Announcing the Freemasonry Free Space Project

Question

Hi All,

Based on my query over here: http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/224658/freemasonry-in-wikitree

 

I've now started a new Free Space Project: Freemasonry

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Freemasonry

 

I may have bitten off more than I can chew, but there's seems to be enough interest, and enough misinformation, that hopefully I can help.

Thanks,

Eric

Comments

Should I be adding the Category: Freemasonry to profiles of women who are in the Eastern Star?

---

Hi Carolyn,

It seems I didn't mention it in the Freemasonry Project yet.....

The answer is no, there is a separate category for that:

[[Category: Order of the Eastern Star]]

This category is actually a subcategory of the Freemasonry category.

I'll work on adding this information into the Freemasonry Project.

---

I know this thread is a bit old, but having just added one Freemason ancestor, I remembered I have another ancestor who was of the Royal Antediluvian Order of Buffaloes which was a similar organisation, but not belonging to the Freemasons....would this need a completely new category? Or could someone point me in the right direction of where it may already be categorized?

Thanks

---

Hi Michelle,

Yes, you are correct that the RAOB would need to have a separate category created for it, as it is not a Masonic organization.

I would suggest that the category be called "Royal Antediluvian Order of Buffaloes" and that it should be a subcategory of "Fraternal Organizations" here:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Fraternal_Organizations

---

Thanks! That's great - I can now put my ancestor there and do some more research on the RAOB

---

I found a Freemason in my tree. His profile Bright-1983. I not sure how to prove it. But I found this link and he has markings on tombstone. If someone could help me verify unless this enough. This only one I know of tried to call the Masons in KS to confirm but was unable to find out anything about him in there. If there any tag I need let me know.

https://familysearch.org/photos/artifacts/20254483

Billie

---

Billie,  I added the Freemasonry category to Bright-1983's profile for you.  You might want to add a mention in the biography that he was a Mason and has the mark on his tombstone. You already have the link to the article, but I would add it "inline" next to your comment so it is clear it refers to his Freemasonry status.  

---

Ok thanks

---

This is really good and it looks very promising.  If I can help please give me a shout.

---

Thanks, Sam! At this point, I just need to get some more photos uploaded (I always seem to get behind on this.)

Answer 1

One thing you will want to check on is whether there's  more inclusive category you should place Free Masonry under such as "fraternal orders" WikiTree likes to have categories as specific as possible.  For instance I have a relative, George Edward Dardinger who belonged to a group called the "Haymakers"  I found a 1911 newspaper stating that George was the Ohio "Chief Haymaker" that year.  If I recall the Haymakers were the social wing of the "Redmen" group.  Anyway, I'm sure you can get help (if you haven't already) on what if any category Freemasonary should be a subcategory of.

Comments

Hi Dave,

If you take a look at the new project I created, I started a section on Terminology.

It's actually incorrect to use the two word term "Free Masonry" as you use in your post. The correct term is a singular word "Freemasonry". A person is a "Freemason". NOT a "Free Mason".

My point is not to be overly critical, but to help others who are not as familiar with the topic. I'm a Freemason myself. I want to help others to identify Freemasons in their family, honor them, and to point others to possible research resources. Freemasonry has it's own set of peculiar terminology. The first step is to use consistent terms.

So, I did not start a category of "Free Masonry" (as that would be incorrect). "Freemasonry" already existed as a category and is already in a hierarchy that you describe:

Categories > Society > Organizations > Fraternal Organizations > Freemasonry.

Answer 2

Thank you Eric for starting this project, and allowing me to be a part of it. I have learned a lot about both Freemasonry and my maternal grandfather as well as my paternal great grandfather in the short time between your first posting of this question and now and have even started working on compiling that information in their biography sections in a way that I hope will be compliant with the aims of this project. As of this time that information is in a working notes section while I find out more details but this much is sure, they were both Master Masons, they both went on with the Scottish Rite and became 32nd degree Masons and they were both members of the Al Koran Shrine in Ohio. There is still a lot more information to find but I am taking my time to make sure I have it right before adding this information to the profiles.

