Talk:Continental Freemasonry

message: Where is the original research in this article?  It seems that the tag has been simply copied over from the Catholicism and Freemasonry article and in that article the tag applied specifically to a section on Mexico that was deliberately not copied over.
I'm sure that there will be some objections but there really should not be an OR tag unless its explained why in the talk pages.
That's why I'm removing it for now.  Feel free to give some specific examples of Original Research on the Talk Page and to add the tag back.
JASpencer 20:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I am going to slap it back on... almost every sub-section under the "Anti-clericism" section is OR.  It is filled with cherry picked statements from sources taken out of context, and it is especially is filled with WP:SYNT violations.  This is all being discussed at Catholicism and Freemasonry (the article you copied the material from)... you can read the discussion there if you need further details.  Perhaps, once that article is cleaned up, we can revisit what should go into this article (assuming it hasn't been deleted).  Blueboar 21:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the comments above I've moved the tag from the top of the article to the Relations with the Catholic Church.  JASpencer (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So far as I can tell, that section now seems adequately referenced, and I can see no reason to keep the tag there. I am thus removing it, unless I am given reasons as to why it should remain. To say that items are "cherry-picked" is irrelevant, and actually to my eyes is a clear violation of AGF. Other verifiable information could be added by anyone who wishes to do so, but the section itself does seem to be sufficiently well sourced. John Carter (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It isn't a matter of references, it is a matter of WP:SYNT... while each peice is sourced (often out of context), the problem is primarily lumping them together and to form a conclusion.  To remove the tag, we will need a source that takes all of these disperate facts and reaches the same conclusions as are presented in the article. Otherwise it is clearly an OR violation. Blueboar (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the Original Research tag 

message: For the purposes of centralized discussion, please see Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry#Proposed merger with Latin Freemasonry. Thank you. John Carter 21:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Catholicism and Freemasonry]] 

message: I have reduced the article by two thirds and sharply pruned the anti-clerical section.  I do not think that removing any mention of anti-clericalism is a good idea as the relationship between freemasonry and the church was fundamental in the evolution of the "Latin" Lodges.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JASpencer (talk • contribs) 09:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is better, but still has some problems. I am willing to leave it right now so we can concentrate on the Catholicism and Freemasonry article... we can re-address the issue later. Blueboar 16:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cutting down anti-clericalism section 

message: I don't really mind if it's marked as a stub or not, but I thought that the project tags were supposed to reflect whether the article was marked as a stub, which it isn't (and really should not be for the sake of a content dispute).  JASpencer 21:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you were wrong on the first. Also, lack of balance, which is what I said was the problem, is not a matter of "content dispute" as you misphrase it. By the standards of the project in question, this article is still one in which, to quote the terms of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment for "Editor's experience", "Any editing or additional material can be helpful". Right now that condition clearly still applies, in the eyes of the members of that project. Other projects may have other opinions, but those opinions do not reflect across the board. John Carter 21:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said I don't have a problem with this, I thought that these things were a bit less subjective.  However I have patience. JASpencer 21:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It really isn't a matter of "subjectivity", it's a matter of "completeness". Any article which clearly presents an unbalanced perspective generally can't be seen as a "start" class, particularly for the group whose position is apparently underrepresented. Separate projects often have separate ratings, based on the relative quality of the content directly related to them. It's been "suggested" to me elsewhere that I not change existing A-Class ratings for other projects, even after the article fails A-Class review for the Biography project, because different projects deal with different content. That is also the case here. John Carter 21:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is subjective.  But I'm not going to worry about this. JASpencer 21:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually it isn't. The content is clearly one-sided, and that is not "subjective". And if you're "not going to worry about it", please feel free to stop arguing about it as well. Thank you. Remember, I'm a practicing Roman Catholic myself, but I recognize content which does not even come close to meeting NPOV standards requires substantive content from the underrepresented POVs to even be likely to withstand a deletion discussion. Right now, this article, without such additional balancing content, very likely might not if it were proposed. John Carter 22:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't an argument, but if something is defined by the subject's point of view (in this case the Freemasonry Project) then it is subjective.  That is not a pejorative term. JASpencer 22:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a better way of phrasing it would be "lacks even start-grade content regarding the content with which this project specifically deals", which is an objective rating regarding the content that project would add. Anyway, if this entire argument from your side is semantic, as you seem to imply, I really question whether it belongs on this page? John Carter 22:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, fine.  A cowan like me has no business in dealing with the project.  I only thought I was helping. JASpencer 23:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still a stub 

