Talk:List of Freemasons

Edit request, 15 May 2011

Although I personally believe that Suleyman Demirel was a mason, he presented a document saying that he is not a mason. Some say this document was fake, some say that the document is genuine. There is a conflict about this issue. Therefore his name should be deleted from the list. Here is one of the pages about the issue: http://www.sonsayfa.com/Haberler/Guncel/Masonlarin-Suleyman-Demirel-kavgasi-138319.html. There are many sources talking about this debate.

Unfortunately the source you give for questioning this is in Turkish (which most of us who edit this page can not read). This does not mean that the source is unreliable... only that this makes it difficult to accurately judge it's reliability against the the cited reliable source (which says that says Demirel was a Mason), ie how much weight to give it. Could you tell us something more about who/what sonsayafa.com is? Blueboar (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

sonsayfa is not a person of course. it is a web site giving news. that site is not an expert on freemasonry. the web site makes news about every type of topics. however the main point is there are many websites and books saying that Suleyman Demirel is not a freemason. I can give the names of these websites and books if required.

Not that this particularly helps, but: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sonsayfa.com%2FHaberler%2FGuncel%2FMasonlarin-Suleyman-Demirel-kavgasi-138319.html--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mattmullins55, 23 May 2011

Adding professional baseball umpire Matthew Z. Mullins (1985- ) Grand Lodge of Arizona, Orient of Arizona, Valley of Phoenix

Mattmullins55 (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: All people on this list need 1) their own wikipedia article (so you'd have to make one, and be sure to show how/why the person is notable), and 2) some sort of reference verifying that they are/were freemasons. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Since when do "all people on this list need their own Wikipedia article"? Wikipedia requires notability, but Wikipedia is not all-inclusive and all notables do not have articles. kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 23:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

We reached a consensus on this a while back (you will have to search through the archives for it). The idea was to make it clear that we are not listing every Freemason... ever. We don't want non-notable people listed. And by far the easiest way to determine whether a person is notable or not is to see if there is already at least a stub article about the person (ie if the person's name is blue-linked, we can assume notability... and if it goes back to being a red-link, we know an AFD determined that the person is not notable). It isn't an uncommon inclusion criteria in list articles, especially those where inclusion is potentially contentious (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (stand-alone lists) discusses this). Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the concept but the rule is just simply too strict as stated - being in Wikipedia isn't the test of notability. It can't be - you have to be notable first. If you're notable you can be in Wikipedia, eether as an article, or as a list entry, or both; it's just logic. Nevertheless if the consensus is that notability comes first, then an article, and then. only after both of those, a list entry, I bow to the requirements of the List Requirements Cabal.  :) kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 02:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

A Question on Notability

If a person is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, especially one that has been rated as B quality or better, and there is undisbutable proof the person was a freemason, they should be included in the list, yes?  Eric Cable  |  Talk  13:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Depends... what do you mean by "undisputable proof"? If you mean "I have found a reliable source that says he was a Mason", then yes, we can (and should) add him... if you mean "I've done Original research, and can prove he was a Mason"... then no, we can't. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd also point out that article rating has nothing to do with anything - it's relatively subjective and somewhat mutable. Notability is per the relevant policy, and sources must satisfy the relevant policies and guidelines on WP which apply to them. MSJapan (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

We have a fairly clear consensus on the inclusion criteria for this list ... a) to show that the person is notable enough to be included, an article on the person should exist before adding the person to the list, b) to show that the person is a Mason, a reliable source (that explicitly states the person is/was a Mason) must be provided when the person is added to the list. I think that is clear enough. Blueboar (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

For example, William Polk... This source [1] is the Grand Lodge of North Carolina saying "this guy was our Grand Master from 1799 to 1802. Not good enough? Ok, this is confirmed by this source: [2] (page 114). Finally, there's this:[[File:William Polk Col Sig.jpg]] which is where to good folks at the Hiram Lodge, No. 40 in Raleigh made me a copy of their two-hundred and eleven year old charter which bears the man's signature. If this is not "undisputable proof" then I'd like to know what is. Eric Cable  |  Talk  23:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is some evidence that there were two relatively prominent people named William Polk living in North Carolina in the 1790s (ie some evidence that Col. William Polk was not the same man as Grand Master William Polk), I would say that those sources are exactly what we would want.... go ahead and add him to our list. (Note... we don't require proof... we require reliable sources... which you have.) Blueboar (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the only surviving painting of Colonel William Polk is hanging in the NC Grand Lodge with the caption "Grand Master William Polk" so I think we're safe on that. Eric Cable  |  Talk  01:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I half expected you guys to say "concluding someone was a mason because they were Grand Master is orignal synthesis and therefore not good enough." That would make as much sense as saying "concluding someone is a mason because you have proof they are a shriner is original synthesis." No, I haven't gotten over that. Eric Cable  |  Talk  01:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between belonging to the Shrine and being a Grand Master. For example, a person might demit from their blue lodge and yet remain a member of the shrine ... but to be elected Grand Master you need to be a Mason in good standing. Blueboar (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

