Content deleted Content added
Mozart and Freemasonry |
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 41) (bot |
||
Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=RBP
|action1date=2004-03-15, 01:47:02
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freemasonry/archive1
|action1result=kept
|action1oldid=2852200
|action2=FAR
|action2date=2006-02-23, 08:24:51
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Freemasonry
|action2result=demoted
|action2oldid=40769085
|action3=FAC
|action3date=11:05, 24 February 2006
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freemasonry/archive2
|action3result=not promoted
|action3oldid=40960440
|action4=PR
|action4date=2006-04-28, 11:13:10
|action4link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Freemasonry/archive1
|action4oldid=50523456
|action5=FAC
|action5date=21:24, 28 April 2007
|action5link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freemasonry/archive3
|action5result=not promoted
|action5oldid=126631274
|action6=GAN
|action6date=05:20, 29 May 2007
|
|action6result=listed
|action6oldid=133869233
|action7=GAR
|action7date=30 June 2007
|action7link=Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 25#Freemasonry
|action7result=delisted
|action7oldid=141689208
|action8=GAN
|action8date=23:34, 13 June 2012
|action8link=Talk:Freemasonry/GA1
|action8result=not listed
|action8oldid=49
|action9=GAN
|action9date=4 January 2014
|action9link=Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 38#GA Review
|action9result=listed
|action9oldid=589928454
|topic=Philosophy and religion
|action10 = GAR
|action10date = 14:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
|action10link = Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Freemasonry/1
|action10result = delisted
|action10oldid = 1287701231
|currentstatus = DGA
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=c|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Freemasonry|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Organizations|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities|importance=high}}
}}
<!-- Please do not remove this tag. -->
{{Controversial-issues}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Freemasonry/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Freemasonry/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader={{aan}}
|maxarchivesize=100K
|counter=41
|minthreadsleft=5
|algo=old(90d)
|archive=Talk:Freemasonry/Archive %(counter)d
}}
== Women’s Freemasonry ==
A recent edit added Women’s Freemasonry as a third branch or “recognition chain” in Freemasonry… however, my understanding was that these groups were already covered under “Continental”/“Liberal” Freemasonry. Is this not the case? [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 12:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
:It's a difficult one to determine, while most woman freemasonry would fall under Liberal Freemasonry, some require a belief in God (Universal Co-Masonry and other), which would be incompatible with Liberal Freemasonry, also some Liberal Lodges do not allow women. So, I felt that the most respectful and objective way to present them was to have their own category, what do you think? [[User:Hypersite|HyperSite]] ([[User talk:Hypersite|talk]]) 03:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
::Disclosure: I belong to a liberal Lodge.
::It might be interesting to note that a Masonic Grand Lodge/obedience can be described in terms of its admission policy, without the need to appeal to their "regularity" or "recognition" situation. For instance, if they allow males and females, we can say they are a "mixed" obedience. Otherwise, it can be "male-only" or "female-only". Also interesting to note that some obediences are mixed overall, but let their Lodges have their own gender admission policy, i.e. some of their lodges are male-only, female-only, and/or mixed (for instance, the Grand Orient of Belgium have 3 federations of Lodges, each with their own distinct gender admission policy).
::If an obedience does NOT require a believe in a "supreme being" (overall, in their constitutions), they refer to themselves as "adogmatic", but I am personally not sure if this term is "neutral" in and on itself, since it (might) imply that masons that agree about admitting only "believers in a supreme being" are "dogmatic", which is debatable, to say the least.
::Now, if we talk about "chains of recognition", I think we can all agree that the main "federation" of organisations, internationally, by numbers, is the "UGLE-sphere", understood as the sphere of recognition of the United Grand Lodge of England. Because their self-identity, modern and historical, for good and for worse, has put a lot of emphasis in the admission policy, it happens that the UGLE-sphere is "male-only" and "believers-only", and insists dearly that masons that do not agree about this admission policy will never be recognised as masons by them. Some of the obediences there, like the UGLE itself, might be open to the idea of women-only obediences, to a degree that they recommend them to women looking for admission, but they have been always crystal clear about the non-recognised status (which implies that inter-visitation is forbidden).
