Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Category:Freemasons (again)

We really need to address this... I raised this issue several months ago, but the conversation died out. Several years ago, we determined that having a category for "Freemasons" was problematic (as there was often no way to be sure that the people added to the category actually are/were Freemasons). At that time, we determined that it was better to listify... we created List of Freemasons and deleted the cat. Unfortunately, the category has (once again) been recreated (and is once again filling up with potentially unverifiable names). Indeed, the problem is growing, as we now have sub-cats based on country.

It is obvious that a lot of editors want to have this category... but maintaining it (checking it for inappropriate additions) remains problematic. I would have less of a problem with it if categorization had a mechanism similar to watchlisting... something that alerted members of this project to the fact that an article had been added to the category (we would then know to examine the article, look for sources, and determine whether the categorization is appropriate or not), but at the moment no such notification system exists (as far as I know). Thus we don't know when a new article is added to the cat, and whether it was appropriately added or not ... we have to manually check the cat on a regular basis (which is a real hassle).

Any ideas? Blueboar (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I have just replied in the village pump, now I see this other thread and understand the specific request. As said in there, save the link [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Freemasons] (piped linked if you want) to your user page or the project page here, and it will provide a "watchlist" of pages that included or removed the category. Sorry that there is the sandbox as well, I categorized it for a moment to test if this tool worked as I understood. Cambalachero (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That does help (thanks)... still not quite the automatic alert I was hoping for, but its better than nothing. Blueboar (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I have added it to external links section of the Project page... as:

• Category:Freemasons - watchlist

So... now that we have a better way to monitor the additions... we need to actually DO so. Our first step would be to clear out any mis-categorizations that currently exist. Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been creating the subcategories, and I do have a question. How do we define, say, an "English" or a "German" freemason? I would say the most logical definition is "the present-day country where the individual's lodge was located". Thoughts? - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Ben Franklin was initiated in France, and became GM of Pennsylvania. One is initiated in a military lodge on a military base in another country, or maybe one is initiated in one country, but is originally from another. For those reasons, the definition is based on nationality of the individual, not lodge location. The general reader has no idea what the differences are, and they are not pertinent for the general audience anyway. MSJapan (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Ramsay was born in Scotland, initiated in England, and was an important French Freemason. There are a limited number of individuals where I don't think the nationality of the mason is helpful, and is in some cases downright misleading. I think we should leave the Ramsays, Dermotts, and Andersons as Freemasons, and anybody else whose influence crosses the boundaries of national jurisdictions. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

While I applaud Biroitorul for his/her attempt to bring order out of chaos, I don't think categorizing the nationality of the mason is helpful (and can, in some cases, be downright misleading)... I would get rid of all the national sub-categorization. It really does not matter whether a Freemason is from England, America, Portugal, France, or the Moon. Blueboar (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Ones from the Moon would be notable, although as I recall, GL of Texas has jurisdiction there by dint of having sent a charter up with Armstrong. Good point about Ramsey et al. above, though I'd also point out we have the "British, or Irish/ Scottish/Welsh?" issue which we've already seen plenty of, and some items relating to historical dissolutions of empires in Europe. Therefore, I would also be in favor of eliminating the subcats again, if only to avoid the maintenance headache. MSJapan (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I would respectfully argue in favor of subcategories, with the caveat that if the nationality isn't clear, the individual be kept in the main category instead. In that sense, I fully endorse Fiddlersmouth's comment. Realistically, we're going to end up with maybe 20 subcategories, a fairly manageable number. (Someone like Eloy Alfaro doesn't need a subcategory all to himself.)

Now, let's say, hypothetically, we get to have 1000 people in the main category, and that 10 of those are Russians. And let's say someone is interested in finding out who the notable Freemasons in Russian history are. Well, he could look at History of Freemasonry in Russia, and he could ctrl-F for "Russia" in the list of Freemasons, but why not give this individual an additional tool - going directly to Category:Russian Freemasons rather than wading through the main category and trawling for a handful of Russian-sounding names?

To be sure, there might be some uncertainty about who is British/English/Scottish/Irish, and that can be ironed out over time. But I still think the benefit of subdividing by nationality outweighs the potential problems. Or at least let's keep the subcategories for a limited period (3-6 months?) and see how things stand at that point. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There is more than just a English/Scotish/British issue... there's a Polish/Russian/German issue (depending on when the person lived)... there's a Serb/Croat/Austrian/Yugoslavian issue... there is the issue of preunification of Italy (do we list them as Italian or Tuscany/Lombardy/Roman/Neopolitan/Venitian?)... same issue for pre 1870 Germany (are they Bavarians/Prussians/Saxons/Hessians/Hanoverians or Germans?). The problem is that the world has changed hugely since Freemasonry started, there are countries today that did not even exist when many of these people lived. Even someone like George Washington could be argued about (he was a British subject when he became a Mason... so shouldn't we list him under British Masons? I could go on. Wikipeida gets HUGE debates over categorizing people by nation/ethnic groups. I strongly advise that we NOT get into that. Blueboar (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Somehow or other, this does get dealt with on other category trees with relatively little fuss. For example, Ilia Chavchavadze was born in the Russian Empire in 1837, lived there all his life and died there in 1907. There was no independent Georgia between 1801 and 1917, yet of the thirteen nation-related categories into which he is placed, eleven are for Georgia and two for Russia. Or take Michelangelo: he died about 300 years before modern Italy came into being, yet he is in five Italy-related categories. Or Nicolaus Copernicus, a man whose nationality is disputed between Germans and Poles, and who died well over 300 years before either country reached close to its present form. He nonetheless fits comfortably into three Germany-related categories and four Poland-related ones.

You're right to come up with various examples of problematic category inclusion, to which I have a three-part answer:

1) The benefits still outweigh the downsides, just as they do for most categories broken down on national lines.

