Talk:Freemasonry

Women’s Freemssonry

A recent edit added Women’s Freemasonry as a third branch or “recognition chain” in Freemasonry… however, my understanding was that these groups were already covered under “Continental”/“Liberal” Freemasonry. Is this not the case? Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

It's a difficult one to determine, while most woman freemasonry would fall under Liberal Freemasonry, some require a belief in God (Universal Co-Masonry and other), which would be incompatible with Liberal Freemasonry, also some Liberal Lodges do not allow women. So, I felt that the most respectful and objective way to present them was to have their own category, what do you think? HyperSite (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Disclosure: I belong to a liberal Lodge.

It might be interesting to note that a Masonic Grand Lodge/obedience can be described in terms of its admission policy, without the need to appeal to their "regularity" or "recognition" situation. For instance, if they allow males and females, we can say they are a "mixed" obedience. Otherwise, it can be "male-only" or "female-only". Also interesting to note that some obediences are mixed overall, but let their Lodges have their own gender admission policy, i.e. some of their lodges are male-only, female-only, and/or mixed (for instance, the Grand Orient of Belgium have 3 federations of Lodges, each with their own distinct gender admission policy).

If an obedience does NOT require a believe in a "supreme being" (overall, in their constitutions), they refer to themselves as "adogmatic", but I am personally not sure if this term is "neutral" in and on itself, since it (might) imply that masons that agree about admitting only "believers in a supreme being" are "dogmatic", which is debatable, to say the least.

Now, if we talk about "chains of recognition", I think we can all agree that the main "federation" of organisations, internationally, by numbers, is the "UGLE-sphere", understood as the sphere of recognition of the United Grand Lodge of England. Because their self-identity, modern and historical, for good and for worse, has put a lot of emphasis in the admission policy, it happens that the UGLE-sphere is "male-only" and "believers-only", and insists dearly that masons that do not agree about this admission policy will never be recognised as masons by them. Some of the obediences there, like the UGLE itself, might be open to the idea of women-only obediences, to a degree that they recommend them to women looking for admission, but they have been always crystal clear about the non-recognised status (which implies that inter-visitation is forbidden).

The second "federation" might be the summed spheres of recognition of the Grand Orient de France and Le Droit Humain (which is in itself an international federation), although we could also note a few other french obediences, which are historically important and with relatively big numbers, but currently outside the UGLE-sphere, like the Grand Lodge of France. The reason these big obediences have their own sphere of influence/recognition is because they parted ways with the UGLE at some point in history. Although I am quite sure the reasons are historically complex, we can more or less agree that LDH was founded outside the UGLE because their foundational principle was to admit women and establish a "mixed" obedience, for the first time. The GOdF case is surely more complex, because they were recognised up to some point in history, but it is generally understood that they parted ways because they dropped the requirement to "believe in a supreme being". It is also interesting to note that it took much longer for the GOdF and others in their sphere of influence to also drop the "male-only" rule.

Well... all things considered, I am not sure what a wikipedia article should reflect. I do not think that to call "liberal" a "women-only" obedience is disrespectful, but I would totally agree that to call it "women-only" is accurate and sufficient. The debate is then how do we call those obediences that are outside the UGLE-sphere. I think the terms "liberal" and "continental" are the most widely used. I can see that "continental" might be geographically misleading, so my preference, currently, would be to call them "liberal", if we define it negatively, that is: that "liberal" does not imply an specific admission policy, but implies that they DO NOT adhere to the founding/traditional policy of only admitting men and believers.

I fail to see how the usage of "liberal" might feel disrespectful (unless using a different definition with political connotations, perhaps?), but happy to read an argument about it. Mitelmo (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Article review

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I have taken a look at the article and noticed the following:

• There are uncited statements in the article.
• There is an "unreliable sources" orange banner at the top of "Islam and Freemasonry" section. Is this still valid?

Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

This is a tricky topic to bring up at GAR… a LOT of material on Freemasonry comes from two types of sources: 1) Primary source material from insiders, 2) unreliable source material from opponents of Freemasonry. There isn’t much that would qualify as both independent and secondary material - ie what GAR is looking for. I am tempted to say: let’s make it accurate, and if that means we don’t get to GA or FA, so be it. Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Freemasonry

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

There are uncited statements in the article. There is an "unreliable sources" orange banner at the top of "Islam and Freemasonry" section. Is this still valid? Z1720 (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

It’s tricky… The sources cited in that section are reliable as primary sources for verifying what Islamic critics of Freemasonry claim about the fraternity… they are not reliable as secondary sources for saying that these claims are in any way accurate. Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Nomenclature

Given some of the recent additions, I think we need to revisit a discussion that we had several years ago, and reach a (new?) consensus. The issue is what to call the two main traditions/factions within broader Freemasonry?

English language sources tend to reflect an Anglo/American perspective, and use “Regular” and “Continental” when discussing these two branches. Sources that stem from the Euro-sphere, however, tend to use “Liberal” and “Conservative” to describe the two branches. Both forms of nomenclature have neutrality problems.

Here on WP, we try to take a neutral position on all of this. But that presents a problem in determining which terms we should use. My own inclination is that we should use the terms that each branch uses when referring to themselves (so “Regular” and “Liberal”) and avoid the terms that each branch uses when referring to the other (so avoid “Continental”, and “Conservative”). But I am open to suggestions. Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I strongly believe we should adopt "Conservative" and "Liberal" as the most neutral terminology for both Masonic traditions. This approach offers several advantages:

First, "Regular" inherently implies legitimacy, suggesting the other tradition is somehow irregular or illegitimate - a perspective not shared by Liberal Masons themselves. Wikipedia's neutrality policy requires we avoid terminology that subtly endorses one side's viewpoint.