::The second "federation" might be the summed spheres of recognition of the Grand Orient de France and Le Droit Humain (which is in itself an international federation), although we could also note a few other french obediences, which are historically important and with relatively big numbers, but currently outside the UGLE-sphere, like the Grand Lodge of France. The reason these big obediences have their own sphere of influence/recognition is because they parted ways with the UGLE at some point in history. Although I am quite sure the reasons are historically complex, we can more or less agree that LDH was founded outside the UGLE because their foundational principle was to admit women and establish a "mixed" obedience, for the first time. The GOdF case is surely more complex, because they were recognised up to some point in history, but it is generally understood that they parted ways because they dropped the requirement to "believe in a supreme being". It is also interesting to note that it took much longer for the GOdF and others in their sphere of influence to also drop the "male-only" rule.
::Well... all things considered, I am not sure what a wikipedia article should reflect. I do not think that to call "liberal" a "women-only" obedience is disrespectful, but I would totally agree that to call it "women-only" is accurate and sufficient. The debate is then how do we call those obediences that are outside the UGLE-sphere. I think the terms "liberal" and "continental" are the most widely used. I can see that "continental" might be geographically misleading, so my preference, currently, would be to call them "liberal", if we define it negatively, that is: that "liberal" does not imply an specific admission policy, but implies that they DO NOT adhere to the founding/traditional policy of only admitting men and believers.
::I fail to see how the usage of "liberal" might feel disrespectful (unless using a different definition with political connotations, perhaps?), but happy to read an argument about it. [[User:Mitelmo|Mitelmo]] ([[User talk:Mitelmo|talk]]) 12:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
::: I think there is a simpler (and somehow more complicated) argument to be made about the branch of Masonry which OWF & HFAF reside in - they broke from Co-Masonry pretty early on in the existence of the continental branch of Masonry. They, specifically, didn't like many of the ritual liberties being taken by the English Co-Masons and wanted to return to a form that looked more like UGLE. Sometime after the split, they quit admitting men and became a strictly women organization, and some time after that relations with regular masonry normalized.<ref>https://hfaf.org/about-us/our-history/</ref> So they're weirdly both "continental" and "regular" at the same time, but also neither. Realistically, given the schism and recognition network (i.e. they have no amity at all with the "true" Continental lodges and only informal relations with UGLE), they probably constitute their own branch at this point, imo. -- [[User:Seemlyable|Seemlyable]] ([[User talk:Seemlyable|talk]]) 20:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
::: Sorry about the double edit - leaving this at the same level. It's also worth noting that there are more than just HFAF and OWF women-only obediences. I'm pretty sure parts of Europe (maybe Poland?) has some women-only obediences that are definitively Continental based on constitutional history, mutual recognition, etc. Lumping HFAF & OWF in with those groups is a bit misleading, as this notion of masonic lineage is extremely important to most masonic bodies in deciding whether or not you are even eligible for being recognized vs fully "clandestine." I think there's a bit more nuance here that we're not really capturing than "if women are there it's continental" when the lineage doesn't really support that. -- [[User:Seemlyable|Seemlyable]] ([[User talk:Seemlyable|talk]]) 20:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Seemlyable|Seemlyable]] I definitely think that it is worthy to mention that there are women-only Grand Lodges that try to keep good relations with UGLE or men-only american GLs (with sources, e.g.: shared public events, shared announcements...). I can see how to categorise them as part of the "continental" world, without any distinction, might not align with their interests and self-perception. However, we should be careful not to imply that all women-only GLs, because of their admission policy, are automatically closer to the UGLE culture or do not see themselves as "liberal"... For instance, some women-only GLs that belong to the CLIMAF association (https://www.climaf.eu/) have links to the GOdF, so I suppose they feel quite "continental". [[User:Mitelmo|Mitelmo]] ([[User talk:Mitelmo|talk]]) 00:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
::Hamisi [[Special:Contributions/102.221.20.218|102.221.20.218]] ([[User talk:102.221.20.218|talk]]) 08:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
{{ref-list}}
==GA Reassessment==
{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Freemasonry/1}}
== Pedophilia allegations ==