2) There's always the main category if subcategorization is impossible in a particular case.

3) Let's give the idea a trial run and if it actually proves unmanageable, we'll scrap it in the near future. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: the trial run... see the section below, where I am compiling a list of articles that have been added to the category (categories) which I find problematic. I will also note why I find them problematic. Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I note that many of the articles now categorized do not mention the subject's membership in the fraternity. This raises two related issues...

1. WP:Categorization says: Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. ... however...
2. WP:Categorization also says: A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. In a lot of cases a person's membership in Freemasonry is not a defining characteristic... it's trivia... not worth mentioning in the article.

In other words... we have to think about WP:OVERCAT. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Freemasons sent to WP:Categories for Discussion

OK... I have sent this to WP:CfD... nominating the main cat and the various "by country" sub-cats for discussion (Or at least I tried to do so... I don't think I formatted the request properly... so if anyone here knows how to do it correctly, please clean up after me.) Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Order of Knight Masons - AFD?

A concordant body found mostly in Ireland, but has some presence in the US. The article has remained completely unsourced for over a year (despite being tagged). I am considering nominating at AfD as non-notable due to lack of reliable independent sources (I have looked)... but before I do, I want to give other project members a change to look (you might find something I missed). Blueboar (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It's an invitational, and perhaps has limited membership per local group as well; I'm not sure, as there is very little on it available. If we cannot say anything about it aside from its existence, I'd AfD it, as I'm not inclined to create an invitational bodies article. MSJapan (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be invitational in Ireland, where it covers the second temple period that they otherwise ducked by moving the Royal Arch to Josiah's reign. I think it would be better served as a paragraph under Holy Royal Arch. As MSJapan stated, there isn't sufficient verifiable material to warrant a full article. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

OK... nominated (with a note that merger may be an option). thanks for the feedback. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the arguments to delete the article here only further support its need to exist. The Knight Masons would not fit clumped in with the HRA article because it's also open to Royal Arch Masons in the York Rite. It would not fit into the AMD article because trying to squeeze it into AMD is a uniquely American folly, and it really isn't especially considered closely associated with the York Rite as its degrees are more prominent in the Scottish Rite anyways. It is however the basis for the Order of the Red Cross, and portions of the Scottish Rite, and as such in notable in that respect alone. As for finding sources, Google books have a few, but it's going to take a trip to the library to read many of them. I also know of many papers written about the body at a local lodge of research so I may ask some of the writers. I might also just call up my excellent chief and ask him if he has anything. PeRshGo (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: "...it really isn't especially considered closely associated with the York Rite as its degrees are more prominent in the Scottish Rite anyways. It is however the basis for the Order of the Red Cross, and portions of the Scottish Rite..." Perhaps in Ireland... but not in the US. We have to remember that "Scottish Rite" in the US is very different from "Scottish Rite" in Europe. In fact, there are three distinct versions of Scottish Rite (because the US is actually divided into two distinct versions). These three versions of "Scottish Rite" may use some of the same names for their degrees, but those degrees are completely different... and have different histories. Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The 15th & 16th degrees in both the northern and southern jurisdiction for the Scottish Rite trace directly back to Knight Masonry. Influences have altered them but they use the same source material. PeRshGo (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"Influences have altered them" is a huge understatement... You might be interested in reading our article on the My Grandfather's Axe paradox: if every part my Grandfather's axe has been replaced...is it really the same axe? We are talking about more than just "alteration"... over the years, the degrees of both the Northern and Southern Jurisdictions have been substantially rewritten and reworked again and again... to the point that they no longer even come close to resembling the "source material" that originally inspired them. While the process was more gradual in the Northern Jurisdiction, in the case of the Southern Jurisdiction Pike's reworking has to be seen as a clean break. It's kind of like saying that Ancient Rome's Twelve Tables was the "source material" for both the Napoleonic Code and the US Constitution, because it is possible to connect the them through a chain of historical legal documents and codes. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

NOTE - PeRshGo has come up with some potential sources... a lot of them are "self-published" by the KMs themeselves, and so do not go towards notability. A lot of the others only mention the KM degrees in passing... and we need more than that. However, it is possible that there is at least one good source in the pile... which is enough for me to Withdraw the AFD nom (I will revisit in a year, and re-open the nom if it turns out that the potential sources don't work to establish notability after all). Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

One final comment on this (at least for now)... I think we need to distinguish between the degrees that the OKM confers and the OKM itself. The degrees have at least a tenuous historical connection to Scottish Rite, but the the modern Order does not. The modern the Order has no connection to the Scottish Rite... and is instead loosely tied to the York Rite and the HRA.

So... I will raise the following for consideration... is it possible that the degrees are at least somewhat notable... while the modern Order is not? Blueboar (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Well we’re dealing with an organization that has 100 or so councils in the US, another 100 or so in Ireland, and a few spread elsewhere. As fraternal organizations go that’s a pretty good size. Then we take into the account the impact its system of degrees, the “green” degrees have had on Freemasonry as a whole, and I think we find dealing with a decently notable subject. Information about it could potentially be included in every body its had an impact on, but that’s rather messy and would only generate confusion about a subject that is already wrought with it from its name alone. Now, in-depth information is difficult to find, because even most Masonic writers are grossly unaware of Knight Masonic details but I think it’s very easy to find a great number of reliable sources that at least find it important enough to mention, and I think that earns a certain level of notability. PeRshGo (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, but are their reliable independent sources that discuss (in some depth) these hundred or so councils (or the organization as a whole)? That's the issue. For a topic to be considered WP:NOTABLE enough for an article, we need sources that discuss it. It does not really matter how large an organization is, if no sources discuss it. Existence is not notability. (And, just to play devil's advocate... counting the number of chapters an org has can be deceiving... claiming 200 chapters means nothing if each "chapter" consists of only two or three people. I am sure that this is not the case with the OKM, but how do we know without sources). Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

New Article (or possibly essay) for review

Our recent debates at Talk:Continental Freemasonry made me realize that we don't have an article that properly explains the (complicated) issues of Masonic Regularity and Recognition.... so I have drafted one in my user space. See: User:Blueboar/drafts - Masonic recongnition and regularity (yes, I know the title is misspelled). Please drop by and share your thoughts and suggestions. At the moment it is completely unsourced, and thus my own Original Research... that would obviously be something we would have to fix before we could transfer it to main space. I present it as a beginning, not an end product.