message: ::Is it just me... or has this talk page been hidden in some way? Blueboar 14:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see it either.  I thought it was just me as well. JASpencer 14:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be sorted now.  I think the wikiproject tag is a problem here.  JASpencer 14:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yup... it's affecting all of the articles that have a Project Freemasonry template.  I have asked for help. Blueboar 14:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its been fixed. Blueboar 15:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Losing text

message: I do agree that the issue of Anti-clericism should be adressed (just make sure that it is done in with a NPOV and without slipping into OR)... but that raises another issue.  In all of the other articles that touch upon this subject (Catholicism and Freemasonry, Grand Orient de France, etc.) we tend to focus on the 19th and early 20th centuries... but what about today?  Are these bodies still expressing Anti-clerical sentiments?  We touch upon this with GLdF's recent statement about Laicite... we should find out what the other Grand Lodges and Grand Orients have to say on the matter (if they do say anything... and if they don't say anything, that too should be mentioned... as it is something of an indication that this is no longer an issue as far as they are concerned).  Just some food for thought and something for someone to research. Blueboar 01:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about today? 

message: There's a German article on the subject here:
:Liberale_Freimaurerei
JASpencer 22:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  German version 

message: I believe it is somewhat required that the party who insisted restoring this tag stating clearly and explicitly what OR he sees. I also hope that he realizes the difference between OR and POV, a differentiation he has previously seemed to have difficulty making. John Carter (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith, as I do understand the difference (I am quite active on both policy pages) ... and the section in question has issue with both policies.  As far as stating the reasons for the OR tag ... I have done so above, but I will do so again here... The biggest problem is that the entire section is a WP:SYNT violation (a sub-part of WP:NOR).  It takes disperate facts and places them together in a way that forms a novel conclusion.  While each seperate part is cited, when placed together they form a synthesis that is not cited (A + B = C). To solve this problem we need a single source that has taken all the parts and reached the same conclusions.  A few of the individual citations also have OR issues... they constitute "cherry picking" quotes... taking statements from sources out of context and using them in a manner that goes beyond what the original source intends. Blueboar (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration of OR tag? 

message: For further information on this see Talk:Grand Orient of the United States. JASpencer (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is discussing the idea of splitting out the regional sub-sections into their own articles.  To that I say... Absolutely not.  Continental Freemasonry as a concept is important... and deserves its own article, but once you start splitting it up into regional articles you start to get POV problems.  If we are going to have "Freemasonry in x" articles, they discuss all branches of Freemasonry in x... Contintental, Anglo/mainstream, Prince Hall, etc.  If you just discuss one branch, you are leaving out half of the picture. Blueboar (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not?  A bit extreme.  Setting up articles, and arguing through AfDs will be the alternative, and it's not pretty. JASpencer (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all extreme... Just indicating my very, very strong objection to the idea. Blueboar (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting article

message: I have attempted to fix several of the issues that have been discussed above.  I have attempted to discuss the history of the schism between the Anglo-American tradition and the Continental tradition in a neutral tone... explaining the rationals for each side without stating or implying that one or the other is "correct".  
We still need to work on the section that traces the in and outs of the Belief in Deity requirement... I am not happy with all the quotations (it is easy to take such quotes out of context, and so much depends on what you quote and what you do not quote... for example, I note that we do not include what is said on the matter in the old charges, nor do we mention the bit in Anderson's Constitutions where he says that a Mason should not be a "stupid atheist").  I think it is worth discussing the difference of opinion between the two traditions on this matter (as it is central to the split between them), but surely we can do so without attempting to "prove" one view right or wrong. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An attempt to fix several issues 