smacks forehead Eric Cable  |  Talk  02:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Eric, if your whole reason for continuing to edit the page is just to be POINTY, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for some admin intervention, and while you may be being facetious in your earlier comments, I most certainly am not, and I do not see any implied humor therein. So, you can either admit you were wrong and drop the Shrine thing once and for all, or leave the page. You know what the criteria are for inclusion, and there is no need to have a long conversation over each one just so you can be "right". MSJapan (talk) 07:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That is a bit of an over reaction, MSJ. Eric has not been editing the list in a pointy or disruptive manner. Sure, he made a slightly pointy comment here on a talk page, but we all do that from time to time... that's allowed as long as long as you don't push it too far (which he hasn't). Blueboar (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Boar, you're the man. Eric Cable  |  Talk  19:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

MSJapan, why do you think you are the owner of this page? Why is it that YOU get to decide what the standard for inclusion is? If an admin were to intervene, I might have to ask them the same questions. It is not my goal to be disruptive here, but if I were to die tomorrow, I would ask them to put the following on my headstone: “The insistence that proof that someone is a Shriner does not prove they are a mason is insanity.” Peace. Eric Cable  |  Talk  19:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Eric... now you are the one overreacting by making things personal. MSJ was hardly the only one to give you essentially same answer on the Shriner issue. We understand you are not happy with the consensus... No need to push it. Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, let me be clear. I am not arguing about the Shriner issue. Those of you who 'control' this list have made your decision. What I said above was a snide comment and nothing more. I have no delusions that you gentlemen will change your position on this, even though, in my opinion, it’s an incorrect position. MSJ made it personal when he threatened admin intervention. That’s all. Have a good day. Eric Cable  |  Talk  20:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Richard Dreyfuss

Mr. Dreyfuss was recently added with a reference to Chris Hodapp's blog. Normally, I would call Hodapp a good reference, but in this case, he is not... Hodapp says he got his information from a recent addition to the Wikipedia article on Dreyfuss (an unreferenced addition, as it turns out... one that has subsequently been removed). This sets up a "circular reference" (Wikipeida cites Hodapp, who cites Wikipedia). Without a proper citation he is essentially repeating rumor.

I don't find the idea that Dreyfuss was made a "Mason at sight" all that surprising, but we need confirmation and a solidly reliable source before we can actually say he was. Especially since we are dealing with a living person. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

We should probably remove him from the list for the time being. I did a quick Yahoo search for "Dreyfus Mason on sight" and "Dreyfus Grand Lodge of DC" and found no references to this event other than 1) an invitation to members of the Grand Lodge of DC to attend a special event with Dreyfus as the special guest and 2) Hodapp's blog. It seems that something happened, but until we have more reliable references to exactly what happened, we should remove the listing. --Taivo (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... I guess you are right. Per WP:BLP, we should not repeat rumor. We can always return him to the list when/if we get confirmation. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It's ironic, but if Bro. Hodapp had not been so honest about his source, we would have accepted his word without much question. --Taivo (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... but that's why I consider his blog to be reliable. He does cite his sources. Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently there is now photographic evidence here of Bro. Dreyfuss wearing a Masonic apron. Bro. Hodapp is no longer quoting Wikipedia in this matter. --Taivo (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent... then I have no more objection to citing his blog. Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 46.12.16.226, 20 June 2011

Physicist and Mathematician David Brewster was a freemason.