Another possibility (if people like it, but no sources can be found to support it as an article) is to make it an essay, attached to this project page... I could see it being used in talk page discussions to give non-masons the necessary background information so they understand what we are talking about when we start to toss around masonic jargon like "Irregular", "Recognized" and "Clandestine". Blueboar (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

An excellent idea, and a good start. You probably want internal schism and mis-governance in there as well (eg GLNF). Shouldn't be too difficult to find general references from coffee table books on masonry, with examples thrown in to illustrate. I think it should be an article, since it rounds off coverage of the subject. It might be an idea to add the jargon into Wictionary. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Believe it or not, this may not be horribly esoteric. OED should have a definition that covers this, and we've got the usual written stuff that addresses it, like Morris and Hodapp, and online stuff, like Paul Bessel. If we will cover all three, there is also a need to look at general historical politics in some countries. For example, I believe (as I mentioned before) that the ban on politics by UGLE was to prevent what happened in France with the Revolution. This is not to say Masons were not involved in the Revolutionary War, but they weren't doing so as members of their lodges. So I think this is RS sourcable, but I would leave it as an essay for now until we have a product we can then maybe distill down into an understandable and sourced paragraph or two to add into an article. MSJapan (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Importance levels

Could someone please post something to show or get started the community consensus on applying importance levels to articles within WikiProject Freemasonry? I am gearing up (knock on wood) to attack this open to do list item and could do well (well, better, anyway) with some guidance. I have gone ahead and applied whatever levels seem right at the moment to many pages, and will leave it to others to vet those decisions.
kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 23:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I cannot rationalise the Premier Grand Lodge of England being assigned low importance. Perhaps they all need looked at? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Take note, I did not assign that one. But I'm gonna be bold and edit it. But I've been bold and edited it. As to standards what I've done is assess what order I would High for something someone who wants to learn about Freemasonry should read first, Mid for what to read next, and so on.
kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 02:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

See WikiProject_Freemasonry#Article_assessment
kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 02:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The question is whether "article importance ratings" are directed towards readers, or towards editors (members of the project)... I think that (up till now) we have been looking at "article importance" from the POV of editing. From an editor's stand point, the more complete an article becomes - the lower its importance becomes (ie it is less important because there less work that needs to be done, while other articles are more important because they do have work to do). That changes if we think of importance ratings as being directed towards readers. If we are talking about readers, I think kcylsnavS's assessment system is good. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Blueboar. After I wrote that I found WikiProject_Freemasonry#Article_assessment, which states:

The following values may be used for the importance parameter.

• Top (Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia)
• High (Subject contributes a depth of knowledge)
• Mid (Subject fills in more minor details)
• Low (Subject is mainly of specialist interest)
• NA (for pages where importance assessment is unnecessary, such as book, template, category, disambiguation and redirect pages; adds items to Category:NA-importance Freemasonry-related articles)
• ??? If an importance rating is not assigned, the article will be filed in Category:Unknown-importance_Freemasonry-related_articles. The rating should be assigned according to the grading scheme. Articles that are unassessed or in dispute can be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Freemasonry/Assessment.

Note that importance is determined by the article's subject rather than its content.
kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 14:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh... I am not disagreeing... I was just explaining how we got where we were... I think that we may have misunderstood the purpose of the "importance" scale. Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand. I repeated it here because I had such a difficult time finding the quality class definitions, notwithstanding the links right on the page, and repeating the importance rating definitions in another place never hurts new editors like me. As a further comment, however, I think "importance" can be bottom-lined as degrees of notability within Freemasonry. In fact, absent some objection, I think I might put that shortcut definition on the project page (since I can't seem to quit tinkering with it this week).
kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 15:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Just found the MOS again after a long time...

Can somebody review it so we can finish it and put it into project space? MSJapan (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Will do. but others should look at it too. Blueboar (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone weighed in on this yet, and it's been a while, so let's hit this again and get it done. I'm going to see about doing some specialty notability guidelines as well. MSJapan (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Pages for masonic lodges which are really about the buildings they meet in

Please see and comment at Talk:List of Masonic buildings in the United States#Pages for masonic lodges which are really about the buildings they meet in. RiverStyx23{^talk_email} 13:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a particularly US issue (although it does occur elsewhere)... in the US it is common to name the building after the lodge that meets (or met) in it... so the building that Cumquat Lodge No. 4321 meets in will be named "Cumquat Lodge No. 4321". (even if Cumquat Lodge itself no longer exists, or has moved out of the building to new premises.)

My personal preference would be to resolve any confusion by disambiguating... articles on notable lodges (the organization) would be entitled: Cumquat Lodge No. 4321 and the articles on notable lodge buildings would be disambiguated as: Cumquat Lodge No. 4321 (building). Unfortunately, such disambiguation is often opposed by our colleagues at WikiProject NRHP (who insist on using the name as it appears on the NRHP database, even if it might cause confusion). Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Masonic Lodges

There is a new discussion at Talk:AF and AM Lodge 687 concerning application of Category:Masonic Lodges. RiverStyx23{^talk_email} 16:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Masonic ritual and symbolism

Please take a look at the above article... Not sure what to do with it. The article seems to have changed its scope and purpose several times since it was first created... but in its current state, it is essentially a just an index list of various articles on Masonic rituals. Perhaps a title move is in order (to List of Masonic rituals. It does not discuss symbolism at all. (Another option is to delete the page and turn it into a category). Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat related, I noticed the article Masonic ritual murders have recently been created as a redirect to Masonic ritual and symbolism... which to me seems to want to give the impression that murder is a part of masonic rituals. WegianWarrior (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

While I'm not sure what to do about it either - I actually liked it better as a redirect to the main article - I have taken care of a couple of minor issues:

Firstly, it does not refer a global world view; in particular the statement that work is conducted from memory (false as far as the Swedish Rite goes, but I can't find a citation for it right now).