Answer 3

Brilliant - I do have a number of people with Freemason details, documents, lodge, date joined/initiation. From memory some were in the 1850s etc  But still a little unsure...

Do I use the {{ to categorise?

Who creates the new Lodge name? You or me (please please say you ;) )

oH and I probably need some help,

Comments

Starting with the first person I remember on my list:

His profile: Owen-4128

The source: [http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=60620&h=1254763&ssrc=pt&tid=80541661&pid=32427841285&usePUB=true]

Name:	John Tho Owen
Gender:	Male
Initiation Age:	32
Birth Year:	abt 1840
Initiation Date:	18 Oct 1872
First Payment Year on Register:	1872
Year Range:	1863-1887
Profession:	Salesman
Lodge:	The Alexandra Lodge
Lodge Location:	Levenshulme Lancashire
Lodge Number:	993
Folio Number:	185

 

I'm reasonably good at learning what to do, when told.  What do I use for the {{ to link this?

---

For now Trish I will just say to add the [[Category:Freemasonry]] to their profile  and just put whatever information you have into the biography. Keep checking the link to the freespace page above because this is a very new project and it will take time to get everything in order but in any event at least add the above category to the page so it makes it easier to update them in the future.

---

Okie dokie, just added the category.  Many thanks.

---

Hi Trish,

I agree with Dale. I see that you've added the Freemasonry project to the profile, and you have some basic information and a link to a source.

This is all a great start! We'll come up with some recommended practice on different ways to include this information in a Biography, formatting, and further ways to research if you like.

I think the important thing is to start getting the information in there and working on improving the profile over time.

---

Since I'm SUPER NEW to this site, I am not comfy with the wikitree terminology yet, or anything on this site, really. I want to make sure I am doing this right. So, I went screenshot route. Please PM me for more specifics, but I want to go ahead and start on editing my great grandfather's bio to include him on the project. ((?) terminology?)

Tell me if this is correct.

I can't figure out the image attachment on here either, so here is link: https://goo.gl/photos/XFKRvLhM98s3hTJS7

Answer 4

As a member of the categorization project and a Freemason I applaud the efforts to recognize and categorize.  The category "Freemasonry" is too broad to be useful with the potential of millions of profiles. and individual lodges is too narrow. I suggest that the category be broken down into subcategories by Grand Lodges. The GL is the keeper of individual records as well as a repository for the records of the lodges beholden to them. Many GLs publish directories and "Who's Who" type books that are genealogically useful. When saving these categories we'd have to be careful not to use ampersands in the cat name, as they can't be used without creating problems editing.

Comments

Hi Brother,

Thanks for coming by and contributing to this thread!

I agree with you in principle that Freemasonry is a broad category for the *potential* millions of individuals. In practice, we now have 99 profiles (as I write) in the Category.

My intent was to eventually add the various Grand Lodge jurisdictions as subcategories. Regarding naming, my plan was to keep to the "common name" and leave off the acronym suffixes. For example, create "Grand Lodge of Colorado", and not "Grand Lodge of Colorado, A. F. & A. M." We can give the full name in the description of the category.

I'm left with a perplexing problem though, if the categories are structured this way: There are also many potential profiles where there is just simply not enough information to confidently categorize them into a specific Grand Lodge. For example older profiles, where all we have is the S&C on their gravestone, and no other recorded information. What to do with this kind of profile?

In the end, I don't think we need to solve the problem quite yet. But that is why I created the Freemason Project, to help figuring out these issues and writing up some guidelines that everyone can follow.

Let me know if you would like to help any further and join the project!

---

Eric, forgive me for intruding where I am in the dark, But I feel that adding the subcategories for the Grand Lodges and adding profiles where we do know that information would help reduce the number of profiles in the higher level that we are unsure of or where no information exists. It is not a perfect solution but it could work.

