Talk:Grand Orient de France

Freemasonry Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freemasonry articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to join us in our labors, please join the discussion and add your name to the list of participants. The "Top of the Trestleboard" section below can offer some ideas on where to start and what to do.FreemasonryWikipedia:WikiProject FreemasonryTemplate:WikiProject FreemasonryFreemasonry articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

◆ WikiProject Freemasonry's "Top of the Trestleboard":

Improve to Featured Article status
Add content to stubs…
Check recently changed articles for possible improvement, to remove vandalism, etc.
Requests
[Watch this list]
- Articles for all United Grand Lodge of England-recognized Grand Lodges (if notable)
Participate in articles listed for deletion
Need images
New Article to be created

Atheism Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

For more information and how you can help, click the [Show] link opposite:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page.

Quick help

Recent activity

To do

Join WikiProject atheism and be bold.

Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members.
Help with articles.
See this month's adopt-an-article.
Help out with this to-do list.

Be consistent

Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles).
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.

Maintenance, etc.

Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references).
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly.
Always write for an encyclopedia.

Articles to improve

Agnosticism

Create

Articles on notable atheists

Expand

an atheism stub

Immediate attention

State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here
Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes.
Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century.

Question

Was Ho Chi Min a member of Le Grand Orient de france, in the 20' before being a founder od the Parti Communiste de France. Je cherche une source.

Affaire Des Fiches

A question... what does the Affaire Des Fishes have to do with "Separation of Church and State" which is the title of the section? Either discussion of the Affaire needs to be moved to a different section or it needs to be directly tied to the topic indicated by the secton header. Blueboar 16:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main focus was on the Mass attendance of soldiers and civil servants as part of the paranoia (that affected both sides) of the Third Republic. JASpencer 20:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That said it could go to its own section as it was quite an important event in the GOdF's history. JASpencer 20:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how to propose edits to Wikipedia. I just opened an account because I see a problem with the article on the Grand Orient de France. I looked at the footnote that is supposed to support the statement that dislike of religious participation is official policy of GOdF. The footnote does not appear to give evidence of the statement (which itself strikes me as doubtful, at least as currently phrased -- really? dislike of religious participation is official GOdF policy?).

Instead of showing the alleged dislike or demonstrating that is a GOdF policy, the footnote talks about how 2,000 Masons marched in a show of support for the separation of church and state. Is laicite itself being assumed to be antagonistic to "religious participation" -- whatever THAT means? It is my impression that laicite involves opposition to anyone legislating or administering their own religious beliefs onto fellow citizens via government power. But "religious participation" is vague. It does not seem to me that efforts to subvert separation of church and state would necessarily qualify as "participation."

Possibly if the Wikipedia article is clarified regarding what is meant by disliking "religious participation" I would no longer see the statement about dislike of religious participation as false and/or unsupported. I think it would be far better for the material about Masons demonstrating on behalf of laicite to be actually included IN THE ARTICLE rather than being relegated to a footnote and then summarized in the article by means of a questionable generalization.

Since I am brand new, can I ask others here to assist me in making this clarification? J. Christina Hodgson (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of politics

I think it is important to note that the vast majority of Grand Lodges and Grand Orients do not allow discussions of politics in the lodge. This isn't just UGLE and affiliates... many of the "irregular" GLs and GOs adhear to this tradition. GOdF is in a distinct minority on this issue. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the current wording. The only problems I had was that it could imply that political Freemasonry was insignificant (which in Europe and Latin America it wasn't) or that the French and the other Continental-style FMs acknowledge that the UGLE is in the right here. Unlike the God question I don't know much about what the GOdF thinks on this, but I wouldn't be surprised if they asserted that it was the UGLE and their ilk who were the innovators. JASpencer (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation issue in "Politics and Religion" section

The section currently states: In addition, it expects its members who hold a public office to fight for its values <ref> [http://www.jlturbet.net/article-11288669.html Interview of Jean-Michel Quillardet, Great Master of the Grand Orient de France, April 2007]</ref>; in order to forward its stated purpose of exerting an influence on ideas, it holds regular talks with elected representatives, including the Prime Minister (ibid).

Unfortunately, the source is in French, which not everyone can read... Please point me to the pertinent section of the source so I can get it translated and verify that the source does indeed support what is being claimed. Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind... I was able to find someone who knew French to verify it for me. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International relations

The Le Droit Humain article has a nicely built section on international relations, and I was wondering if something similar could be set up for the Grand Orient for those who are knowledgable of their policies? What I can gather from this is that they are fraternal towards LDH but I am not sure if they are also fraternal to those who LDH fraternizes with. Furthermore, while LDH recognizes the Anglo orders of Masonry (not reciprocated) according to that chart, I do not know whether or not GOdF also has this policy or whether they are more strict and do not recognize them. Does anybody know? Tyciol (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In broad terms, Continental Freemasonry is less strict than Anglo Freemasonry, and so are more willing to grant recognition. I beleive that GOdF has mutual recognition with LDH, but I do not know if they recognize everyone that LDH recognizes ... if there is one constant in all branches it is this: when you get into "recognition", things get messy. I would be willing to bet that if you take any two Grand bodies, you will find at least one conflict of recognition (where A recognizes B, and B recognizes C, but A does not recognize C). Blueboar (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Influence in media