Secondly, a sentence under Standardisation brought up the old 'incompatibility with christianity', which is not only fully covered in the relevant article but more importantly has nothing to do with standardisation - it just shows bias on the part of the editor IMHO.

Thirdly, I would love a reference showing that some lodges does have more than one VSL on display during work, and a clarification if this is all at once or different ones at different times.

I would argue it should be turned back into what it was yesterday - a redirect to the main article. WegianWarrior (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to CSD ritual murders - there's no reason to have POV redirects. MSJapan (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Masonic ritual murders... suggest merger into Masonic conspiracy theories... its worth mentioning that there are people who believe this crap, but context is important. Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I know of at least lodge that has more than one VSL on its altar at all times, but I don't know of any third party source that would prove it. It may - or may not - be indicated in the lodge's website. I know you can look at Kipling or Claudy, but I believe all those references are in fiction works. Perhaps one of the earlier Short Talk Bulletins would have something. RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 17:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The categories survive

Now that Category:Freemasons and the subsidiary categories by nationality have survived CfD, I think it's time for opponents of those categories to move beyond trying to have them deleted, at least for now, and join in a discussion about how to use them to their best advantage. One issue left somewhat unresolved from a month ago is how we define "English Freemasons", "Italian Freemasons", etc. Personally, I would say, regardless of lodge, the nationality of the subject at the time of his death (e.g. George Washington was British in his early years but of course died an American citizen) or, where this is unwieldy, the successor state of the one to which the subject held allegiance (e.g. a Freemason from Tuscany or Sicily would be under "Italian Freemasons"). Thoughts?

I would also consider creating a Category:British Freemasons for cases where it's unclear if the subject was primarily Irish, Scottish, Welsh or English. Someone like George VI comes to mind, since we're not supposed to use the "English" categories for British monarchs, even if he did belong to an English lodge. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The closure (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_8#Category:Freemasons) was "No Consensus", not "Keep" (yes, I know that a "No Consensus" defaults to not deleting the cat) It's definitely premature to create even more categories like these, when the broader community is not in solid agreement on the ones we already have. Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I prefer to be more constructive in my approach: for instance, if a half-dozen Finnish Freemasons surface tomorrow, we should create Category:Finnish Freemasons, no question. (And by the way, according to fi.wiki, not only were Sibelius and Risto Ryti Freemasons, but Sigurd Wettenhovi-Aspa, Aake Kalliala, Heikki Kinnunen, Paavo Talvela and Iiro Viinanen are/were also Freemasons. Obviously that would need to be confirmed by reliable sources, but it's something to look into.)

I think there's undoubtedly good reason for a Category:British Freemasons - George VI is an obvious candidate, but also others who straddle nationalities within Britain, say a James Anderson (Freemason) (England/Scotland) or a David Jones (MP for Clwyd West) (England/Wales).

And finally, the question of defining "country" in Category:Freemasons by country remains an open one. It would be edifying to hear some views on that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You are (perhaps unintentionally) engaging in WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT behavior... there are many editors (including me) who still have a serious and unresolved issue with the whole idea of having any "Freemasons" categories... especially "by country" cats. The issue has not been settled... it has simply been postponed. I would consider creating even more categories as being WP:Disruptive, until a firm consensus on the issue is actually reached. I would request that you hold off... until the issue IS fully settled, and we reach firm consensus (one way or the other) on the issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

In practice, "no consensus" closures don't remain frozen until consensus is achieved. Normal editing continues to happen, treating such closures in practice as "keeps". I've just created Category:British Freemasons, not because I'm perverse, but because it happens to serve a useful purpose in its tree. (And if you take issue with that, here is where you file a complaint.) I don't plan to create Category:Zimbabwean Freemasons, Category:Burkinabé Freemasons or Category:Omani Freemasons, simply because there is no need to do so now or in the foreseeable future.

As of right now, we have twenty "by country" subcategories. If that grows to 25 or 30, it's hardly a tragedy, although I don't have any immediate plans for more categories. If by "reaching consensus" you mean "achieving a 'keep' or 'delete' at CfD", such consensus may not develop for months or years, and the normal editing process isn't just going to stop happening in the meantime.

And again, any thoughts on defining "country" for the relevant category would be appreciated. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Not also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 4#Category:Freemasons and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 4#Category:Suspected Freemasons, at which time both categories were deleted. RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 17:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and note also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 3, whereby Category:Freemasons was duly revived. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The key word ought to be consensus. "Here we go" is not a helpful edit description, and the "normal editing process" should not consist of a series of drive-by alterations dependent on the POV of a single editor, otherwise unconnected with the project. These articles have talk pages. Please use them. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I take that as a reference to my edit on James Anderson (Freemason). Well, my edit summaries sometimes veer into the unhelpful, and will continue to do so, I'm afraid. I don't always check in my idiosyncrasies at the door when editing, as long as they don't prove distracting. It does actually makes sense: you had objected to the "Scottish Freemasons" category, so that was my way of saying "here we go, here's a solution to our difficulties". Plus, clicking "prev" and loading the diff takes what, 0.384 seconds?