---

The letters are an integral part of  the name and really shouldn't be omitted. In my home jurisdiction the "mainstream" GL is "The Grand Lodge of Virginia, A.F. & A.M." while the Prince Hall  GL is "The Grand Lodge of Virginia, F. & A.M."  This varies from state to state. There are also other "irregular" GLs operating in various jurisdictions with various names such as the "Hiram Grand Lodge of Virginia". On this site we should be inclusive and definitely not in the business of deciding which GLs are regular or not.

As to profiles where a GL can't be identified, a subcat can be constructed to hold them such as "Grand Lodge Unknown Freemasons" or " Jurisdiction Unknown Freemasons" or a name to that effect.

I'd be happy to join the project!

 

 

 

---

Hi Dale,

What I don't want to get into yet, is solving a problem that doesn't exist. It's tempting to say that in some potential future there could be "millions" of profiles in the Freemasonry category. But that is only potential. The reality is that we are now only at 100. Is that really too many? Is it really that hard to keep track of right now?

I read somewhere (now I can't find the link) that we don't want to have millions of profiles in a category, but neither do we want to have a single profile in a category.

100 is probably ok.

200 is probably ok too.

Maybe when we get enough profiles in there, it will make sense to break it down into Grand Lodges. There are, at a minimum, 50 Grand Lodges in the US. Then add Prince Hall Grand Lodges. Then add Grand Lodges for other countries. If we did that now, we would have more subcategories then profiles to put in them!

My point is that this is something that can be deferred. It is not a problem right now.

Let's take a look at existing problems (that I've been able to see in my short time here):

- Inconsistent use of Categories. Let's all start off with using a single category, consistently.

- Inconsistent terminology usage. This I understand. If you're not a Freemason, the language is peculiar. If you are Freemason, it's still peculiar.

- Profile help. Let's put together some guidelines for how to use terminology, any formatting needed, etc.

- Sources. There are a number of ways to determine if someone was a Freemason. Let's help people identify those sources for the profiles they are working on, and that they get referenced in their Biography. I aim for continuous improvement over being pedantic.

- Further Research possibilities. If a genealogist just wants to identify somebody as a Freemason, great. Let's help. If they're interested in trying to dig up more information about the person, there are some suggestions on how to go about doing it.

What I need to do is to get all of the above in the Project itself, rather than continuing to talk about it here. So far I've put together a to-do list and have some ideas on the above.

But I think continuing the discussion about further subcategories, especially with the plethora of Grand Lodges, is a solution looking for a problem. Let's solve the more basic problems, such as those above, and look for ways to help people with their profile work first. We know we can always subdivide the categories. 

(In fact the first subcategories should not necessarily be the Grand Lodges, but the various Appendant Bodies. There are less of them, and sometimes that's the only way we know if a person was a Freemason, is by their membership in those bodies.)

---

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your offer to join the project! I will take you up on it. It seems that I need to know your email address in order to add you to the Trusted list.

See my email above to Dale about subcategories. I think we can hold off until we reach a critical mass.

As the "Alphabet Soup".... I'm mixed. Yes, I'm aware that they're part of the name. But it would be a pain to add that on there without having the special characters. And I'm not sure if we're likely to get some kind of duplicate name either, even with the Prince Hall jurisdictions. Plus we're a lot more likely to get Masons belong to regular jurisdictions, than clandestine ones (though not impossible, I suppose).

I'm tempted to just list the GLs that are in amity with UGLE as a starting point. That seems to encompass a great deal. But then we get into the mess in France. At some point we're going to have to deal with the Co-Masonry subject too.

Again, all of these are eventual problems to address. We can start thinking of possible solutions. But I would rather focus on how we can improve now from the current state. We can always work on further improvements later, even if it means changes to what we do. But I want the Freemasonry Project to be the focal point of all of that.

Right now I just want to help people identify profiles in the trees they're working on as Freemasons.