46.12.16.226 (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done:... we would need a reliable source to add him. Blueboar (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Shaquille O'Neal

Shaq is listed as a member of a Prince Hall lodge in Pomona, California, but if this report is correct, then he was not already a Master Mason, else he would not have needed to be made a Mason on sight. --Taivo (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There was a lot of controversy over when and where he was made a Mason, but I'm inclined to go with Hodapp. PeRshGo (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hodapp is correct. MSJapan (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree... I will also note that the info about Shaq belonging to a CA lodge was unsourced... I have corrected the entry and cited Hodapp. Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

edit request

CJ Langenhoven was a member of Cango Lodge 2088 EC in Oudtshoorn. Kingstonp (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It would not surprise me at all. If you can provide us with a source, we would be happy to add him. Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 108.83.205.6, 8 July 2011

I Am a Freemasons in Raleigh,NC my name is Defphone Bundy Please add to list lodge name is New Born of Selma,NC 108.83.205.6 (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jnorton7558 (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the failure of the GNG requirements, I can find no reference to said lodge in said place, and it is somewhat suspicious in that it has no number. MSJapan (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Maxgold211, 9 July 2011

Please add my Grandfather Dr. Maxwell Gold, Master of Masonic Lodge No. 225 http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-08-20/bay-area/17505383_1_wrestling-chiropractor-active-duty

Maxgold211 (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Not Done... please don't take this personally, but I question whether your grandfather would be considered notable enough to be added to this list. I suggest you read Wikipedia's WP:Notability and WP:Notability (sports) guidelines. We essentially require that the people on this list have their own stand alone Wikipedia article before we add them. Blueboar (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 46.246.253.148, 14 July 2011

The Baron Eames was a freemason as stated to his article.--46.246.253.148 (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

46.246.253.148 (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done - While the bio article does say he was a Freemason, the information is not cited to a reliable source. I have requested a citation at that article. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 46.246.253.148, 14 July 2011

There are many people who appear in references 311, 313 and 315, have an entry to wikipedia and are not in the list can someone put them?--46.246.253.148 (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

46.246.253.148 (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done - Lodges aren't cited in the archives on ref 311, so those other people cannot be added. Our reference requirements need a Lodge citation at minimum, and not one of those men has a Lodge joining date, which the Lodge should have. As for 313, many of those people don't meet the GNG, and many of those that do don't have usable sourcing. Ref. 315 is not in English, so I have no idea who those people are, or why they are notable. MSJapan (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As for references 311 and 313: If they are not so reliable they must be deleted from the article. As for reference 315: If you see, it is split in two areas. The first is about Serbians and the second about non-Serbians. I went and checked that all non-Serbians have an entry in Wikipedia and only three Serbians have NOT an entry in Wikipedia.--46.246.253.148 (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.246.178.119 (talk)

Lacking Professionals

There are many people who are known only because of being freemasons e.g. Charles Radclyffe, John Mylne. Why aren't they in the list?--46.246.253.148 (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Radclyffe is notable for being a peer more so than for being a Freemason (in fact, there's no citation for that), and Mylne was an actual stonemason who died 50 years before modern Freemasonry was even organized. Therefore, neither qualifies for the list. MSJapan (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• But there are more. Those were simply examples.--46.246.253.148 (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Post a list and I'll go through them. MSJapan (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I found many from time to time in categories such as Hermetic Order of Golden Dawn, Hermetism, Occultism etc. If you go in this categories you will find many of them.--46.246.253.148 (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, I remebered one now: James Anderson!--46.246.253.148 (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh... good catch on Anderson... I'll add him. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If you see in Anderson there is a category named People known for their contribution to Freemasonry, and is exactly what we are looking for.--46.246.253.148 (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.195.186.211, 18 July 2011

Another Famous Mason that is not currently on your List. 32nd degree Prince Hall Mason, became US president candidate for 2008. His name is Barack Hussein Obama."

99.195.186.211 (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This one we would definitely need very solid and reliable sources for. Blueboar (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a Mason, no sources supporting it.--13:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 46.246.173.61, 23 July 2011

Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, Thomas Dundas, 2nd Earl of Zetland, George Robinson, 1st Marquess of Ripon, Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, Prince George, Duke of Kent, Henry Lascelles, 6th Earl of Harewood, Edward Cavendish, 10th Duke of Devonshire, Roger Lumley, 11th Earl of Scarbrough, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, Henry Herbert, 4th Earl of Carnarvon, Edward Bootle-Wilbraham, 1st Earl of Lathom, William Amherst, 3rd Earl Amherst, Oliver Russell, 2nd Baron Ampthill