message: The article states: "In most Latin countries, the GOdF-style or European Continental Freemasonry predominates"... while I think this is probably an accurate statement, I have a problem with the source that was used: a New York Times article dating from 1918.  This may be enough to show that the Continental tradition predominated in 1918... but it is not enough to show that it predominates today.  We need a more modern analysis. Blueboar (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Historically predominated? JASpencer (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitely prefer a more modern source (I am not really comfortable using any source that is almost 100 years old, except in support of direct statements about the source itself)  but if there is not modern source, I suppose I could grudgingly agree to rephrasing the statement along the lines you suggest.  Blueboar (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh this is just for the moment.  Hopefully VG will be back at some point (although it may be a bit of time).  I think there's some stuff in the 1968 New Catholic Encyclopedia that says the same thing. JASpencer (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin countries 

message: JASpencer remvoed the NOR tag from the "relationship with the Catholic Church" section.  I have returned it.  The issue isn't that the material lacks citation... the issue is WP:SYNT.  The entire section is OR, not the individual statements within it. Blueboar (talk) 03:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The NOR tag 

message: I know we have a source for this statement (and I will not remove it without a good source to counter it) but looking at the (admittedly very incomplete) numbers given in our List of Masonic Grand Lodges article, I am not sure if it is correct any more.  It certainly was true in the final decades of the last century, but it may be outdated information.  I know that there has been a boom in American style York Rite Masonry in most South American nations since the millennium.  We should look to see if there are more recent sources... they may  say something different. Blueboar (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we are looking for a source that says "more prevalent," not "predominates."  I think there's an error in the language otherwise.  UGLE Masonry is still bigger than non- in all these countries, but there's more non-UGLE presence there than in either Europe or North America, for example. MSJapan (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What ever the right word is... we need to research the current situation and find sources to either support or contradict what we have now. Blueboar (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In most Latin countries, the GODF-style or European Continental Freemasonry predominates" 

message: As we're not going to get concensus on this quote or source I've put this to the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Irregular_Freemasonry:_Speech_to_UGLE Reliable Sources noticeboard. JASpencer (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable Sources noticeboard

message: The Hodapp quote is clearly insufficient for the use of "Irregular Freemasonry" as an alternate term, because he doesn't use the term "Alternate Freemasonry" although in one of the three places where he uses the word "irregular" he does us it in relation to the Grand Orient de France and so it is of marginal use as a source for saying that Liberal Freemasonry is viewed as irregular by conservative lodges.  I'll try to find a better source for you.  JASpencer (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that Hoddap uses "world" instead of the word "Freemasonry"... but then again, I think the context is clear (he is obviously talking about the irregular masonic world, and not the world in general).  What is more important - he uses "irregular" as a label for the bodies he is discussing... two Masonic bodies that are explicitly identified in our article as being part of Continental Freemasonry (both of which self-identify on their webpages as being "Liberal Freemasonry"). Blueboar (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the point.  Hodapp is already cited elsewhere in this article to show that the conservative freemasons call liberal freemasons "irregular".  The point is whether "Irregular Freemasonry" is a commonly used term when referring to Liberal Freemasonry.  If the term "Irregular Freemasonry" is not present then the source cannot be used as a citation for that term. JASpencer (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hodapp doesn't use the term "Irregular Freemasonry" 