---

Hi Eric,

Thanks for the add. From several years working with categories on WikiTree, I know it is better to have a good structure in place before profiles are added.  This prevents having to edit 100's of profiles when a structure is adopted. Terri Rick is correct in stating that the Categorization Project needs to approve the category structure. If the primary goal is simply to recognize Freemasons then a profile box template would do. The misnamed "Template:Religion" already exists at  http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Template:Religion and is designed for this..As an example, I added this to my own profile.

 

---

Ok, I just started the second hundred by adding 3 profiles.  Maybe a breakdown by state?

---

Hi Michael,

A breakdown by state is essentially the same thing as a breakdown by Grand Lodge. And again, with barely over 100 profiles, there's not enough to create subcategories yet. When the number gets large enough and it makes sense to do that, then perhaps.

What would be good is to make sure to include this information (Lodge, Grand Lodge, etc.) in a Profile Biography, with hopefully some sort of reference.

---

Hi Dan

The banner on the Grand Lodge of Virginia's website says "Grand Lodge, Ancient, Free & Accepted Masons, of Virginia".  Would it be better if categories use the full name rather than the abbreviations, replacing the ampersand with and?

---

Hi, Maryann,

I've given this some thought and have somewhat changed my position from my previous comment. I would drop the designation all together, hence “Category:Grand Lodge of Virginia”. In jurisdictions with multiple grand lodges the names are usually sufficiently different from each other to avoid confusion. So following your Virginia example we also have “Category:Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Virginia” Which is officially “Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Virginia Free and Accepted Masons, Inc.” Even if everyone follows the “no ampersand rule”, I can foresee a lot of misnamed categories due to variations in the use of spaces/punctuation if we use the designators.

---

I'm with Dan on this. I would rather err on the side of simplicity, mainly because most people who are on WikiTree are not Masons, and won't be familiar with the odd nomenclature that only a pedantic Mason would get upset about.

I'm confident that any real issue that comes up will be some really obscure corner case that we can quickly sort out.

Answer 5

Projects are not permitted to create a category structure, create categories nor monitor those categories. You will need to contact Maryann or Abby with a request for them to provide you with a category structure.

I would use free pages.... you will need to tpuch base with Michelle to get a template designed to use on your project.

Are you also going to include the Eastern Stars? I believe they fall under the Masons.

Terri

Comments

I am not sure that the category "Category: Freemasonry" meets categorization requirements for individuals.  I think categories are supposed to be plural, so the category should be Category: Freemasons, which should probably be categorized under Category: Freemasonry?  Also, I am sure that soon, the category will have so many people in it that it will no longer be useful.  Better to break it up somehow.

I know that Eric was not the one who set up the original category, but, if I am correct, we should fix it before there are too many profiles categorized.

---

Hi Terri,

If you go look at the Freemasonry category, there was already a "Order of the Eastern Star" subcategory before I got here.

---

Hi Vic,

Honestly I wasn't sure either, but that's what people were using, so it seemed best to go with it at the start.

Technically, "Freemasonry" is the organization. A "Freemason" is an individual who belongs to the organization.

But in the beginning of something, I didn't want to get too pedantic, as that has a tendency to drive people away. I'm more interested in consistent usage of a category.

We can all sit back and make pronouncements that SOON this category will have millions of profiles. In reality, we are now up to a whopping 107. I still don't see an overwhelming need to break it up. The category is useful right now. I can go there, see the profiles of Freemasons, and work with profile managers on terminology, improving profiles etc. I find that to be more useful than to be pedantically correct on naming, or solving categorization problems that don't exist yet.

Having said that, I'm also open to setting up the category names to follow best practice. If that means within "Freemasonry", we need to set up a category of "Freemason" (singular, referring to a single profile), then I'm willing to do that and to help move ALL of those profiles over, and to promote that usage.

But, I will still argue that we don't NEED YET any more subcategories. At some point, maybe. And when the point comes, we have some great ideas on how to do that, and what might be useful.

The problem is not in the categories. The problem is in the Profiles and helping genealogists when they come across this information, how to write it up in the Biography, making sure terminology is consistent and correct. The categories are just a means of organization to help others.