46.246.173.61 (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You know, if you create a user name, and log in and edit for a while, you could add these yourself. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This means yes or no?46.246.173.61 (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to. Can you put them or if not you somebody else.--46.246.173.61 (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No, because there is no citation available as such, and I personally don't want to do the legwork to find the citations for somebody who doesn't want to do it themselves. MSJapan (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I am essentially feeling the same way. 46.246.173.61, please remember that we are volunteers here. If you can't be bothered to do some basic research, why should I do it for you? Since the page is semi-protected, and you can not physically edit it, I am more than willing to edit on your behalf ... but I am not going to do your research for for you as well. You have to make it easy for me to add the name... by doing the research yourself and providing the citation at the time that you make a request. If someone else wants is willing to do it for you, fine. That's their choice. So... it remains neither yes, not no... someone might make the additions, but I'm not. Blueboar (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik

As this has come up twice already. Even from sources, there is no direct proof that Breivik was a Mason. Apparently somebody found a Grade I (definitely Swedish Rite, and some sort of equivalent to Entered Apprentice, maybe?) book that was apparently his and dated 2008. No proof given. As I am not very well-versed in Swedish Rite, I have no idea, therefore, whether one is a officially a member at Grade I, or if one is not a member until completing to a certain level. I would deduce that Breivik never got past Grade I if that was all that was found, and as it would be three years old, it is in fact likely he is no longer a member (if he ever was). I keep saying I'm going ot learn more about Swedish Rite, but never quite get the info. Maybe this is a good impetus.

Anyhow, I digress. Another source says that a spokesman for the political party Breivik was formerly affiliated with said Breivik was a Freemason. This in the same article where said party "lamented" Breivik's prior membership and made sure to point out a lack of activity and that nobody associated with Breivik. In short, this is a great example of why we need solid sources, because it's phrased exactly like a "don't blame political ideology, blame the Freemasons" argument, especially since nobody can attribute anything to anyone. MSJapan (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Appears to be a debate at the moment over whether a unique article is justified, so any discussion may be moot.

Notwithstanding that, one of the sources listed suggests a statement from the GL confirming membership but little activity.

Whilst it's not germane to his notability a literal interpretation of the policies would suggest inclusion, although a more substantive reference to the GL statement would be useful.

ALR (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A comment I came across (while not RS) indicated he had been expelled prior to the incident. There's also a question of whether he progressed high enough for member status (a candidate isn't a full member), so I think the best thing to do at present is to set it aside until a reliable source gives enough information to make a substantive judgment. MSJapan (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

All I will add is that there is now a fairly lengthy article aboout this guy:Anders Behring Breivik

Honestly, I think any research that can be done that eventually proves this jackass is NOT a mason would be a service to our fraternity. Maybe we should start a new article/list, or add a section to this one, entitled "NOT Freemasons" Eric Cable  |  Talk  15:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

While that may be a service to the fraternity... our job here is service to Wikipedia and its readers. To do that, we need to find reliable sources that a) verify whether he does/did or does/did not have some sort of Masonic connection? and b) if so, what is/was it? I agree that until we have solid sources (and not just repetition of rumor) we should hold off on including him. Blueboar (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

OK... I think we may have a reliable source... The fact that the Norwegian Order of Freemasons has issued this statement, condeming Breivik's actions and announcing that he has been excluded (ie expelled) indicates that he clearly was a member. We do include other expelled Masons on the list (noting the fact of the expulsion)... so I don't see any justification for not including Breivik (as much as I would like to). Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Frederick Booth-Tucker

 Completed I am compiling a bibliography and see that Frederick Booth-Tucker wrote Freeman of Shanghai in 1922 or 1928. This is not evidence in itself that Booth-Tucker was a freemason but his book could be reviewed to verify this. The OCLC records are:

• 11072293 (1928?): St. Paul, MN; Chicago, IL; Evanston, IL; Atlanta, GA; Winston-Salem, NC; New Haven, CT
• 250359440 (1928): Berlin, Germany
• 34607726 (1922?) with the title Freemen of Shanghai: New York, NY

--Marc Kupper|talk 23:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

He likely was not, as he was a senior member of the Salvation Army (and therefore highly involved and heavily traveled), but the prohibition of membership in all other organizations (including, but not specifically, Freemasonry) was after his time, in 1925, so it can't be ruled out. There seems to be a lot of conspiracy theory-type stuff on the two groups, but not much else solid. MSJapan (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I found the book on Google Books at vfwOAAAAQAAJ. It turns out this book is about Mr. and Mrs. Albert Freeman. I don't know if Google includes 100% of the words in its index but at least in the parts I could search the book does not mention mason, masonry, freemason, nor freemasonry. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Montfort?

