Amatulic said it first? Tell you what Daedalus. You want to settle this? Find for me in the wikipedia policy where sockpuppetry is acceptable if it is done by "established editors". because that's the only claim you have made.129.133.127.244 (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I have made no claims, and there is nothing to settle. Your SPI case is going to be declined unless you can provide better evidence than two people saying the same thing(re: disagreeing with you). The only case this brings to light is one filed by the banned user Frei Hans (talk · contribs), where he proceeded to claim that I, and several other established editors were sockpuppets, because we had barn stars on our userpages, and because we used the {{edit conflict}} tag. Merely saying something similar that another editor said is not evidence that justifies a sockpuppet accusation. I've been investigating this kind of abuse for far longer than you have, so please heed my advice and stop this disruptive line of thought. Lastly, since your accusations have not been justified with actual evidence besides two editors telling you of the applicable policy, your accusations fall into the territory of personal attacks. So unless you can provide some real evidence, I suggest you withdraw your accusations.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I think I'll comment on this, actually. First, an ad hominem attack is "is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise". My statement that "this is not Facebook" does not fall into this category, because it has nothing to do with the information in question, merely that this is an encyclopedia, not a social network. Secondly, I used the word "again" because you were already corrected on that statement once before by Amatulic. You then proceeded a second time to claim that this was Facebook, hence "again". MSJapan (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Well, the sockpuppet investigation was denied for lack of any evidence. In the words of the immortal Stan March: "I think we may have learned a lesson today"... that lesson being: don't make groundless accusations against well respected editors... it makes you look like an idiot. Blueboar (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC) And this still isn't Facebook. Just wanted to mention that in case the point was missed the first two times :) ~Amatulić (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC) "Lastly, since your accusations have not been justified with actual evidence besides two editors telling you of the applicable policy" That is a misstatement of the problem I cited. Are you deliberately distorting what issue I had? The evidence I cited? I cited that one poster echoed another in a very distinctive manner. That may or may not be proof, but it is a legitimate concern, but your handling, Daedalus969, of this borders on the absurd. "besides two editors telling you of the applicable policy" is a complete fantasy. it's a fraud. Why don't you post, "I'm going to cover for these two regardless, and I simply want to throw out a threat to you, 129.133.127.244" Wouldn't that be more honest? And as for the Orwellian "stop this disruptive line of thought" that's a laughable comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.127.244 (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Please, please take the time to read, and stop jumping at shadows. Twice, you called wikipedia facebook, as noted on your talk page by an admin. Why on earth are you surprised then, that people corrected you twice? Your 'concern' is not even close to evidence in the least. They told you in a similar way, because it is a way that nearly everyone on this 'pedia uses. The policy referenced is WP:NOT, and the subsection is WP:NOTFACEBOOK. As you twice referred to wikipedia as facebook, they twice corrected you. There is nothing fantastical about it. It is your fantasy however, that these two are sockpuppets just for telling you about WP:NOTFACEBOOK. As said, you are jumping about shadows, so instead of continuing this disruptive tirade, stop pushing the issue and accept that you are wrong.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC) In case I did not make this clear with the above, your concern is not at all legitimate'. Blu and Ama are two established, respected editors. This does not mean 'it makes it okay when they sock', what it means is that they have over time earned respect, and trust from the community, and have not socked, or shown any behavior that would indicate socking, once. For you to accuse them of being sockpuppets, just because you twice call wikipedia facebook, is completely absurd. There is nothing legit about your evidence and there never will be, because two people disagreeing with you does not qualify as evidence. As I said earlier in this thread, your baseless accusations remind me of another case I had dealt with before. In case you did not read it, I shall repeat it again. The now banned user Frei Hans created two articles regarding war and telepathy. They were taken to AfD, and were soon snow-deleted as being POV forks. What did Frei do? Instead of listening to everyone that tried to help him, telling him of the applicable policies, and why is articles couldn't remain, he proceeded to call them sockpuppets(sound familiar?). His 'evidence' like your own, is no where near legit. His 'evidence' consisted of the fact that first of all, we disagreed with him, but second, we all had barnstars and used the edit conflict template(which, as I'm sure you know, are fairly common practices on wikipedia). Now, in case you did not manage to comprehend what the above means, let me say it as straight as I possibly can: Your evidence is not legit in the least, as it is common practice, when someone tries to use facebook as a comparison or argument on wikipedia, to reply with wikipedia is not facebook, in reference to the quick link to the applicable number on WP:NOT, WP:NOTMYSPACE. So get it through your head that these two are not sockpuppets, you are wrong, and if you continue your disruptive antics of referring to them as sockpuppets, you will soon be blocked for baseless/unsubstantiated accusations, which qualify as personal attacks on this website.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Why "recognition network" is OR: the phrase implies that membership in the network equals one of two things - consistent mutual recognition among all members of the network, or or that the network determines recognition for all members. We have shown that this is not so - OH and WVa are still members, even though they are not in mutual recognition. DC and NY remained members while NY had derecognized DC over the Lebanon issue. Additionally, the Conference's Commission makes non-binding recommendations about recognition, but adherence to those recommendations is not automatic, as that would be violative of GL sovereignty. 