"A series of drive-by alterations dependent on the POV of a single editor, otherwise unconnected with the project" — would that be a reference to this fellow, or to me? Either way, pardon us for intruding on your bailiwick. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Biruitorul, that's exactly right. I'm simply indicating that there isn't strong consensus either way. I'm not against the category; I just don't see what purpose it serves to label people by way of a method which doesn't require verification. RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 01:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, RiverStyx23, that's a valid opinion. However, as long as we have Category:Freemasons and its subcategories, it would seem reasonable to use them, populate them, make them work in tandem with the List of Freemasons, right? Let's not treat them as some sort of odd relation shut away in an attic. They're there to help and should be handled just like any other category tree, for instance the recently closed as "no consensus to delete" Category:Place names by language, Category:Members of the clergy with criminal convictions, Category:Actresses by nationality.

And for anyone getting the sense I'm some sort of loose cannon wanting to wreak all sorts of havoc on this topic, that couldn't be further from the truth. I did want Category:Freemasons revived for a long time, and when I saw it'd come back, I simply took the opportunity to apply a very standard practice in our categorization scheme, namely to revive the division by nationality. I don't think that deserves so much comment. We have the categories now, they did survive a free and open discussion, and we should try to move on, even if not everyone is happy about them. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Something to ponder

This was not explicitly raised in the CfD discussion... but I think it is a factor, and should we get to the point of a third nom, it should be highlighted. Wikipedia:Categorization of people#General considerations states:

• Categorize by those characteristics that make the person notable: Apart from a limited number of categories for standard biographical details (in particular year of birth, year of death and nationality) an article about a person should be categorized only by the reason(s) for the persons notability. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right.

So let's apply this to the people currently categorized with Category:Freemasons (and the various by country cats). The vast majority of these people, are NOT notable because of their membership in the fraternity. Therefore, according to WP:COP they should be removed from the cat.

That leaves us with just the few who are notable for being Freemasons... people like James Anderson and Albert Pike (people who made a contribution to the fraternity)... AND, as it happens, these people are already categorized as such - see Category:People known for their contribution to Freemasonry. In other words... when we knock out the people who are being improperly categorized... the overarching Category:Freemasons, and most if not all of the by country cats become redundant and potentially confusing. We already have a more appropriate category for the people who are not knocked out. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping WP:STICK would kick in by now, but apparently not. Anyway, what about religion? I know Freemasonry isn't a religion, but it shares certain aspects in common with religion, and we do tend to categorize people that way. Ronald Reagan is in Category:American Disciples of Christ and Category:American Presbyterians, even if he himself recognized he wasn't a particularly church-going man. Or how about Harry Reid? He never makes a big deal of his Mormonism, but there he is in Category:American Latter Day Saints. Or then again, Gerald Ford, not especially known as an Episcopalian or a Freemason, but part of both categories. I don't doubt that the notability of Oliver Hardy, Shaquille O'Neal or Omar Bradley would be the same regardless of their membership in Freemasonry. But I also see the matter in the same light as the religion categories. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

See: WP:Other stuff exists... what occurs with some other category is irrelevant. We are not talking about other cats... we are talking about Category:Freemasons. I am saying that if we apply the actual WP:GUIDELINE that governs categorizing people... the majority of the people currently categorized in Category:Freemasons should not be... and the few that would be left are already categorized (and I think better categorized) under the clearer Category:People known for their contribution to Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Biruitorul... I am puzzled by a contradiction in your argument... on one hand you admit that Freemasonry isn't a religion, but then you turn around and argue that we should "see the matter in the same light as the religion categories" (which I take as you saying we should treat it as if it were a religion)... perhaps you could explain why we should do this? Blueboar (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Biruitorul is arguing that Freemasonry is a religion, but using how categories in the religion area are used. The example of Ronald Reagan or Harry Reid bring that out. Neither is notable or really known for their religion, but both exist in such categories. Your WP:Other stuff exists reference is on point. Ahwiv (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, but that still does not answer the question of "Why?". Why should cat:Freemasonry be used in the way religion cats are used... as opposed to, say, the way profession cats are used (see the musician/lawyer example given in the guideline). Blueboar (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Because, while no one thinks Freemasonry is a religion, it's closer to a religion than it is to a profession. (Feel free to disagree.) Again, take Gerald Ford. He was an Episcopalian as well as a Freemason: no one questions either. But he was pretty low-key about both. I don't think a historian asked to name Ford's top three attributes would pick either of those two, in the way one might for Washington (Freemasonry) or Jimmy Carter (Southern Baptist). On the other hand, as long as he stays in the "American Episcopalians" category (and he will, no doubt), there's no reason for him not to stay in "American Freemasons" as well. It may be a small part of who he was, but it's also verifiable and mentioned in reliable sources about him.

As for your WP:WAX point: for one, that's an essay on deletion discussions, so not really applicable here. For another, categories don't exist in a vacuum and it doesn't hurt to look around and see what practices are followed in similar areas. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Well it's not a binary consideration, is it. Freemasonry is a fraternity and is no more a religion (or a profession) than SAE is. RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 22:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Jack Dempsey

OK... this was one where I removed the categorization, and was reverted. Talk page discussion is now taking place. Please swing by, read the comments so far, and share your opinion. Blueboar (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Categorization clean up

In the recent CfD discussion (here, and our conversations above), it was suggested that rather than delete Category:Freemasons (and the various sub-cats), we need to police it... removing the cat from articles where it is not appropriate.

Following this advice, I have completed an initial clean out. My primary criteria in determining which articles should (and should not) be categorized was WP:Categorization of people#General considerations - Categorize by those characteristics that make the person notable. If there was nothing in the article to support categorization, or if all the article had was a one sentence "bio-trivia" statement (asserting that the person was a member, but had nothing to indicate that the person's membership makes him notable), I removed. I left the cat if there was even a somewhat iffy indication that the person might be notable for being a Freemason.

If you think I removed the cat from an article where it it belongs, please discuss here or on the article's talk page. The removals are not permanent, and we can always return the categorization if it turns out the person is, in fact, notable for being a Freemason. I would also encourage editors to look through the remaining articles... I was unsure on some, and in such cases I erred on the side of keeping the categorization. Some of them probably should not have the cat. Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You make the above sound so antiseptic, when according to the log you link above, you were the nominator for deleting the category, and then you proceed to delete people from the category when you didn't get your way in the CfD vote. When I suggested that before wholesale deleting people from the category on your User Talk page, you delete my comments and ignore it. Only now when your Talk page is overwhelmed with others objecting, do you dignify a response here that is less than open. You post advice on one page, then reference those pages to support your actions, not revealing that it is your own advice. I'd say you are premature in your actions. Ahwiv (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Um... no... a clean up was not my "advice"... I wanted to delete the categories completely. That desire did not gain consensus. However, multiple editors at the CfD said that the solution to my underlying concerns about the category was to police the category. So that is what I did. Now that my policing is complete, I am asking others to review what I did... and fix any mistakes I made (either by returning the cat to articles where they think I mistakenly removed it, or removing it from articles where you think I mistakenly kept it.) This was a first step in what will be an ongoing process. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Jesus. I just went to the history of BlueBoar's talk page and read the argument which I somehow missed. It reminds me of this past weekend when I was at a conference of lodge Sr. Deacons from around my state and I talking about Wikipedia participation and how there are a couple people who think of themselves as the self-proclaimed Grand Masters of Wikipedia. Gee, I wonder why I would ever think that? Eric Cable  |  Talk  19:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if that was directed towards me... but if it is: Nah... Grand Masters only serve for one year (or are purely figure heads). I would much rather be the self-appointed Grand Secretary ... not self-appointed Grand Master. :>)

Now that's funny. Ahwiv (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, Seriously, if you have a problem with my clean out, there is a very simple solution... return the categorizations that I removed. It really is that simple. We can then discuss the issue on an article by article basis. That's how consensus building on Wikipedia is supposed to work... BRD... Bold, Revert, Discuss. One editor edits an article, adding and removing stuff... if someone objects or reverts, you go to the talk page and discuss. Both sides listen to the concerns of the other... they do some compromising and come away with a solution that everyone can live with (even if neither side is completely happy with it). Blueboar (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Adolphus Frederick Alexander Woodford

I have just added the good reverend to the project. He may be largely forgotten, but huge amounts of masonic history is still based on his research, and the work of his followers. Nearest equivalent I could find was Mackey, so I've given Woodford the same importance rating (mid). Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

GL Arkansas declares the Shrine "clandestine"

See: here for more information.

This is going to affect how we describe the relationship between the Shrine and the Blue Lodge in various articles. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I wish I could get that big enough to read. I would suggest, however, that we not fall prey to current events, and see if anything changes in a little while. MSJapan (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You can't zoom? This will give some of the background. I agree that it would be best to take a "wait and see" stance for the moment... but this one looks like it will be hard to resolve amicably. The language of the edict is pretty harsh. Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This is all chest thumping and frankly I hope GM Robert Jackson is run out of office for it. Petty bullshit between a couple high-level individuals. The GM of a state grand lodge can no more order all the Masons in his jurisdiction to quit the Shrine than he can order them to not be members of the Republican Party. I hope Shriners bring out some sick kids and say "look who Robert Jackson is hurting with this nonsense. Call him at (enter his home number here) and tell him what an asshole he is." Eric Cable  |  Talk  23:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Masonic Jurisprudence is fairly clear on this... a Grand Master could issue an edit expelling all members of the Republican party from Freemasonry if he wanted to (he would quickly find his jurisdiction de-recognized by the rest of Freemasonry if he did so... but he has the right to do so under Masonic Law).

The issue that caused this rupture between the Grand Lodge of AK and the Shrine is not petty bullshit, but involves a fundamental question of Masonic Law... Every Master Mason swears "Furthermore, I will not hold Masonic intercourse with a clandestine Mason, nor a Mason under sentence of suspension or expulsion until duly restored" (or words to that effect). To do so is a Masonic offense. Since the Shrine claims to be Masonic, it's meetings constitute "Masonic intercourse". An Arkansas Mason who was also a Shriner was expelled from Craft Freemasonry after a Masonic trial. The Shrine, however, allowed him to continue to be a Shriner. This means that every Mason that sits in a shrine meeting with this man is in violation of his Masonic Obligation.

As for all the kids... You are over reacting. The edict does not ban Masons from giving money to the Shrine (you don't need to be a Shriner to donate, or to volunteer at a Shrine hospital). The hospitals will not close, and kids will be OK. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I thought it was "making Masons clandestinely" because to be a Shriner one has to be a Mason, and if one is no longer a Mason but is allowed to be a Shriner, then the Shrine is effectively conferring Masonic membership on its own by allowing the member to continue. MSJapan (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... that is another part of the argument.

It will be interesting to see what happens. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The Grand Lodge of South Carolina has joined Arkansas in prohibiting any of its members from participating in Shrine meetings in which suspended or expelled Masons are present. [1] --Taivo (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Dispute over instructions at Category:Freemasons

A while ago, I added the following instruction to Category:Freemasons:

*NOTE - Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#General_considerations states:

Categorize by those characteristics that make the person notable: Apart from a limited number of categories for standard biographical details (in particular year of birth, year of death and nationality) an article about a person should be categorized only by the reason(s) for the persons notability. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right.

Membership in a fraternal order such as Freemasonry is not considered a "standard biographical detail". Thus, this Category should be added to articles on people who are notable for being Freemasons, but not to articles about those who are primarily notable for other things, and merely happen to have been (or currently are) Freemasons.