OK, I want to add Joseph Montfort but there is not a wiki article about him (I'll get around to creating it). He should be included on the list because he was "The First-The Last-The Only-Grandmaster of America". He was apointed "Provincial Grand Master of and for America" on Jan 14, 1771 by the Duke of Beaufort, the Grand Master of the GLE. He granted charters to a number of lodges in North Carolina who later went on to found the Grand Lodge of North Carolina in 1797 (Some of them are still active). So, I guess my question is, does there need to be a wiki article first, then add him to this list, or can he be added to the list first? Thanks! Eric Cable  |  Talk  16:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

PS... see (http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WMKP7_Joseph_Montfort_Halifax_North_Carolina) and (http://www.grandlodge-nc.org/montfort/Joseph%20Montfort%20Award%20Historical%20facts-rev%201.pdf) Eric Cable  |  Talk  16:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeremy Gridley had a similar title granted (prior to that time, though I don't recall from which group in England) as Grand Master of North America, so you may want to re-evaluate Montfort's notability if it is going to be based solely on a title. Activity of Lodges he chartered isn't terribly relevant to him; not only due to WP:NOTINHERITED, but because there are plenty of nn GMs who have chartered lodges still in existence (case in point: we make a big deal out of Paul Revere, but also out of MA, how about Robert Tomlinson? As 2nd GM, he had to have chartered Lodges, but there's hardly any data available on him). As a general rule, GMs are not notable solely for being GMs (and yes, there are exceptions, but not many, because a lot of times, the historical GMs were known in the community for something as well), because we want to avoid having to create articles for otherwise nn people in progressive GL lines in particular. Before you write the article, make sure he has some other claim to fame. MSJapan (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I checked WP:N and WP:PEOPLE and don't see where Masonic grandmastership, nor "having data on the person," is a qualification for notability on Wikipedia. Paul Revere qualifies as notable based as he "has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

This article starts out with "This is a list of notable Freemasons" though unfortunately it does not define if "notable" is Wikipedia's definition of notable or if people notable within Masonry, but perhaps not Wikipedia, could be added to this list. However, at present each of 535 people listed are also wikilinked to articles about that person and so I believe it's safe to assume that "notable" is the Wikipedia definition. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the way to go here is to start off with a short section on Montfort and the colonial NC lodges he created in a Grand Lodge of North Carolina article. This could be the seed for expansion as you find more information. I do agree with MSJapan on inclusion. It is certainly premature to add Montfort now... and if being a Provincial GM (even one with a fancier than normal title) is all we have, I am not sure its enough. We do have to be careful of fancy Masonic titles... they sound impressive... but they don't always mean much. From what I know of colonial Masonic history, Montfort's title did not mean that he had jurisdiction over all 13 colonies and the Canadian provinces. I am positive that he had no authority over the Provincial Grand Lodge of New York (Moderns)... of which Sir John Johnson was Provincial Grand Master from 1767 through the outbreak of the Revolution. Blueboar (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Marc, I think you misunderstood what I was writing, because you just entirely agreed with what I was saying. My point was that being a GM alone does not make one notable, and that seemed to be what you were implying by saying that Montfort was a GM who chartered Lodges that formed GLNC and still active today and leaving it at that. Nevertheless, it appears we seem to agree that inclusion is predicated on meeting the relevant notability guidelines. MSJapan (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

MSJapan, I'm sorry, I automatically indented as I was adding a new item to this thread in response to both EricCable and you. For EricCable, please make the article on Joseph Montfort first following the usual Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If that's done right then it will be easy to see that the person is notable. You have already found decent evidence that he was a freemason meaning at that point he can be added to this article as he would then pass the rather simple test for inclusion on this list which is "This is a list of notable Freemasons." As Blueboar noted, your research to create an article on Joseph Montfort likely will run across sources that also allow for creation of a Grand Lodge of North Carolina article.

