Talk:List of Freemasons/Archive 1

message: You seem to forget the basic rule of wikipedia: Verifiability. The fact of being a mason (or rumored to be a mason) must be confirmed in the article about the person in question (or about a group of people). Otherwise the entry must be delisted. 
I see lots of contribs by anons here. Who the heck is going to verify after them? Haven't you seen vandals lately? 00:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: so say i. this after wild goose chase i was doing after being assured that British magic society 'The Magic Circle' was a Lodge. Turns out they used to use a phrase 'doing the obligation' about taking their entrance exam, but that was it. Keep at it.Tiksustoo 16:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will keep at it. But masons are a vary small blip on my radar, so I will do cleanup in a very slow pace, policing only new additions. mikka (t) 01:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Verify

message: As with all other lists and all other things in wikipedia the major criterion is wikipedia:verifiability. I am going to scrap all this list and allow inclusion only if the coresponding article about a person mentions a fact or a notable rumor about masonry. This is the only way to ensure reasonable eyeballing of various ridiculous claims. mikka (t) 20:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: so say i. this after wild goose chase i was doing after being assured that British magic society 'The Magic Circle' was a Lodge. Turns out they used to use a phrase 'doing the obligation' about taking their entrance exam, but that was it. Keep at it.Tiksustoo 16:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will keep at it. But masons are a vary small blip on my radar, so I will do cleanup in a very slow pace, policing only new additions. mikka (t) 01:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major cleanup 

message: The claim of the listed person to be a Freemason was unverifiable by the Wiki article, and there appears to be no such thing as a Grand Lodge of Egypt. MSJapan 20:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to various sources, a Grand Lodge of Egypt actually did exist until the 1950s or 1960s, c.f. ,  and according to , Muhammad Tawfik Pasha was sometime Grand Master. --Thf1977 21:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  Specifically 1871-1881, it seems, but I think it should be cited and added to his wiki bio article first.  Otherwise it looks like an unsupported claim. MSJapan 22:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egypt 

message: I have some misgivings about the entries for Estonia, none of them are cited anywhere and there's no way to accertain whether they are Freemasons or even exist for that matter.  Could the person who placed Estonia's entries please provide a lodge number or a little more about the person?
I'd like to see this article have some historic and educational purpose and not just be a list of random names.  In the meantime I am removing the Estonia section, refer to the 27th of August 2005 record if you require it. Jachin 11:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estonia Entries 

message: ==== Pakistan ====
* Mohammad Iqbal
* Mohammad Ali Jinnah
* Liaqat Ali Khan
* Aga Khan III
* Sir Shahnawaz Bhutto
* Sir Syed Ahmad Khan
I just removed the above section because it was added with no citation. Does anyone have info about their membership?--SarekOfVulcan 19:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hungary

message: * Mohammad Iqbal
* Mohammad Ali Jinnah
* Liaqat Ali Khan
* Aga Khan III
* Sir Shahnawaz Bhutto
* Sir Syed Ahmad Khan
I just removed the above section because it was added with no citation. Does anyone have info about their membership?--SarekOfVulcan 19:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan 

message: * Murad V, Ottoman Emperor
* Hasan Ali Yücel, Minister of Education
* Mustafa Necati, Minister of Education
* Vasfi Çınar, Minister of Education
* Talat Pasha
* Hasan Saka, Prime Minister
* Suat Hayri Ürgüplü, Prime Minister
Not confirmed in respective articles or elsewhere. mikka (t) 23:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Turkey

message: According to the second question here it clearly states at the very bottom that there is no evidence for Jefferson being a Mason, so I have removed him from "debated".  Furthermore, the same page also has no evidence regarding any of the other debateds, so unless we have some solid info, that whole section needs to go. MSJapan 04:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trust me, if I ran the world, I'd give myself a better salary.--SarekOfVulcan 01:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Outsider opinion: since the Philalethes Society has this listed as a Myth, it seems clear to me that the 1955 Masonic Bible was an example of a hopefully Good Faith, but inaccurate, inclusion of a person who was not a Mason. This happens. As Jefferson nowhere appears on any rolls, his inclusion on the list in the Bible, now 50 years and more out of date, can be disregarded. It is in the caegory of Urban legend. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: 1955 Masonic Bible source1, [source2][source3][source4][source5][source6][source7][source8][source9]	 
[source10] [source11]	 
[source12][source13]
--SarekOfVulcan 02:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Thomas Jefferson

message: *http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/jefferson.html
*http://www.freemasonry.org/psoc/masonicmyths.htm
*http://www.bessel.org/vpmas.htm
--SarekOfVulcan 17:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 references? Ok. 

