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)

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)