It was my belief that this instruction expressed the consensus of our WikiProject. However, that belief is being challenged (see: this diff). To settle the issue I thought I would ask the project directly... so that we can establish (or re-establish) exactly what our consensus is. so...

Do you agree with this instruction or not. If so, why? If not, why not?? Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• I (obviously) agree with it. I think this instruction is what distinguishes the Category from our List of Freemasons article. My understanding of the relevant guidelines and policies is that the Category should be limited to those who are notable for being Freemasons, while the list article is appropriately more inclusive - listing any notable person who was or is a Freemason... regardless of why they are notable. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• I wholeheartedly agree. Now that we no longer have a separate category for people notable for their contributions to the craft, this is our only flag for persons who were/are eminent within freemasonry. Dumping anyone who was ever a mason in this category is directly comparable with tagging everybody who ever swung a club with Category:Amateur golfers - we end up with an overcrowded, meaningless category.Fiddlersmouth (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wrong Forum. Nothing said here can possibly be called a concensus. JASpencer (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

What would you say is the right forum for determining the consensus of members of a WikiProject? Blueboar (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Personally I can't think of a better place to ask for opinion and building consensus, considering that not all the members of the WikiProject have every page in the project on their watchlist. WegianWarrior (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope, this is a false consensus particularly with a large scale WP:CANVASS to contend with. Wikipedia:Categorization/Noticeboard is the place where you are most likely to get neutral experts. You could then list it on here. Belatedly listing it over there (which has not been done yet) is exactly backwards. This is another example of editors attached to this project trying to write the rules for themselves when wider Wikipedia rules don't suit, as before with notability and AFDs, with the argument that Freemasonry is different. It's not. JASpencer (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Large scale WP:CANVAS? What are you referring to? Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the instruction is being too narrowly construed. For example, Harry S Truman is not in the category, yet is well-known for being a Freemason.[2] [3] Life magazine had a cover picture of Truman in his full regalia as Grand Master of Masons in Missouri. clariosophic (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a valid point (and may require further clarification of the instruction)... although I note that Washington actually is categorized as being a Freemason (he appears in the sub-category: Category:American Freemasons). As for Truman, since he was a Grand Master, he would probably be better categorized under the subcat: Category:Masonic Grand Masters (In fact, I have just added him).

So that we can better understand where you draw the line on this... What would be your take on someone like Leon Abbett or William "Bud" Abbott (just to pick two names at random from our list article). Do you think the instruction valid in their cases? Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I would not classify either one as notable for being a Mason. clariosophic (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Agree. But I also agree with Clariosophic that there might be cases where the individuals themselves emphasized their Masonic connections even when their major contribution was in some other realm. Truman and Washington, for example, were openly Masons and made that part of their public life. Red Skelton and John Wayne, on the other hand, did not make their Masonic affiliations a part of their public life. --Taivo (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• I do agree that the instructions covers most of what should go in the category, but per Clariosophic and Taivo there are a few people who are well known Masons that are famous for other reasons - George Washington for instance - that won't always fit neatly into other Freemason categories. WegianWarrior (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
• I'd say all we need is a tweak. The intention of this was to avoid overcat via intersection of trivial material, and to prevent a lot of uncited additions that were (and likely are) occurring. However, to follow the example above, is Truman really notable to the general public as being a Mason? I'm not so sure, because the only people I've heard it from are other Masons. I know I never learned in school that Truman was a GM. I never learned Washington was a Mason at all, either, for that matter, much less Revere et al. However, enough has been written about the topic for many of these men where it's a supportable statement. Let's just make sure we're not skewing the information based on "specialized knowledge", and also keep in mind that even then, it's not going to solve every potential problem. MSJapan (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Good points. I think we have two issues here... 1) Whether to limit the cat in some way, and 2) Where to draw the line, if we do limit it. My request for consensus was aimed at answering the first question... not the second. Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

My agreement was for 1) and we can leave 2) for another discussion or just case-by-case. --Taivo (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think that some people, while not primarily famous for being Masons, have made significant enough contributions that they should be included. Mozart for the Masonic Funeral Music and the Magic Flute, Sousa for Nobles of the Mystic Shrine and the Thunderer, for example. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with User:JASpencer this is the wrong forum. Rklawton (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Disagree I have to disagree with this one Blue. Your basic premise is that a notable person should not have the fact that they were a Freemason mentioned in their bio unless they were notable for being a Freemason. I find this to be harshly exclusionary and lacking in common sense. By this logic a notable person that served in the military should not have that mentioned in their bio unless they were notable for being in the military (There are dozens of other ways I could make this same argument). I cannot accept that. Becoming a Master Mason is a difficult journey and requires a man be willing to accept a great deal of responsibility and agree to live by a strict code of conduct. This is not done lightly, and speaks to how a man chooses to live his life, which is certainly pertinent to their character as a human being. Finally, it is in no way harmful to the Project to state (if Sean Novack is a notable person) "Sean Novack was a Master Mason and was raised on April 24th, 2012 at Anoka Masonic Lodge #30. He completed the York Rite on May 9th, 2013." Trying to exclude this information sounds like trying to trivialize a particular portion of a person's life simply because you don't understand it or agree with it. (I know this is not the case, but having experienced anti-Masonry hatred from surprising sources in the past I want to warn you that it could easily be misinterpreted). I think you may be trying a little too hard here to not show preference toward something you feel strongly about. SeanNovack (talk) 06:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't see that this is about excluding information, it's about making the category meaningful. For almost every Freemason that has ever lived, Freemasonry is a hobby, just like golf. If I'm researching great Spanish golfers, I don't want to wade through a meaningless list of names looking for people who actually contributed to the game, rather than little-known scientists who played the occasional round. By all means mention masonry in the article, alongside watching hockey, underwater opera, and whatever else they did in their spare time. People who actually contributed to masonry are few enough, let's not bury them. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 10:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