MSJapan, I was also responding to you as nearly all of your response to EricCable was about Grand Mastership. You seemed to state that there were some conditions or exceptions where Grand Mastership would qualify someone as notable. Even in your second message (in response to mine) you imply that GM has some bearing on notability or at least that's how I read "being a GM alone does not make one notable." I was saying there are no exceptions and that Grand Mastership in itself is irrelevant as far as Wikipedia notability goes. I never said nor implied that "Montfort was a GM who chartered Lodges that formed GLNC and still active today." I have no knowledge nor opinion at all on that subject. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

A follow-up for EricCable. I checked a number of references for Joseph Montfort and found nothing other than references to the Joseph Montfort Award. Google Books gets a number of hits but so far it's a challenge to find sources that are independent of the subject writing in detail about the subject so that it passes WP:N. Specifically, we are looking for someone independent of Masonry writing about Montfort. I did learn that handsome tablet was erected February 13, 1911 by the Joseph Montfort Memorial Association which was a Masonic group. In this book he is referred to as Joseph Montford which also recounts a Masonic effort that resulted in them locating his grave, and them moving his body to a Masonic cemetery. I did not search further to see if there's material available under "Montford."

This book seems to be independent of Masonry, has a page on the guy, and also mentions that a "fake house" has been constructed at the site of his original house. We'll need multiple sources like this - particularly as the guy does not seem to be known of outside of Halifax and NC Masonry. --Marc Kupper|talk 10:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Also check out William Denslow's 10,000 famous Freemasons... has an entry on Montfort that could be used for both information and notability. 68.165.92.195 (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As it's not independent of the source we can't use that one for notability. We need detailed articles on the guy from people outside of Masonry and ideally, outside of North Carolina. In a nutshell from WP:N, we are looking for "those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time." Montfort seems to be failing this test. He only seems to be mentioned in by those promoting one of their own (Masons or Halifaxers) and those doing comprehensive surveys of Masonry or North Carolina. He never did anything to cause the world spotlight to cover him over a period of time. On the plus side, a case could be made for notability as there are many trivial coverages. Ideally we have independent/detailed coverage. WP:PEOPLE offers a number of loopholes for those that fail the general test. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Why wouldn't Denslow be considered an independent source in an article about Montfort? He has no direct tie to Montfort. Blueboar (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Denslow was a Mason writing about other Masons meaning a lack of independence from the subject. Plus he was doing a comprehensive survey of lodges and writing about everyone that caught his attention. I would not consider that an example of "attention by the world" that we are looking for. I consider Denslow a reliable source of information about a subject but not one that could be used to establish that the subject is notable. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

More on this, please see Wikipedia:Notability#cite_ref-4. I would consider Denslow to be a "directory" of famous Masons. This directory was constructed from the intersection of lists masons and Who's Who plus its supporting directories. Also see Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 12#Independent+non trivial? Debretts, Whos Who etc. Near the bottom of that thread is mention of wording that, at the time, was at "WP:COI#Notability and saliency" that excluded Who's Who. The text was there in 2 May 2007 and then deleted as it was stuff that belonged in WP:N. The main issue seems to be that Who's Who's definition of "notable" is more inclusive than Wikipedia's. Thus mention in Who's Who is not automatic proof of notability for Wikipedia. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

However, Masonic researchers do work independently on their own time - they are not funded by Grand Lodges (even if they work there), the books aren't published by Grand Lodges (10K Famous Freemasons was published by a Lodge of Research and much later by a Masonic publisher).

I think there is some confusion here... I am not saying that merely being mentioned in Denslow is enough to say that someone notable... I am saying that Denslow might contain a biographical fact that would indicate the the person was notable. For example, if Denslow notes that X was a General in the Union Army during the Civil War... that information (ie that X was a General) is what makes the person notable. The fact that Denslow and X were both members of the Masons is irrelevant to that fact... Denslow is a reliable source for the fact that the person was a General. And Denslow is an independent source on X when it comes to X's Generalship. Blueboar (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Denslow credits the the York Rite with "paying the salary of the author and his staff of The Royal Arch Mason magazine for the many hours they have spent working on these volumes." Even with that, I'm personally satisfied with using his work as a source of biographic information. Sorry, yes, there was some confusion as the thread was initially about if Montfort is notable. When Blueboar wrote "Why wouldn't Denslow be considered an independent source ..." I thought he meant inclusion in Denslow a source for notability. It looks like we are in agreement that inclusion 10,000 Famous Freemasons is not itself proof of notability. Inclusion could be used as part of the evidence for someone's notability but someone using that route would need to be fairly persuasive.