Second, "Continental" creates a misleading geographical limitation when this tradition is practiced globally, just as Conservative Masonry extends far beyond Britain. Using geographical terms for philosophical differences introduces unnecessary confusion.

Third, "Conservative" and "Liberal" directly address the actual philosophical distinctions between these traditions without embedding claims about legitimacy or origin. These terms accurately reflect the fundamental differences in their approaches to Masonic tradition and practice.

This parallels other Wikipedia naming conventions where neutrality is prioritized over common usage. Consider how the Russian Wikipedia uses "Russia-Ukraine War" rather than the more commonly used "Special Military Operation" in Russia. In both cases, clarity and neutrality should take precedence over terminology preferences of either side.

Additionally, using consistent parallel terms (Conservative/Liberal) provides readers with an immediate understanding of the philosophical contrast between these traditions, making our articles more accessible to those unfamiliar with Masonic history. It also aligns with Wikipedia's commitment to describing subjects in terms that would be recognized by reliable sources across multiple language communities, not just English-language ones.

Finally, this terminology change would bring our articles in line with scholarly discourse that increasingly recognizes these philosophical designations as more accurate than the historically contingent terms from any single national tradition.

As an encyclopedia committed to representing multiple perspectives fairly, we should choose terminology that most accurately describes the philosophical distinction between these traditions without implicitly favoring either's claims about legitimacy. "Conservative" and "Liberal" accomplish this goal most effectively. HyperSite (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

In addition I believe that being able to clearly define those two movements will enable us to have a more qualitative article on regular Freemasonry since the term regular is used by both sides in some instance.

We could create a new article called conservative Freemasonry explaining its roots history lineage and points of view and modify the article concerning regular Freemasonry to explain what the concept of regularity with information on where it comes in Free-Masonry as a whole and how it's applied in both traditions today.

This way we could avoid using any type of loaded terminology and respect Wikipedia's neutrality. HyperSite (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

While the term "irregular" is not always explicitly applied to Liberal Freemasonry in Wikipedia articles, the consistent labeling of the UGLE-aligned tradition as "Regular" creates a strong implicit contrast that can suggest a lack of legitimacy on the part of Liberal bodies. Similarly, the use of "Continental" introduces geographical confusion, especially considering that both traditions have spread far beyond their points of origin. These terms, though historically common, can subtly encode bias and undermine the encyclopedic neutrality Wikipedia strives for.

For these reasons, I believe there is merit in adopting more philosophically descriptive and balanced terminology—namely, "Conservative Freemasonry" and "Liberal Freemasonry". These labels better reflect the actual ideological distinctions between the two traditions without implicitly favoring one over the other. They also support a clearer, more informative structure for future content development (e.g., separating the concept of "regularity" from the identity of any one branch). I support this shift as a constructive way to enhance clarity and uphold neutrality across Freemasonry-related articles. Jvonfranco (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I do understand the objection to “Regular”. The problem with using Liberal/Conservative as labels is that these terms have (non-Masonic) political meanings and implications.

Masons from the traditionally Anglo/American dominated branch strongly object to being called “conservative Masonry” because that implies that they take a conservative stance in politics (when they most emphatically do not). Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

In short… each branch objects to the nomenclature used by the other branch. That creates Neutrality issues no matter which branch’s nomenclature is chosen. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I tend to use the words "traditional" and "inclusive" to describe the two variants. Liberal and conservative are already far too laden with political meaning. FWIW, I don't like "continental" for the same reason I don't like describing metaphysics, idealism, and traditional philosophy as such: describing a thing by its origins without additional context gives us too few hints about the term's meaning. Irregular comes with the baggage of there being an implication that what those who practice a more inclusive forms of Freemasonry is not regular in the common language sense, e.g. normal. Traditional feels neutral. Inclusive feels more or less accurate but is probably more controversial. 2600:4040:2510:E500:98CD:BC2A:76AC:EB6F (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Traditional doesn't mean anything. The GOdF is one of the oldest and traditional GL yet Liberal. HyperSite (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I see merit in calling them "traditional" and "inclusive". It is accurate to say that the "male-only"+"believers-only" admission policy is the older and the initial one, and to adhere to it 300 years later (in a completely different social context, simply because it is a founding principle) feels to me like a strong exercise in traditionalism. The foundational idea of Le Droit Humain, the first mixed obedience ever, was to admit women, which was an exercise in inclusivity.

However, I think a wikipedia article should prioritise being "in line with [the most common current usage in] scholarly discourse", as noted above, even if there are theoretically better terms.

Disclosure: I belong to a liberal Lodge. Mitelmo (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I’m not sure there is a “most commonly used” terminology in scholarship. Again, the problem is that (since most Masonic scholars are Freemasons) the nomenclature used in Masonic scholarship depends on which tradition dominates in the country/region the scholar stems from. Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you on this @Blueboar this is why we cannot rely on masonic terminology (since they differ so much depending on the side) in this specific case as Wikipedia must maintain neutrality above all. HyperSite (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

But… Wikipedia is supposed to “follow the sources”… and those sources use one or the other of the two Masonic nomenclatures. Which nomenclature depends on which branch of Freemasonry they come from. I am feeling like we are in a “catch 22” situation. It’s frustrating. Blueboar (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)