129, you keep claiming that you are being attacked because people are reminding you this isn't face book. Please note, the first one to mention facebook, was you. Was this simply a typo, and you meant to say "This is one reason why facebook wikipedia generates so much garbage : everything needs to be fully cited and referenced in each usage, or someone will quibble. It's a useless system."? If you think requiring references for terms which were created FOR this article (which you admit here) is useless, then you have shown you do not support one of the bedrock principles of wikipedia - NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Recogntion network is a neologism which YOU say can mean whatever we want it to mean - that equates to "it means nothing". Using that term is misleading at best (it suggests that membership implies consistent mutual recognition or requirements for members to have the same recognition lists) and deceptive at worst, for the same reason, in light of the incident which would provide the exception to the rule, if such a rule existed. You have, in many cases while editing this discussion page, been hostile and tendentious in response to reasonable discussion. For this reason, you were recommended to look into dispute resolution. You claim to have read it, however, you have followed, it seems, none of the steps outlined there: WP:FOC, WP:DISENGAGE. You call it orwellian (a personal attack) when someone suggests that you have a disruptive opinion - namely that two editors using similar phrasing indicates sock-puppetry. Unless you had other evidence that they were sock puppets, basing your accusation on similar phrasing IS disruptive - it's an attempt to derail legitimate issues editors have with your original research, by suggesting that two editors are lying by actually being ONE person - that right there is a personal attack, not focusing on content, but saying "They yelled at me, they MUST be evil!". In short, 129, you ARE being disruptive, you ARE attempting to garner support for a neologism that has no reliably sourced definition, and you ARE taking this personally, and making it personal. Please cease.--Vidkun (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Semi-independent comment, in support of 129 I haven't followed the issues on this page. I have encountered extended, downright obtuse discussion by one or more of these editors on Talk:List of Masonic buildings and related pages. I don't believe Blueboar and MSJapan are the same editor. However, my sympathies are with 129 here, from what i have skimmed so far. 129 seems to have legitimate points (besides about sockpuppetry i think), yet is badgered by multiple editors. Blueboar especially is exasperating, from my experience, opening 65+ and counting discussion sections to dispute one issue after another, related to that other article. I see the same pattern here. 129, thank you for caring about this article and trying to improve it. To others, so what if 129 does not grok everything about sockpuppet investigations and policy. 129 has legitimate points and is being unduly badgered, and so what if he/she eventually comes to believe there is even more evil arrayed against him/her. It becomes reasonable to be paranoid, when everyone is in fact out to get you. In solidarity against Nazi-Masonic oppression! P.S. Pls. don't take that last expression too seriously. --doncram (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Thank you for commenting on people instead of content. Very helpful. Blueboar (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry, doncram, I can't do anything BUT take In solidarity against Nazi-Masonic oppression! seriously. Such personal attacks, while you may be joking about them, have been the norm for multiple editors engaged in edit-warring while trying to add unsourced information on Masonic article, usually with an axe to grind - see the Lightbringer investigation. As you HAVEN'T followed the issue, your only purpose here is personal support, which in this case comes off as a personal attack. 129 has legitimate points Not on the issue being discussed, content-wise, he does not. The items that 129 wants to add, regarding "recognition network" are completely unsupported, and likely unsupportable, by any reliable source evidence. Please take the time to actually familiarize yourself with the subject being discussed, so that you CAN comment on content, instead of personalities.--Vidkun (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is Turkey?

Böri (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

District Grand Lodges

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

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

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

United Grand Lodges of Germany (VGLvD)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Language

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

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

hmmm... you might want to look at:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jurisdictional Area vs Location

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

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

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

Jurisdictional area vs Jurisdiction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A good look at Prince Hall vs Prince Hall

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

"Some are "self-proclaimed""

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

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

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

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

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

Grand Lodge of Nigeria

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

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

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

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

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

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

International relations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Affiliations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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