Is there some reason why we are not allowing allegations of pedophilia against multiple Freemason leaders to be shown? Nobody claimed it was representative of everyone but enough similar instances begin to indicate a pattern. <ref>https://www.wisbechstandard.co.uk/news/22669825.little-downham-paedophile-leading-figure-freemasons-escapes-jail/</ref><ref>https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-recommendations/publications/investigation/lambeth-council/part-h-allegations-improper-interference/h5-freemasons.html</ref><ref>https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/579523/Paedophile-Mason-lodge-GCHQ</ref> [[User:Tooli Mars|Tooli Mars]] ([[User talk:Tooli Mars|talk]]) 14:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
:Referring mostly to Blueboar's remark that I was referring to "one expelled guy" when in reality I sourced no less than three, so the stated reason for the revert is invalid. [[User:Tooli Mars|Tooli Mars]] ([[User talk:Tooli Mars|talk]]) 15:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
::Meh, I read the sources quickly and thought all three referred to the same incident. But even with three, I think this UNDUE to highlight (especially in the lead section). There are millions of Masons… the fact that there are a few bad apples among those millions is to be expected. Indeed the surprising thing is how ''few'' bad apples there are given that the fraternity represents such a broad cross section of society. Such men are not representative of the fraternity and are quickly expelled when discovered. If there is any “pattern” it’s that Freemasonry abhors such conduct. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 17:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I recognize on your talk page that you are a Mason yourself, correct? I mean no offense by bringing this up nor an attack on your order, I recognize it can be a touchy subject. However I also think it's important to not to skim over somebody's edit before casually reverting it like it's nothing. Especially considering these were very prominent figures within said organization.
:::That said, if you dispute its presence in the lead, I am willing to turn this into an edit request for its own section in the article. Highlighting the allegations specifically, of course. If you believe that these incidents and how they were handled actually reflects positively on the fraternity, then I expect you will be all for that suggestion. [[User:Tooli Mars|Tooli Mars]] ([[User talk:Tooli Mars|talk]]) 18:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
::::As you can see from my user page, I do work as the curator of a Masonic museum… and in that capacity, I am very familiar with the Fraternity, its history and customs.
::::As for the individuals being “prominent”… not really. It does appear that at least two of them served as Worshipful Master (ie Chapter President) of their local lodges at some point, but that isn’t all that impressive - think “Mayor of a rural village” rather than “Member of Parliament” (and definitely not “Cabinet Minister”). Most are locally respected, but hardly “prominent”. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 19:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::With all due respect, at this point, that's pretty much a distinction without a difference. Pretty sure it's not a requirement on Wikipedia that every single member of an organization involved in such controversies be higher than "mayor rank" and that the numbers have to hit an arbitrary threshold out of millions of members before people are allowed to see the information publicly for themselves.
:::::Again, if you don't want it in the lead I can understand that. Though my edit request for it either to be given its own section or at least places somewhere within remains. I reiterate, if it reflects positively on the organization as a whole, I see no reason for you to be opposed to it--unless it really doesn't? [[User:Tooli Mars|Tooli Mars]] ([[User talk:Tooli Mars|talk]]) 19:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::And again, three isolated incidents does not make any sort of “pattern”. These incidents make news precisely because they are ''rare'' (and thus shocking)… but given how extremely rare such scandals actually are, I think mentioning them (at all) blows them out of proportion and gives them UNDUE WEIGHT.
::::::Consider also that these incidents all occurred in one country, and this particular article takes a ''world wide'' scope. To mention these local scandals in this article would be like mentioning wrongdoing by local politicians in our article on the [[United Nations]]. It just isn’t the right ''venue'' to mention them. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 20:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
::::I also reverted the edit as [[WP:Undue]] despite being not only not a freemason, but strongly anti-freemasonry personally. [[User:Jahaza|Jahaza]] ([[User talk:Jahaza|talk]]) 20:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
:Allegations alone are never worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Anyone can make allegations. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 00:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
:Were the incidents covered up or otherwise linked to any large-scale organizational misdeeds beyond individual lodges? Because otherwise it seems unreasonable to put this on the general page for Freemasonry. [[Special:Contributions/38.186.38.133|38.186.38.133]] ([[User talk:38.186.38.133|talk]]) 04:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
::I don’t know the specific cases you are referring to, but I would be extremely surprised if there was any sort of “cover up”. Masons take the reputation of their fraternity ''very'' seriously… and members who are convicted of a crime are quickly expelled.