---

Hi Terri,

To answer the first part of your post: Yes, I will contact Maryann or Abby. Assuming I know who you are talking about. Could you please point me in the right direction? Or send them to me?

It would be helpful if we had our own category structure, as long as it's useful, and doesn't have so many sub-categories as to be nearly useless.

---

No, don't set up a sub-category of Category: Freemason. Although you may not need sub-categories now, you probably will need some soon.  Believe me, it is much easier to get things categorized correctly at the beginning than to go back later and try to fix it.

This question is already tagged Categorization, so this item should get the attention of the Categorization Project leader.

---

Eric, they are the leaders of the categorization project.
Sorry, I just noticed your request.

---

I assume you all know the organization " Eastern Star" is/was for women. (wives of the Masons).  My mother belonged to that order.

 

I also know there is the order, Rainbow Girls (daughters of Masons).   I was one as a young girl.

Mary

---

Hi Mary,

Yes. There was already a category for Order of the Eastern Star when I started this.

As you also know, there are all sorts of Appendent Bodies and Affiliated Bodies within the larger topic of Freemasonry. Just like many Freemasons have the Square and Compasses on their gravestone, their wives who were members of the OES also have the star on their gravestones as well.

I have said elsewhere, that I'm a Freemason myself. So yes, I'm aware. ;-)

Answer 6

I noticed in your project description that you only refer to men. Are you also considering the Grande Loge Feminine de France?

Comments

Hi Helmut,

Do you know of a profile right now of a woman who was in the Grande Loge Feminine de France?

Because when I went to "People: Search" and put in "Grande Loge Feminine de France", I got zero results.

I'm interested in solving a problem that exists right now, that is in front of us. Not a theoretical problem, that in reality doesn't exist right now.

---

Josephine Baker for one was in the GLFF.

---

Again, are we talking about a theoretical problem? Or a real problem?

When I search here for a "Josephine Baker", I get a list of 43 matches. 

I've said that I searched for "Grande Loge Feminine de France" on this entire site, and I get zero results. 

So there must not be a combination of "Josephine Baker" that has a Biography text saying she was part of "Grande Loge Feminine de France", with some valid reference that shows this anywhere on WikiTree.

As far as I can tell, you're just bringing up a theoretical problem.

Let me know when this is really the case, and we can address it then.

---

Are you telling me that your project is only for people who have already a profile on WikiTree and are already identified in their profile as freemasons? Baker-14908 does have a profile here, mentioning a lot of her other activities and accomplishments.

See also: http://www.zinfos974.com/La-franc-maconne-du-jour-Josephine-BAKER_a79968.html

http://www.logethemis.fr/celebrites.htm

http://misraim3.free.fr/franc-maconnerie/la_franc_maconnerie_feminin.pdf

---

No I'm implying that your comments were unhelpful.

You asked me a question about how I would consider something, but you provided no information beyond some Masonic Grand Lodge name.  I had to do the research to see if anyone on WikiTree belonged to it.You asked a theoretical question. Right now, it doesn't matter if we create Grand Lodge names as categories. You mentioned a name that could be implied as a notable person, but did not provide a link to a particular profile. Again, I had to do the research.

There are 43 Josephine Bakers in WikiTree! Which one were you referring to? The famous one? Or one of the 42 others? Does the famous one already have information about her belonging to a Masonic order? The one you specifically mentioned? Because when I did the search myself, I couldn't find it.

It would have been more helpful if you provided a link to the specific profile you mentioned, and the actual reference that showed her belonging to a Masonic order. Better still is if you went to her profile, added that to her biography, and then show me that we have to figure out how to add that in to the Category structure. I would have been happy to help you out.

But instead, you give me information in a piecemeal fashion, expect me to somehow know what you're talking about, and expect me to believe that this is a real problem that we have to take care of right now. It came across like this was some theoretical issue.

The real problems are current profiles on WikiTree, where they are already a known Mason, have references, where they misuse the terminology, and are either miscategorized or not categorized at all, such that we can't find all Freemasons in one place.