The GODF is reputed to have quite a bit of influence in European, African and Latin American media, but it's really an open secret among journalists and television producers. Anyways, I think that some investigative work on the general relationship between Masonry and Media would be very much welcome on Wikipedia. ADM (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that some investigative work on the general relationship between Masonry and Media would be very much welcome on Wikipedia. No, no it would NOT be welcome. What you are proposing is that wikipedias should be going out and finding evidence to support an accusation of conspiracy. That is a deliberate attempt to circumvent one of wikipedia's foundation policies: Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments.--Vidkun (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, if there are conspiracy theorists who can be cited as stating that Freemasons have some sort of undue influence on the media... this theory could probably be added to the article on Masonic conspiracy theories. Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if they can be found in a reliable source.--Vidkun (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. OR is never allowed. Blueboar (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WWI history

I noticed that there was a missing section about the GODF's supposed role during the First World War. An intriguing element is perhaps the GODF's relations with the German Grand Lodges, with which it separated from after the 1877 schism. In particular, the question of Alsace-Lorraine became very acute in the 1880s, with each Grand Lodge and Grand Orient jurisdiction asserting control over that small slice of territory. Another interesting detail is that during the War, Turkey was aligned with Germany, but after the war it became aligned with France. ADM (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Original research to me. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting angle. Have you got any sources? JASpencer (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-French sentiment in the United States

One likely source of anti-French sentiment in the United States is the historic separation between Grand Lodge and Grand Orient Masonry, which became noticeable in many areas where Masonry has been influential, such as politics and public life in general. After the 1877 masonic schism, the Grand Lodges began to promote an anti-France ideology, while the Grand Orients became very anti-American and anti-British. A similar division is also noticeable in the field of philosophy, which has long been split along the lines of analytical philosophy and continental philosophy. ADM (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

French translation

It would be a good thing if anyone could translate the article Querelle du Grand Architecte de l'Univers, which explains the 1877 schism. ADM (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No further discrimination because of the sex

It seems like the Grand Orient de France has confirmed that they will not refuse admittance of a person based on their sex.

INFO LE FIGARO - Le Grand Orient confirme son ouverture aux femmes

Maybe it should be added to the article. What do you think?--195.57.146.182 (talk) 06:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted the change in the GO's rules. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up lodge listing

Particularly the last lodges associated with the Grand Masonic Orient of Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.28.150 (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question... were the individual lodges in the Grand Masonic Orient of Ireland chartered by the Grand Orient de France, or by the GMOI? Blueboar (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind... I was able to answer my own question (Some of them were chartered by GOdF... but then formed a new Grand Orient which chartered the rest.) Blueboar (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparantly you did a bad job because you deleted lodges that were created in conjunction with the Grand Orient of France, as all lodges from Ireland are opened in conjunction with the GOdF. You stay in the Anglo lane, and let us Liberal Masons tell you how the Liberal world goes. Stop making stuff up.

The section starts with: The GODF has currently the following lodges outside of France:... My understanding is that while the Irish lodges in question were originally under GODF, they have now formed their own Grand Orient (ie they are currently under GMOI, and no longer under GODF) ... so what am I not getting? Blueboar (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First things first its GMOIRL and not GMOI. We can see the Anglo seeping through the screen.