I looked at the Joseph Montfort entry in Denslow and one item that strikes me as being potentially notable under WP:POLITICIAN is "member of the colonial assembly." It appears he served in the lower house of the Royal Colony of North Carolina Assembly. There's indirect mention of him such as in the footnote of a Virginia assembly proceedings. I was unable to local a roster of members, voting records, etc. for the assembly itself. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, then that pretty much solves the problem, because if Denslow found it, it's got to be extant, and there's got to be something on NC colonial history someplace. MSJapan (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all for all the responses and comments. First of all, I think the answer to the question "Does one need to have their own article before being listed here?" has been answered as "yes" which is what I figured and is reasonable. As for Montfort's notability, as Mark says he was a state(colonial)-level politician and that for the most part satisfies WP:POLITICIAN so I don't think notability on him is going to be a problem. As for creating a Grand Lodge of North Carolina article, that's about #3 on my current wiki "to do" list. Cheers. Eric Cable  |  Talk  15:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 46.246.217.178, 28 July 2011

Can you please add Dr. Walter Fleming and William Conlin or Florence, the founders of the Shriners? Thank you! --46.246.217.178 (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

46.246.217.178 (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems like it would be a no-brainer but it's not clear which of the sources in the Florence article confirm that he was a Mason. We need reliable sources for this article. Fleming's article has a source and so he was added.

• William Conlin or Florence, co-founder of the Shriners

--Marc Kupper|talk 22:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Reference found and added. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Should excluded members, or those who have disavowed masonry, be on the list?

Anders Behring Breivik has been excluded (expelled) from Freemasonry. Should he be retained on this list, deleted, or like List of Scientologists should we have a "Former members" section?

• Talk:List of Freemasons/Archive 1#Famous and infamous must have been written before Benedict Arnold and Anders Behring Breivik were added.
• Talk:List of Freemasons/Archive 2#Kenneth Noye, British criminal, discusses removing an expelled member from the list provided a reliable source could be found that he had been expelled.
• Talk:List of Freemasons/Archive 2#Members of P2? discusses not listing members as their lodge was declared to be irregular. It's not known if anyone was not included or removed from the list because of this. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Charles Finney is currently on the list though apparently asked for dismissal which was granted. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

First, a few notes on those specific cases, because each is different... There is debate as to whether Benedict Arnold was expelled or not (and by whom), so he should be listed. As for the members of P2... a lot depends on when they became members. Someone who joined the lodge before it's charter was revoked should probably be included. Those who joined after it had its charter revoked should not be on the list, as they are/were not legitimate Masons (and given the rumors and conspiracy theories that have been attached to P2, solid sourcing is needed to determine if someone was a member pre-revocation or not). As for people like Noye and Breivik... if there are solid sources that they were Masons (and in these two, I think there are), they should be listed. Although we should also note that they were expelled.

Second... an important point... While many if not most of the editors who contribute to this list are Masons, we should not be contributing as Masons... we should contributing as Wikipedians. Our job here is to neutrally list notable people who were/are Freemasons, the good and the bad, and not just those who bring credit to the fraternity.

That said... each case really needs to be examined individually... based on the sources. Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget Winston Churchill and Oscar Wilde as well, who both demitted.

The issue is this, I think: Is it appropriate to include "ex-members" (for whatever reason) on this list, because in a sense, it portrays them as something they are not (namely, members). In a sense, it's POV for saying only that Churchill was a member on the "good" side, but it's also POV to put Noye in there as a member to show a "bad" side. The reader is going to have an association with a name no matter what we do, so I think the most accurate way to do it would be to indicate membership status where necessary. That way, we aren't "hiding" information, but we are also not skewing it either. MSJapan (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If the entry makes it clear that the person was expelled (or resigned), then we do not "portray them as something they are not". We are simply stating the verifiable facts... They were members at one point, but then they were expelled/resigned and thus ceased being members. Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You do, and I do, but look at the Breivik entry that was put in, and a lot of the other nonsense that gets put in. MSJapan (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a question of editing, not inclusion/exclusion. I think the current entry is fine. Blueboar (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It’s unfortunate, but at the end of the day when you have a fraternity the size of Freemasonry you’re bound to have a few despicable individuals may their way in, and they’re the ones people will talk about. Heck, I can think of three we talk about all the time. PeRshGo (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 46.12.66.253, 1 August 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Roger Lumley, 11th Earl of Scarbrough, was the Grand Master of the UGLE from 1951 to 1967. Can you please add him.--46.12.66.253 (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