SeanNovack, you misunderstand. This isn't about article content whatsoever. It is only about the categories that we list at the very bottom of every article that index important elements about that article. It is about the automatic lists as here that are automatically generated by Wikipedia to help index. The actual content of any article will not change one way or another if a person has a category entry at the bottom of the article or not. Go to the very bottom of any article's code and you will see the category codes listed after the coding word "Category:" --Taivo (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Taivo, thank you. I was misunderstanding what Blueboar was referring to. I appreciate the clarification and with that in mind I would have to agree that the proper place to make this particular determination would be better made elsewhere. SeanNovack (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• I also have to agree that this is almost certainly the wrong forum for this discussion. The issue is about the application of a category, and the relevant experts to rules of categorization are at the noticeboard, not here. There also seems to me to be a rather serious question of possible forum shopping as per WP:FORUMSHOP here, because, unfortunately, so far as I can tell the active editors of this project tend to be themselves freemasons, which can and should raise rather serious potential problems with WP:POV. Also, there is, unfortunately, the question as how to, exactly, determine that someone is and is not notable for being a freemason. I would think, on the most neutral level, those individuals who have over time received significant attention on the subject of their freemasonry in independent reliable sources would, potentially, all qualify as being to some degree notable for being freemasons. Honestly, that would probably include all the articles we have on people who have been described in reliable sources as Freemasons. I am currently making a list of the articles in the Mackey encyclopedia of freemasonry found at the phoenixmasonry web site, and I tend to think that, honestly, pretty much anyone with a substantive article in what are generally considered relatively reliable sources like that one would probably to some degree merit serious consideration. Now, there is a side issue of overcategorization. That is a different matter, and honestly the people here are probably not the best ones to determine that matter of policy and guidelines. Under the circumstances, I believe the best thing to do would be to more or less close this discussion, file an RfC regarding the question and leave notices on the relevant noticeboards and related pages, and see what input we get.

If the latter is done, I also believe that it would very useful to at the same time ask for independent input regarding what articles should and should not be tagged for the project. In general, I tend to think that any article which so clearly relates to a given topic that reliable sources relating to that topic would contain a significant degree of reliable material which might be covered at some length in that article should be tagged. In effect, use the banner as an indicator "we've probably got some unique material on this subject you could use" rather than "we want to work on this article." I am going through creating a lot of lists, which can currently be found at Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles, and honestly think that, if we are all here to build an encyclopedia, making it easier for editors interested in developing a specific article to find all the potentially relevant and useful sources for information which should receive significant discussion in that article is probably the most neutral and collaborative way to go. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• First, I disagree with the premise of the instructions. I had disagreed with your interpretation of the categorization of people guidelines on several people you tried to remove such a category from. Multiple people disagreed with you at that time, and then several days later, you added this editorialized instruction into the category, without informing those of use you disagreed with you. To me it was an underhanded attempt to get your way by simply adding your opinion to the category. As I originally said, the category for people says "standard biographical information". It isn't demographic information, but biographical information. Membership in a fraternity would certainly qualify as standard biographical information. No biographer would leave such information out, unless it was an abridged version for a specific purpose. The bulk of the objections listed here seem to be along the lines of "it's hard to do what we want within the guidelines of Wikipedia, so we're going to do it this non-standard way". That is not the way to run an airline. In addition, I agree with JASpencer, John Carter, and others that this is not the proper forum for this consensus. It is a question about general categories for people usage, and how the Category Freemasons uses it. The Freemasons category should not be using categories differently thank Elks, Moose, VFW, American Legion, etc. Ahwiv (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Membership in a fraternity would certainly qualify as standard biographical information. No biographer would leave such information out, unless it was an abridged version for a specific purpose.... Really? Then perhaps you can explain why William Manchester's exhaustive, two volume biography of Winston Churchill (The Last Lion) - which goes into all sorts of details about Churchill's private life - does not even mention Churchill's membership in the fraternity... not once. It's hardly an "abridged version for a specific purpose". In fact, most biographies of Churchill leave his membership out. Why do you think this is? Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Disagree for the reasons SeanNovack (talk) lists above. Eric Cable  |  Talk  12:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

EricCable, perhaps you failed to notice that SeanNovack's objection was due to his misunderstanding of the proposal. He thought that Blueboar didn't want Masonic membership mentioned in the article, but I pointed out the error and SeanNovack saw his error. This isn't about article content at all. This is about a small line of code at the bottom of the article which is used for indexing purposes only. Read all the replies to SeanNovack and you will see the exchange in its entirety. --Taivo (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Clarification of intent: Yes, my query for consensus of the project has nothing to do with whether we mention a person's membership in an article or not (or how much we talk about it... that depends purely on sourcing). I am inquiring about what instructions we should/should not give for adding someone to Category:Freemasons (and by extension the related sub-cats). Blueboar (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• Alrighty Then.. I would say if the article states that they are/were a Freemason add the tag. If the article does not include it, then omit the tag. Eric Cable  |  Talk  17:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Eric... would you be willing to elaborate further on why you feel the way you do on the issue? Blueboar (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Agree.. It comes down to, "What would a print encyclopedia do?" A print encyclopedia would not mention every single discernible fact concerning a person, but only those that were notable in respect of that person's own life, or which that person himself considered important. The fact that Harry Truman was a Freemason meets both tests. The fact that Lyndon Johnson was a Freemason meets neether test, and is of interest only in the context of Freemasonry. Don't clutter up every single article with unimportant details. Thus, I support the statement pretty much as written. Also, I see no problem with project consensus being developed here on the project talk page.RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 22:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

New Article on Anglo-American Freemasonry

Just saw that it was created. At the moment is is simply a cut and paste of a few paragraphs from the main Freemasonry article. Needs work to make it a true stand alone article distinct from the main Freemasonry page. Blueboar (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)