message: There only seems to be one source for this wording (I have looked for others), and that itself is imperfect in that he is referring to the GWU and the GOUSA which are as well as being in the Liberal orbit also very small and (in the case of the GOUSA) vexatious - two things which Hodapp associates with "Irregularity" and finally the only part where he definitively equates irregularity with the whole tradition of Liberal Freemasonry is:
:The GOUSA signed a treaty of some kind with the Grand Orient of France in 2008 (which is also considered irregular and is unrecognized by the overwhelming number of Masons and grand lodges around the world).
There are plenty of references in Hodapp's blog to irregularity but they are in the most part to things like the Sons of Haiti.  A theme of the blog is that outside the Anglo-American tradition there is no real Masonry.
Clearly the article is about the GOUSA and the GWU and not about the Continental Tradition - as shown by the fact that Grand Orient of France is mentioned twice and both times deep in the body of the entry.
As I've said before the blog entry clearly does show that Liberal Freemasonry is regarded as irregular by the UGLE, but that is already stated and cited in the opening paragraph.  
It does not show that it is called the "Irregular World" by even Hodapp.
JASpencer (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: it certainly does show that Hodapp calls it the "Irregular world"... It's a direct quote from the title of his blog post for God's sake.  Blueboar (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it shows that he thinks that he calls the GWU and the GOUSA inhabit the "Irregular World".  And it cannot be denied that this is an insult.  And he uses the term once in the whole blog.  As I've said this is not about irregularity, but about whether a non-neutral term is common enough to be used.  This does not seem to be.  JASpencer (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Re: GOUSA and GWU... the sources show otherwise.  Wikipedia follows the sources, and not the assertions of some anonymous IP.  Blueboar (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Not at all... I assume an IP does not know what he/she is talking about, while the sources do. Blueboar (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As a Masonic scholar of the Anglo-American persuasion, Hodapp is pretty much obligated to refer to Continental masonry as Irregular. As, it will be in relationship to him. This automatically disqualifies him as a “neutral” source. Don’t get me wrong, I have huge amount of respect for him, but on this topic, Wikipedia will be best served with a more neutral source. (Don’t you love dragging the same discussion from article to article?) Btw, I don’t endorse screaming random stuff anonymouslyTruther2012 (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irregular world - really? 

message: See Talk:Louis André#Larkin, Church and State -- PBS (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larkin, Church and State 

message: I have removed our mention of the Grand Orient of the United States of America from the North America section... it seems that they may have folded.  Their website has been down for over a year now.  Even if there is a rump group out there, that rump is so tiny that I think we can omit them from the article based on WP:UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. Since this came up in List of Masonic Grand Lodges, they have stopped posting to Facebook and their Freemasonry 101 site has died. In short, they're not even pretending to function any more. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  GOUSA - removal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Continental Freemasonry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060410074658/http://bessel.org/masrec/france.htm to http://bessel.org/masrec/france.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060410074658/http://bessel.org/masrec/france.htm to http://bessel.org/masrec/france.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081114083921/http://www.godf.org/foreign/uk/laicite_uk.html to http://www.godf.org/foreign/uk/laicite_uk.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201115556/http://logehiram.com/conf-eng/ to http://logehiram.com/conf-eng/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081231003631/http://www.fm-fr.org/fr/spip.php?rubrique61 to http://www.fm-fr.org/fr/spip.php?rubrique61
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130115003320/http://www.mason.be/fr/glf/index.htm to http://www.mason.be/fr/glf/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070329201644/http://www.godf-amerique.org/L_NY/new_york.htm to http://www.godf-amerique.org/L_NY/new_york.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070330043524/http://www.godf-amerique.org/L_SF/san_fransisco.html to http://www.godf-amerique.org/L_SF/san_fransisco.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100222180837/http://www.godf-amerique.org/L_LA/los_angeles.html to http://www.godf-amerique.org/L_LA/los_angeles.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070329201726/http://www.godf-amerique.org/L_DC/washington_dc.html to http://www.godf-amerique.org/L_DC/washington_dc.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929042825/http://www.godf-amerique.org/L-Montreal/montreal.html to http://www.godf-amerique.org/L-Montreal/montreal.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081028031539/http://www.glff.org/internet/index.php to http://www.glff.org/internet/index.php
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120525174512/http://www.clipsas.com/en/members_f.htm to http://www.clipsas.com/en/members_f.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have removed a recent addition stating that the Anglo-American tradition of not discussing politics in the lodge led to Masons turning a blind eye to institutional racism. The source does not support this conclusion.  Yes, much to the shame of modern Freemasons, there was (and in a few jurisdictions still is) institutional racism in US Masonry... and the source highlights this well.  But it does not connect that (mostly historic) racism to the tradition of not discussing politics. Blueboar (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics & the KKK 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Regular Masonic jurisdiction which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 05:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress