Blueboar, you cannot be that naive.  I suspect that you have realised that you have stepped over the mark.

By even suggesting, in a widely read public forum such as this, that the GLdF is an irregular Grand Lodge is the vilest and most vicious attack that any Mason can make upon the Grand Master, officers and members of any other Masonic jurisdiction, and it is unforgiveable.

Your Grand Lodge does NOT state anywhere in the public domain, that the GLdF is an IRREGULAR Grand Lodge and I challenge you to demonstrate to us where yu say it does.  Not your word for it, a reliable source i.e. The Grand Lodge of New York itself.  Prove me wrong, I won't mind.

What is clear is that The Grand Lodge of New York is bound by the policies of The Conference of Grand Masters of Masons of North America which has specifically removed any claim to be the arbiters of Masonic regularity, quite rightly, and good on them.

Take a look at their 2007 and 2008 reports.  They are on their website and in print in black and white.  Incontrovertable historical evidence.

And then you come along.  And you arbritrarily vilify The Grand Lodge of France and The Grand Lodge of All England.  Bear in mind that I have been, and we are, in contact with the Conference and its Commission on Information over these very issues.  They have graciously received our submissions and their statements have been carefully worded accordingly, to include ALL Grand Lodges throughout the world.

This is their and your current OFFICIAL policy:

2007: "It must again be stated that the Commission does not determine the regularity of a Grand Lodge; it only evaluates the facts available to determine if the entity meets the standards for recognition, as adopted by the Conference of Grand Masters of North America, and reports those findings to the member Grand Lodges of this Conference for their use."

2008: "We must state again that even though a Grand Lodge may practice regular Masonry, we only determine whether the Grand Lodge meets all the standards for recognition, as established by this Conference."

Not our words, or the Grand Lodge of France's words, their words.  The Conference of Grand Masters of Masons of North America (including the Grand Master of The Grand Lodge of New York) is NOT the arbiter of Masonic regularity - OFFICIAL POLICY.

This is an encyclopedia.  There is NO place for personal prejudices and political edicts from any partisan Grand Lodge, yours or ours.  History rises above that sort of thing.  If you want to express political opinions then write a book and publish it under you own name, but don't call it history.  History is neutral.

We can cooperate on the history of Freemasonry on Wikipedia, but we must first agree to eliminate partisan politics or it is a complete waste of time.

By the way, the "Antients" Grand Lodge, properly named The Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons According to the Old Institution is the UGLE.  Please read The Charter of Compact 1813; it is quite specific on this matter.  Enough said.

And in your version of French Masonic history you have completely ommitted to mention our Lodge which was instituted and based in Paris c.1718 but certainly no later than 1720.  You probably don't know about it, but it is this sort of ommission which may be rectified if you calm your passions and your prejudices and get down to the serious business of reporting Masonic history.  It is a very big, and I believe important subject which is not served by insisting on UGLE political correctness.  The UGLE is NOT Masonic history, it is a small part of Masonic history, and in this case represents a minority of Freemasonry in France.

And finally, I can assure you that the Grand Lodge of France couldn't give a fig for the opinions of the UGLE.  Do you consider, even for one second, that if they were the least bit concerned about what the UGLE thought of them that they would have entered into a formal Treaty of Amity with the Grand Lodge of All England?  You must think about what you are saying before you blindly leap into expressions of baseless opinion.

Peter Clatworthy.