i'm going to add my name to those disagreeing with you qwl and i'm going to also point out that your addition of an unjustified claims template when we have sources in this article is disruptive your claim that all the documentation is based on the same source is unverifiable because that is your opinion as a matter of fact it should all be based off the member record that the lodge should still have regardless of what he did later in life there are no sources that indicate that he ever renounced his membership the reason the discussion went nowhere in the past is because just like now the arguments against were not supported by sources that were any better than those that supported you yourself admit he joined at some point in his life so you've in fact verified our position so this discussion will not change anything currently in the article lastly five people in eight years is not a consensus to remove