message: I just posted over at the Mediation Cabal, to get an outside view of this. Feel free to comment there.--SarekOfVulcan 21:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Trust me, if I ran the world, I'd give myself a better salary.--SarekOfVulcan 01:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Outsider opinion: since the Philalethes Society has this listed as a Myth, it seems clear to me that the 1955 Masonic Bible was an example of a hopefully Good Faith, but inaccurate, inclusion of a person who was not a Mason. This happens. As Jefferson nowhere appears on any rolls, his inclusion on the list in the Bible, now 50 years and more out of date, can be disregarded. It is in the caegory of Urban legend. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: 1955 Masonic Bible source1, [source2][source3][source4][source5][source6][source7][source8][source9]	 
[source10] [source11]	 
[source12][source13]
--SarekOfVulcan 02:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomas Jefferson continued 

message: :Upon further investigation, there's no evidence for any of those individuals, so they're gone.  Just don't say "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence", because I really can't find a reputable source for any of it. MSJapan 04:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debated section 

message: : I can only find that he is involved in the worldwide Masonic conspiracy, and that the Gulf War declaration was ratified by  eight Freemasons and a Zionist.  He's not listed at masonicinfo's list of famous freemasons. MSJapan 06:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I found no evidence Norm's a Freemason. Grye 23:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Norman Schwarzkopf|General H. Norman Schwarzkopf]] 

message: I found one lk under US Supreme Crt (just middle initial) and one under lawyers (mid-name spelled out).  John Marshall Harlan is a bio article, and  John M. Harlan a rdr to it (but i am changing it to a Dab). First Masonic hit on Googling "John Marshall Harlan" mason gives dates, making it clear that that site does not claim John Marshall Harlan II (also a USSC justice, and of course lawyer). I have bypassed the existing rdr (and that will also bypass the forthcoming Dab).  It may be worth a comment by the 2 lk's lest someone speculate the identification was just a guess by WP ed'rs.--Jerzy•t 05:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Marshall Harlan 

message: Was a Brother (supposedly). I have no proof, but I mention him for the consideration of you Smart Guys. Paul, in Saudi 06:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Milton S. Hershey

message: http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/bolivar_s/bolivar_s.html -- anyone have an indication this isn't accurate?--SarekOfVulcan 17:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bolivar cite 

message: Edwin E. "Buzz" Aldrin, Jr., 
I know he was a member of several Lodges... but I have him as a member Montclair Lodge No. 144 NJ, where he was maybe raised to Master Mason.
Grye 10:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, Buzz is involved with Tranquility Lodge 2000. Check out the website Tranquility Lodge 2000 for info. Bdevoe 19:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buzz" Aldrin 

message: ==== Paul Bernardo a Freemason? ====
I have noticed on your list of "Famous Freemasons" that Canada's most notorious schoolgirl killer Paul Bernardo was a Freemason. Other than the website you provided, which to me may be a bit to POV for my liking, is this the only proof that is provided? I checked Bernardo's page here at Wikipedia and nothing is stated at all about him being a Mason. Could someone please provide some credible evidence to support Bernardo's membership?
This is yet another example in favor of my statement above that the list is probably infested by vandals or simply irresponsible editors, and requires a huge cleanup. mikka (t) 00:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the hits are FreemasonryWatch, and it's interesting how they supposedly got info that masonicinfo.com didn't.  Anyhow, this is what Masonicinfo has to say: "Paul Bernardo - For some time now we've been trying to get some accurate information about this Masonic membership of this serial rapist from the Toronto, Canada area. Sadly, though, persons in Canada with details about this simply refuse to speak and respond with dismissive comments that we should not, as Masons, speak ill of another member. WHAT? This is a man who ABUSED not only women but Freemasonry as well! We feel most emphatically that 'stonewalling' information in such cases serves to not only reinforce a public perception that Masons protect 'their own' but to also create the idea that Masons knew about this and never spoke up. The latter is absolutely inexcusable and if there was anyone who knew about Bernardo's activities, they surely would/could/should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law as well. Sadly, when those who have information choose to 'keep it secret', it only adds to the horrid rumors that such things might be sanctioned by Freemasonry in the cause of 'protecting a Brother'. It also appears that it was only after a guilty verdict that his membership was suspended: sadly we sometimes tend to be glacial in our actions even in light of overwhelming evidence. We believe that the Bernardo case has much to teach Freemasonry but sadly the one person we know who has many of the details refuses to speak - and not being in Toronto have found it impossible to further research. If you have information that could help in the description of events, we'd like to hear from you!" MSJapan 05:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Research: That's how it happens! Grye 05:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debated Freemasons 

message: I have noticed on your list of "Famous Freemasons" that Canada's most notorious schoolgirl killer Paul Bernardo was a Freemason. Other than the website you provided, which to me may be a bit to POV for my liking, is this the only proof that is provided? I checked Bernardo's page here at Wikipedia and nothing is stated at all about him being a Mason. Could someone please provide some credible evidence to support Bernardo's membership?
This is yet another example in favor of my statement above that the list is probably infested by vandals or simply irresponsible editors, and requires a huge cleanup. mikka (t) 00:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the hits are FreemasonryWatch, and it's interesting how they supposedly got info that masonicinfo.com didn't.  Anyhow, this is what Masonicinfo has to say: "Paul Bernardo - For some time now we've been trying to get some accurate information about this Masonic membership of this serial rapist from the Toronto, Canada area. Sadly, though, persons in Canada with details about this simply refuse to speak and respond with dismissive comments that we should not, as Masons, speak ill of another member. WHAT? This is a man who ABUSED not only women but Freemasonry as well! We feel most emphatically that 'stonewalling' information in such cases serves to not only reinforce a public perception that Masons protect 'their own' but to also create the idea that Masons knew about this and never spoke up. The latter is absolutely inexcusable and if there was anyone who knew about Bernardo's activities, they surely would/could/should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law as well. Sadly, when those who have information choose to 'keep it secret', it only adds to the horrid rumors that such things might be sanctioned by Freemasonry in the cause of 'protecting a Brother'. It also appears that it was only after a guilty verdict that his membership was suspended: sadly we sometimes tend to be glacial in our actions even in light of overwhelming evidence. We believe that the Bernardo case has much to teach Freemasonry but sadly the one person we know who has many of the details refuses to speak - and not being in Toronto have found it impossible to further research. If you have information that could help in the description of events, we'd like to hear from you!" MSJapan 05:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Research: That's how it happens! Grye 05:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Bernardo a Freemason? 

message: I would much prefer it if all concerned could leave this pretty much in the order it was originally typed in. Moving everything around makes it pretty near impossible to follow. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 08:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Refactoring_talk_pages|Refactoring of this talk page]] 

message: I kind of liked the elucidation.
These run the gamut from dictators to revolutionaries, segregationists to civil rights leaders, industrialists to labor activists, humanitarians to serial killers; many that today's Masons are proud to proclaim, and others they prefer to minimize.--SarekOfVulcan 22:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I didn't see any serial killers on the list (I'm not sure if they count if they were expelled), and I think it's more the fact that every Mason doesn't know who every other Mason is rather than an active effort to "minimize" certain members - the paragraph is ascribing a motive, and thereby stating an opinion rather than a fact, which it doesn't do without that section.  Also it's fairly obvious that half those types of people aren't on the current list as such, and looking at the list will tell you what kinds of people are Masons without predisposing the reader to an opinion first. MSJapan 23:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous and infamous 

message: Everyone involved might want to brush up on the above policy. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 01:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CIVIL]] 

message: I think the solution is obvious - both sets of information are useful, so why not have both?  such as "1st President George Washington" etc.  It avoids rv issues and should make everybody happy. MSJapan 18:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but Sarek 's edits were revisionary, & I am not going to do the work the original editor should have done for him, then for Sarek just because they don't want to do it. Although, "president" is a title, & that's why I left it in, with them & others. "13th" etc is not a title, & be it 4 characters or 400, "find it in the article about them". So yeah, both whatever I wouldn't care, but <U>removing a title, regardless how redundant, is not appropriate.</U> Grye 18:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think that it is fair to say that as a minimum amount of referential information, the number of the President is worth having here, and I do believe that convention requires that the title remain.  Also, it's not quite so convenient if you have to click on another page just for a small bit of information. MSJapan 05:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I'll eat my shoe now... w/the list purely alph, US Pres, & # info is much more useful... Grye 23:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presidents and numbers... 

message: Um... Perhaps it always will be [disputed], but most of the disputed people have been moved to Talk:List of Freemasons/citation, along with most everyone else... So if  everyone  were here & there w/citation, & only there if w/o citation, & we had a much clearer statement about adding them there w/citation then adding them to the main article, who would object to the removal of the "Talk:List of Freemasons" tag, & why? Grye 01:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed tag, but at any given time someone(s) could be (are) added unchecked, & for X-period of time remain, so if anything, a note? A different tag? & due diligence... Grye 10:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The factual accuracy of this article is disputed 

message: I was somewhat puzzled by this. As UK is short for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland why is there no reference to Northern Ireland? The phrase "(the two Masonic jurisdictions have never been united)" hardly resolves the apparent disappearance of any area where Freemasonry played such a major role in the social and political history. If Ireland is being treated as a single and united whole, then this should be changed to GB or Great Britain. But if the Orange statelet has a separate jurisdiction, then perhaps someone should level with us. Harrypotter 14:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to guess it was an accidental oversight on somebody's part, but we need to address the issue in a non-partisan way, and not being familiar myself with who's going to get offended by what, are there any suggestions? MSJapan 00:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: How about "British Isles"? It doesn't solve everything, but undeniably (?) Ireland, N & S, is a British Isle? & Scotland is on a British Isle? OK or something along that line, but not too vague or ancient...Grye 10:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: UK of GB &NI is covered by three GLs.  UGLE, GLoS and GLI.  UGLE covers England and Wales, GLoS covers Scotland and GLI covers both the Province and the Republic.  I'd suggest a heading of UK of GB &NI then three sub headings, England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland (Covering Republic and NI).ALR 10:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "UK: England & Wales, and Scotland"???

message: I know the english wikipedia isn't that accurate or prolific on Latin American data, but come on! as venezuelan freemasons you only mention Bolívar (fair enough, he did practice Masonry) but... Miranda! he's the most famous venezuelan freemason, famous particulary (besides the Independance) for being venezuelan and freemason {this would be Francisco de Miranda, just in case}, let it be noted that Antonio José de Sucre was also a freemason (probably introduced by Bolívar), and a hole bunch of other patriots were too. Let it be reafirmed that independence movements in the Americas (the US and Hispanic America) were organised by freemasons using their secrecy and connections, thus most generals, founding presidents and foundig fathers were freemasons. About other latin american countries, I don't know the names, but I can assure you there are at least as many freemasons per country as mayor patriot generals (not that they are always the same). Nulo Siniestro
:There was an issue with SA Freemasonic Locges listed a while ago, & I remember that the general consensus was that it was too complex for us to really list a lot of them. It ran into the whole UGLE-POV issue. It will also quickly run into the Anglo-Saxon issue, etc. Grye 03:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are you kidding me?

message: The list of people purported to be Freemasons - are any Orange Institution members included? Because, according to Wikipedia articles on the subject, "there are organisations which ar e often thought of as related to Freemasonry, but which are in fact not related at all, and are not accorded recognition as Masonic, such as the Orange Order which originated in Ireland" and ""In addition a number of organizations and fraternities such as the Orange Order style themselves along Masonic lines, using similar regalia and ritual. However they are not part of Freemasonry and are not accorded recognition as such."
It is not clear to me which organisations the members listed are part of. --Mal 21:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The founder of the Orange Institution is claimed in the OI article as being a Freemason, but it gives no source, nor can I find one.  As far as this article is concerned (and I honestly thought it was pretty obvious - I don't quite see the confusion), everyone listed here is a Freemason.  This does not mean that a person isn't also something else besides a Freemason, however. MSJapan 23:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orange Institution 

message: *I just added a page for John I. Beggs I know he was in the Harrisburg Lodge and then later in Milwaukee, Oconomowoc?, and St. Louis.  Can someone do the honor of correctly adding him to the list?
*I'm hoping to add bios for others Capt. Robert McCulloch (CSA) who was a high degree Scottish Rite Mason in St. Louis, as well as his grandson Robert P. McCulloch.  Can I get some help verifying these and notability for Capt. Robt??
*Is there a reason why Freemason:US is not a Wikipedia category that could be added to the bottom of articles on individuals?
I'm not a Freemason and I'm a wikipedia newbie, be gentle in your response. 
Thanks!
69.19.14.31 22:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't add people, notable or not, unless we have a definite source of proof for membership, and since you didn't add Masonic membership to his bio, it's harder to claim.  There is, however, a category for articles, but yet again, it cannot be added without a source.  The best any one of us can do is Googling for verification - AFAIK, there is no way to obtain membership records from Grand Lodges unless you can show proof of relationship, and maybe not even then. MSJapan 02:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, unfortunately, with the requiremetns being given for obtaining the information, one is further obligated to use said information judiciously... i.e. if you are related, then the use of said info may be your prerogative; if Masonically related, the info's distribution would probably not be OK... Grye 08:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three Questions 

message: I would like to know was Nikola Tesla a Freemason and did marshal Josip Broz Tito have any conection with them or any other similar organization.
Thank You! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.18.53.14 (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a note, Google will generally take care of thesxe things, but: it seems that while Robert Lomas, a Masonic "researcher" (I'm skeptical of his conclusions, thus the quotes) has written a biography of Tesla, there is no other connection.  As for Josip Broz Tito, the answer would also seem to be no, as I can't source anything related in English. MSJapan 19:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That I know of, Tesla was not a Freemason, & I am both a fan, & live where he's lived (Telluride, CO USA). For what it's worth... Grye 08:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Freemasons in Serbia 

message: I'm calling it "re-combination", because this list was created, & then citation became a major issue then citing added, then deemed "unsightly", then split into the present structure of  List of Freemasons with citations at Talk:List of Freemasons/citation. This system has proven itself as simply not effective.
:If every entry is supposed to be cited anyway, and everyone on the 2nd page is cited (maybe not verified, but...), & most of the people on the 1st page are NOT cited, & the ones that are, are actually cited on the second page anyway, then there is no issue whatsoever with subtracted content.
:The only possible issue would be with the format of the content (presentation), &, well, if the objector wants it different, then  the objector can get crackin... until then, check the history. It is consensus that all persons listed need to be cited.
:Grye 01:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should do inline refs and footnotes (thuogh it will be bulky and need to be double columned like the main Freemasonry article refs are.  However, I'm not sure where to source some of the entries.  It's one thing to say that someone is or was a Mason, but specific lodges can get tricky. MSJapan 04:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think (know) you are right, this is the way to go, or at least the next thing to try, because nothing else's working. Grye 02:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: H-Z are ref'd everywhere; A-G are ref'd in the ABC list, but not in the rest of their name occurances -yet Grye 07:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: ...specifics aren't the named definition of the list, only that they are, and that they are reliably ref'd?Grye 07:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: MSJ, I'm pretty sure you made your above comment over a year ago... let's see how it works out. Hope to say "you were right, brother..." Grye 08:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason(s) for re-combination 

message: I was going to suggest something similar, but then I read the talk page above.  I sure this article has suffered problems, however the citation request and nomination for selection is not something that should be seen in the article space.  
*The citation for the addition of Bishop Riley is Australian Dictionary of Biography  Submitted by Fred. Approved by?
:Useful list, good work by all concerned. Thanks brethren.  - Fred 11:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk:List of Freemasons/citation 

message: I have removed the editorial comments and signatures - up to "D" - from the article.  They should be on this talk page. I have asked the editor to remove the rest. - Fred (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the newly uncited entries -up to "D". Grye 04:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I "found" the citations for all the entries up to "D". The citations for the article's material had been incomprehensibly removed by Fred.e. All's not good, but better now that at least some of the article's content is cited. Grye 04:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Grye 03:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  continued 

message: moved from User talk:Grye, by GRYE, for continuity & pertinence
Dear Grye,
I am posting a note here in case you missed it.
Please answer my question here. - - Fred (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is pretty simple really, it is not your article. You put your signature and your comments into an article. I removed them. You removed my contribution from the article. I restored it.  Anyone viewing the history  will see  who did and said what and when. I recommend you retract your accusations. Fred 03:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a question 

message: :Fred,
Wikipedia:How to edit a page gives us some guidelines about editing, notably, the use of the "minor edit" notation: "...without modifying content, etc. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute"
:NOTE: Yes, it says there you should not sign edits you make to regular articles, so Fred's edits & reasoning make sense, but I think maybe what Fred did not understand was that the edits he effected were not actually signed edits, rather they were the ref's history of
#what the ref was for ("what")
#the ref (web address etc)
#who accessed the ref (username)
#when they accessed the ref (date)
:This is desirable information, as the site ref'd can go away, but we still see that so-and-so vouches that they did see it there, & when, and that that was acceptable for whatever time the difference may be.
:This is shown to be desirable information in the citation templates below. Notice the last entry in each, "accessdate".
:(For an example fo ref tags that uses such info, see Wikipedia:Citation templates)






:This is just a quick examination. I hope that this might clear up:
#That yes, Fred is correct in that general policy is that you should not sign edits you make to regular articles
#That the material Fred removed from articlespace was not signature, but Reference citation information;
#That this information is valuable
#That despite the above, his edit opinion, & edits, were taken into account, & maintained, despite all of this. 
:If this is understood & accepted, then I would like to say that the above citation standards were known to myself, & I think MSJ & others, but perhaps this & the entire history of the article (much of which is no longer available) was not entirely understood by Fred; That I for one have been reluctant to do all the homework, which I considered Fred's homework, just to reply to all this, but maybe if we had, when Fred first appeared, all this would be better, we wouldn't any of us be offended, & would all be making better, more harmonious edits, et.al.
:I guess, Fred, that's as close as you'll get to an apoligy, as least from me. Perhaps it's unfortunate that I/we didn't have this discussion before, & if need be, we can continue it? & maybe we can keep this discus here ?~) Grye 23:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: a response

message: Note these do exist, for now, which addresses a concern, that being accessdate. when use liked this, with the ref tag & ref tag closure, it would come out in the ref section. Note their usage on Sir Alexander Fleming, and the resulting citation in reference section... Grye 04:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Existing template

message: Just a note: I was waiting to alph each subsection's entries to remove/combine duplicat entries, so as to show how many dupes there were w/ the other system(s), & thus partly the need to do it this way. Of course, go about your biz if you want to do it now... Grye 04:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  consolidating entries 

message: These discussion items are being moved here from article space, the list.
*Item 1. Famous Turkish Freemasons - to be compiled from:  - Fred (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from Article  

message: A range of TOCs can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/Compact tables of contents. One of them might improve this list. - Fred (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of contents 

message: * Aaron Burr, 3rd US Vice President Source 1:Against 2 "the builder, 1924" on phoenixmasonry.org Source 2: appears on a list w/o Lodge or source: freemason.compagrandlodge.org    
**The only Google references to his alleged lodge mention the Illuminati. Keep him off.--SarekOfVulcan 15:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aaron Burr

message: * Ronald Reagan Removed. Sources: see talk pages below. Grye 03:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ronald Reagan