::The idea of Masonic cover ups is an old canard. I can remember when, back in the 1980s, the UK press floated a lot of speculation that magistrates and judges who were Masons were being lenient on fellow Freemasons who were accused of crimes… Parliament held an inquiry on this, and found that exactly the opposite took place: Judges and magistrates who were Masons were actually ''harsher'' on their fellow Freemasons. They held each other to higher standards. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 12:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
{{reflist}}
== Lead too long? ==
I see that an editor has tagged the lead as being too long. I have to agree.
I think the recent additions explaning the various traditions and factions were wonderful, but also overly detailed for the lead. It should probably be moved into its own section lower down. The lead should be a brief ''summary''.
That said… we could probably do with a reorganization of the entire article while we are at it. It has become a bit unwieldy. So … once we sort out the lead… let’s go through each of the other sections and discuss. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 14:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
:I honestly think the entire article is too long and spends a lot of time focusing on the differences between various traditions. In my opinion, each tradition's article should have more in depth discussions of its idiosyncrasies while the top level Freemasonry article should likely talk more about commonalities, with potentially a brief introduction into the differences. This would also help with some of the [[WP:NPOV]] issues the article has, where the comparisons sometimes trick authors into falsely hinting at a preference for one side or another; in reality, no comparison really needs to be made. As discussed elsewhere, these traditions are not at odds with one another, so comparing every subsection of this article between them gives the false impression of some kind of competition, rather than being two arrangements of the same composition. [[User:Seemlyable|Seemlyable]] ([[User talk:Seemlyable|talk]]) 00:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
== Duplicative history sections ==
The article effectively has two "history" sections, with geographic subsections under each: "History" (which has subsections for North America, the Middle East, and continental Europe) and "Development and Expansion" (which has subsections for France, Russia, Italy, Latin America, and China) directly below it. We should combine these somehow. [[User:Prezbo|Prezbo]] ([[User talk:Prezbo|talk]]) 10:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
:Agree. This article should give the 10,000 foot/meter overview. National histories are best done in [[Freemasonry in X country]] articles (of which we have many). [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 17:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
== Italy section ==
[[Propaganda Due]] probably deserves a mention. [[User:Prezbo|Prezbo]] ([[User talk:Prezbo|talk]]) 11:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
:Nah… UNDUE to mention one lodge that went Fringe. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 16:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
::My understanding it was a big scandal in Italy, probably one of the first things the average Italian thinks of when they think of Masonry. I could be wrong. I see it’s not mentioned in the lead of the [[Freemasonry in Italy]] article, I’ll start there. [[User:Prezbo|Prezbo]] ([[User talk:Prezbo|talk]]) 19:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
:::The issue is that P2 was only marginally connected to actual Freemasonry. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 21:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
::::I’ll do more research. But my first thought is: what is “actual” Masonry? Isn’t that like talking about “actual” Communism or Christianity? It’s a fractured social milieu with no central authority. When I’ve read about P2 it’s always described as Masonic or pseudo-Masonic. [[User:Prezbo|Prezbo]] ([[User talk:Prezbo|talk]]) 21:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::P2 had its charter rescinded in the 70s, and was no longer recognized as a legitimate Masonic lodge. anyone can call themselves “masonry”… but to be legitimate, a lodge must be chartered by a Grand Lodge. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 18:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::I think for Wikipedia’s purposes, if a group calling themselves Masonic is involved in a big national scandal, that rates prominent coverage in this context, even if the national Masonic hierarchy didn’t consider them legitimate at the time. However I also agree with you that the national sections in this article need to be trimmed in any case. I added a sentence about P2 to the lead of the [[Freemasonry in Italy]] article, I think whatever we say about Italy here should be a condensed version of that lead. [[User:Prezbo|Prezbo]] ([[User talk:Prezbo|talk]]) 20:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
| |||