I tell you what. Since you know of the reference to Baker-14908 being a Mason in a French Masonic body, then put that information in her profile's biography, and add her to the "Freemasonry" category. Problem solved. Right now, we don't even have enough Freemasons in that category to warrant creating sub-categories for all the Grand Lodges yet. Once we do, then it will make sense to put Baker-14908 in the category for the Grand Lodge that she belongs to.

---

From your original query: http://www.wikitree.com/g2g/224658/freemasonry-in-wikitree

Terminology:

Freemason: A man who is a member of a Masonic Lodge.

Freemasonry: A fraternal organization with a long history.

From your free space project:

• A man is a "Freemason". Belonging to "Freemasonry".
• Occasionally, he is called a "Mason", but this is used informally.
• Do NOT use "Free Mason". It is a single word.
• They go to "Lodge", or a "Masonic Lodge", if you have to differentiate between other types of Lodges (in other Fraternal Organizations).
• A man is "made a Mason in a Lodge". This means that he took the three degrees of Freemasonry.

Just asking a simple question to the scope your project, no need to get huffy.

 

 

---

Hi Helmut,

I asked questions too, of you, and you could have been more forthcoming with your responses. I would rather have collaboration, than a game of 20 questions. I'm not a mind reader. I don't know what is in your head unless you explain it.

Since the Freemasonry project is still so new, I'm sure it doesn't contain perfect descriptions, links, suggestions, etc., yet. It's very much a work-in-progress. And I'm open to concrete, constructive suggestions. Even better, offers to help, and action to back it up.

I've added more links to the Freemasonry project to many articles (Wikipedia) about Freemasonry, including Women in Freemasonry, OES, and appendent bodies, etc. But considering that the vast majority of Freemasons were, and are still, men, I will continue to use masculine pronouns in describing Freemasons.

But this does not preclude putting known women Freemasons in the Freemasonry category. I specifically encourage anyone to do that (like you adding it to Josephine Baker's profile) and I always hope and look for good references.

Answer 7

Add me to the list! I'm ready to help (Indiana Freemason)

Comments

Hi David,

I saw your Free Space project for the Terre Haute #19 Past Masters. Nice start!

I'll need your email address to add you to the Trusted List of the Freemasonry Free Space project. Send me a PM.

Answer 8

Eric, you have done an amazing job with this free space project.  While I haven't looked at every project on Wikitree, it by far outshines those I have seen.  I have  numerous family members who are Freemasons, but have not really understood much of what they were about.  Your project has given me a lot of good information.  I will continue to add people when I come across other Freemasons in my cemetery pursuits.  Keep up the great work!

Comments

Thanks, Carolyn!

A little more work still needs to be done on it. I've been meaning to upload more photos for quite some time now. There are some "TBD"s that need to be finished off.

If anyone is a Cemeterist, or just likes to visit them, it's fun to drive around looking for gravestones and markers that were Freemasons.

Answer 9

Eric,

Thank you for starting this project and shepherding the categories.  My g-g-g-grandfather was an early member of a masonic lodge in Kilkenny Quay, Waterford, Ireland in the early 1800's.  His membership certificate survived an ocean voyage, a trip from New York to Louisiana and even a fire to come down to this generation. I will proudly put the proper category on his profile when I get it created and also on the profiles of all my uncles whom I know to have been freemasons.

As for biting off more than you can chew, I sometimes feel that way about the Denmark Project.  I think all project managers do at times.  Just remember, several volunteers have signed up and there are plenty of others around to advise us.  You are never alone.

Comments

Hi Mary,

What a story! That's great that you still have his membership certificate.

Let me know if I can be of any assistance.

Answer 10

Hi my husband uncle was apparently a Freemason. I put the freemasonry sticker on profile all I have was he was in this membership Gilead Masonic Lodge he was also a member of the Scottish Rite and Shriner's Club, both of Fort Wayne but the mason lodge didn’t give a city in Indiana. I will have to do more research on it. 

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Hartzler-286

Billie