46.12.66.253 (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: Although other articles on Wikipedia show that he was a Grand Master, this list requires a citation to add a person. Please respond with a citation from a reliable source and I'll be happy to add him for you. Cheers, — Bility (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Citation found: [3]--46.246.218.161 (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I confirm that. The specific citation info is:

"Obituary: Lawrence Roger Lumley, 11th Earl of Scarbrough, K. G., P. C., G. C. S. I., G. C. I. E., G. C. V. O., 27 July 1896-29 June 1969"

Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London

Vol. 32, No. 3 (1969) p. 687

The author is listed as "R. L. T." - it's not clear who this is, so it can probably be omitted. Likely a staff writer, huh?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done  Chzz  ►  20:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete The Article

This article is nonsense. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was not a freemason. There is no acceptable source about it. This article must be deleted because of Wikipedia's guidelines such as verifiability. The people in this article is here just because of some rumours. This is not a provable article. You can give information about freemasonary but you can not write spurious things about people. This article must be deleted as soon as due to policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.162.134 (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

We have plenty of sources that say he was, so no, we cannot delete the information. MSJapan (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, we require (and have) sources for every entry on the list. This list is as well cited as any article on Wikipedia - indeed, it is better referenced than most. There are reliable sources to show the masonic membership of everyone on the list (including Ataturk).Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 12:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You gave 3 referance. One of them is dead link. The other one is a website that we cant trust reliability. The other one is a book. Let me ask, how can this article be in an encyclopedia? For another example, you wrote Shaquille O'Neal and its referance is a blog(Just a picture). This is an encyclopedia, you cannot give referances as sites. This article shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.187.158 (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

We can fix the dead link... and the book would be enough for inclusion on its own. You say that the "polices and guidelines of Wikipedia" indicate that the article should be deleted, oh? which ones? Certainly not our core policies of WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutral point of view. They both indicate that well sourced material should be included.

If you can come up with policies and guidelines to support your arguments, you are welcome to nominate this article for deletion at WP:Articles for deletion. However, my understanding of the "policies and guidelines of Wikipedia" is that they indicate the exact opposite... that we should keep the article (and the entry for Ataturk) as being well sourced. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 46.246.218.161, 3 August 2011

Can you please add the Duke of Kent, the current grand master of the UGLE? Well, I have not a citation but this is like asking me for a citation that Prince Hall was a freemason. It is like asking me for a citation that Wasington was a freemason. Thanks!

46.246.218.161 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel strongly that there should be no exceptions. I'll just note that we actually have a citation for George Washington. And we should have one for Prince Hall (don't know why Hall doesn't have one yet... I know he has a bio page at the BC&Y website that could be used).

That said, a citation for the Duke of Kent should be easy to come up with (he is probably mentioned on the UGLE website), so... I will be happy to add the Duke of Kent (with citation) when I get a chance... I'll be away from my computer most of today... please be patient (and if another editor wants to take care of this sooner, that would be appreciated). Blueboar (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done with pleasure. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 22:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 46.246.250.52, 10 August 2011

Can you please add Samuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers? Well I have not a citation but it isn't hard to find one if I wasn't so buisy I would find it myself. Thanks!

46.246.250.52 (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: Again you want us to do your research for you? We are busy too you know... So, ask again once you find time to supply us with a source. We will consider making the addition once you do so. Until then, no. Blueboar (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean again bro?--77.49.154.248 (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I mean that the requesting editor (46.246.etc) has made repeated requests, and each time he has been told the same thing: "please give us a source with the request." Per WP:BURDEN, it is up to the editor who wishes to add material to an article to supply a source for it if requested. He knows this, we have discussed it before... but he continues to make repeated requests without giving us a source. Thus the "Again". Blueboar (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Geolocation, geolocation, geolocation. If you have time to spend on Wikipedia, you have time to spend finding a source. MSJapan (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree Eric Cable  |  Talk  16:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

For the Record: I am NOT this guy, nor am I 92.45.162.134 above. :)  Eric Cable  |  Talk  16:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean geolocation?--77.49.154.248 (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, there is your citation [4]

Third paragraph--77.49.154.248 (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)