My apologies... GMOIRL. However, my question still stands... Have I misunderstood the situation when I say that the lodges in question have formed their own Grand Orient (GMOIRL), and are thus no longer part of GOdF? If so, please explain my error. (and while you are at it, could you explain your "Anglo" comment? I am not English.)Blueboar (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up what we have. I suggest that until we have an article for the new Grand Orient, this material should stay here. I also suggest that the apparent assumption of Blueboar's bad faith by an anonymous editor is not a productive way to conduct a debate, and a good way to have edits deleted out of hand on most other projects. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fiddler. I still have concerns about giving the GMOIRL lodges such potentially WP:UNDUE weight... Correct me if I misunderstand what is going on, but I would assume that GOdF has "signed a treaty of amity, and presented patents for its degrees and rituals" to lots of small Grand Orients... all over the world. If this is the case, then why to we single out GMOIRL for mention in this article? Is there something unique about the connection between GOdF and GMOIRL? Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent question. I think the Russian Grand Orient could warrant a similar mention. The rest are pretty much French Colonial History. This is current news, and significant in the rapid growth of GMOIRL and the fact that it is already setting up overseas lodges, which are easily confused with GOdF offshoots. A few years down the line, we may be able to assess whether this is a significant development (warranting a separate article) or a flash-in-the-pan rebellion, which would rate a paragraph under Grand Lodge of Ireland. Meantime, I think it rates a mention. We don't have a separate article on Grand Orient masonry, and whacking it under Grand Lodge of Ireland may cause offense. The remaining options are leaving it here or deleting it. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um... we do have an article on "Grand Orient Masonry"... see: Continental Freemasonry (or did you mean something different?... such as the technical structural differences between "Grand Orients" and "Grand Lodges", which have nothing to do with with which faction one is aligned with). Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Grand Orient redirects to Grand Lodge. So, Continental Freemasonry, leave here, or delete? I have no strong opinion. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. My call would be to remove the mention of GMOIRL from this article. If there are enough reliable independent sources to support a stand-alone article (ie if we can substantiate that GMOIRL is notable under WP:ORG), I have no objection to creating one (some Grand bodies are notable, others are not... WP:ORG helps us determine which are and which are not). And, I think it might qualify for a passing mention in the Continental Freemasonry article (but not much more... we also need to keep an eye on Due Weight within that context). Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo meaning Anglo Saxon. You would be a follower of the UGLE Masonry. Differing obviously from the Continental brand. While yes that GMOIRL is its own jurisdiction the thing is they are still very much tied to the GOdF in a non traditional manner. For example Les Amis Reunis (interestingly enough Amis Reunis was the name of the Illuminati lodge in Paris in the GOdF during the French Revolution) is a French speaking lodge which is very much tied to the GOdF and counts GOdF members in its ranks and works in the French language. As far as rebellion is concerned that a bit misguided to think that GMOIRL will dissipate it is not going anywhere. They have about a dozen knockers in the various lodges in Ireland given they are in one or two general areas, and with Riga, Latvia being the newest lodge this year opening within the last 2 months. There has also been talk of a lodge from Greece joining the fold, and there maybe potential for a Filipino lodge as well as an American lodge in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.28.150 (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "Anglo" above appears to be dismissive. It's not even accurate, since UGLE ritual springs from a set of London Irish Lodges. You appear to be lumping the Celts together under this heading, and frankly (no pun intended) no Scotsman or Irishman would wish to be labelled Anglo-Saxon. The GOdF, by its own admission, derives its ritual from the old Premier Grand Lodge of England. Isn't that more Anglo than the Grand Lodges of Scotland and Ireland?

The correct place to expand on the Grand Masonic Orient of Ireland is probably not under a Grand Orient which they are no longer part of, and certainly not in a list of their lodges. A mention in the history, maybe, certainly a paragraph in Continental Freemasonry, with references. Assistance welcome. If you care so much, why not sign in and join in? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its not dismissive if its accurate. Anglo Saxon is deriving from the fact that the "Premier" Grand Lodge was of London and Westminster which means it is derived in the Anglo world hence the appelation. Not necessarily true if you look at 1688 when the Irish lodges preceded the English lodges. GOdF recognizes that in its history the Anglos do not.

None of which has any bearing on whether to list GMOIRL lodges on this page.

The flaw with using the label "Anglo" Freemason to describe your fellow editors is not whether that term was being used dismissively or not... the flaw was in assuming that one's fellow editors are Freemasons of any sort. Some of us are... some of us are not. You do not need to be a Freemason to edit articles on Freemasonry. And for those of us who happen to be Freemasons, when we edit Wikipedia, we do not edit as a Freemason... we edit as a Wikipedian. Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...but since it bears on the article, the 1688 myth doesn't even rate a mention in the GOdF history on their own website -> http://www.godf.org/index.php/pages/details/slug/histoire-de-la-franc-ma-onnerie Ergo, the insistence on references. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um... I don't think our IP editor was suggesting that we include the 1688 claim in the article. Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's there already. I don't think our IP editor has read it. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its not assuming if I am correct. Funny you assumed that I didnt read the article when your fellow wikipedian had to point out that 1688 isnt a myth mr. Im not a freemason. You suck at empirical data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.254.230 (talk) 06:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lodges outside France

I've updated these for the time being with a current list from GoDF's English Facebook page. I can't use it as a reference, but I can't see why it would be wrong. I will cross check the new ones, and the lodges that are no longer mentioned, within the next few days. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Grand Orient de France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grand Orient de France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Grand Orient de France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation date of the Grand Lodge of France

The current WP article affirms: "The first "deputisations" of lodges in France by the London Grand Lodge occurred in 1732, and the Grand Orient now dates its foundation from 1733, when there started to be a recognisable Grand Lodge of France".

On the contrary, this academic paper affirms: ". This institution was founded with the name of Grand Lodge of France in 1728, but in 1773, under the leadership of Louis-Philippe d'Orléans, Duke of Chartres, was restructured and renamed as Grand Orient of France."

Provisionally, it has been sourced the fact that since 1721 there exist French masonic lodges ruled by nobles fo the Grand Lodge of England. It was also added that Louis-Philippe d'Orléans, Duke of Chartres, changed the name in its actual version. Hope that some academician or academic source may want to help to clarify this aspect. Regards, Theologian81sp