Talk:Freemasonry

Propaganda Due probably deserves a mention. Prezbo (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Nah… UNDUE to mention one lodge that went Fringe. Blueboar (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

My understanding it was a big scandal in Italy, probably one of the first things the average Italian thinks of when they think of Masonry. I could be wrong. I see it’s not mentioned in the lead of the Freemasonry in Italy article, I’ll start there. Prezbo (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that P2 was only marginally connected to actual Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I’ll do more research. But my first thought is: what is “actual” Masonry? Isn’t that like talking about “actual” Communism or Christianity? It’s a fractured social milieu with no central authority. When I’ve read about P2 it’s always described as Masonic or pseudo-Masonic. Prezbo (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

P2 had its charter rescinded in the 70s, and was no longer recognized as a legitimate Masonic lodge. anyone can call themselves “masonry”… but to be legitimate, a lodge must be chartered by a Grand Lodge. Blueboar (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I think for Wikipedia’s purposes, if a group calling themselves Masonic is involved in a big national scandal, that rates prominent coverage in this context, even if the national Masonic hierarchy didn’t consider them legitimate at the time. However I also agree with you that the national sections in this article need to be trimmed in any case. I added a sentence about P2 to the lead of the Freemasonry in Italy article, I think whatever we say about Italy here should be a condensed version of that lead. Prezbo (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi -- I've added the AI generated template here in regard to Hypersite's additions (which make up much of the length mentioned in the discussions above). While they have been edited somewhat, a lot of the original content, and its original tells of AI use remain, and so there may be hallucinations in the text as well as tonal issues. Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@Hypersite: Which portions of this article were generated by a large language model? Jarble (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I've clocked about 35mb of plaintext worth of LLM text chats across a few models at this point. To me it's very obvious:

Bulleted lists that make no concrete claims, are so abstract as to be meaningless, and do not cite any sources are a giveaway for AI slop on the internet.

However, the public AI text models are now perfectly capable of providing "references," but they will not necessarily reference them accurately or even at all ("phantom citations"). I went through many of the sources, but it's honestly too much work for me to confirm that this was written by AI.

This article is now unreadable imo. I would ask a wiki lord to remove Hypersite's slop drop to repair it.

Why can't an actual member of the freemasons write this piece? There's still a lot of them out there. They are happy to talk about their thing. Blotto Oblongato (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I believe Masons have and continue to contribute to this article and discussion. I'm a Mason and over the years have made a couple of small corrections. However, it seems that the article as a whole has been tainted by AI slop, which is a real shame. I agree with the criticisms given above; the article as it is now is in far worse shape than when it was entirely human-written, errors notwithstanding. Mpaniello (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I removed a lot of it but there is still work to do. Anything added by Hypersite is suspect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd suggest a complete rollback to before he started editing the article. Jahaza (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

That would be a year and a half ago and contain the contributors of dozens of editors. Would be this edit (they had a few before but none substantial). I do not think we are allowed to revert this much. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

God, maybe we should. Rooting out what they did and didn't add is such a pain. And the November 2024 version is honestly substantially better than whatever we have now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hmmm… Don’t think we should just revert back to 2024… although that may be a good baseline, some of material that was added since then is worth keeping. I will look at the section and sources and try to draft a revision this next weekend. Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure how to interpret your opening statement. Does that mean you're responsible for introducing AI content to this article, or are you simply pointing it out? Mpaniello (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff added a template that says that the article includes AI material. They did not add that material themselves. Jahaza (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I think this section has ballooned a bit out of proportion… especially the sub-section outlining the objections by the Catholic Church. Wikipedia has multiple articles on this sub-topic that we can point to. I am definitely not saying that we should ignore the Church’s opposition, but THIS article should be a broad overview… linking readers to those (more detailed) articles. Suggestions on how to better summarize? Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, the entire opposition section is far too large, we need a dedicated article for this section. Also the banner about the use of AI is not substantiated while looking at the article I could not find any non-sourced or out-of-context material. Tiestoclublife (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Thing is… We already have a dedicated article for the section. In fact, we have several… see: Christian attitudes towards Freemasonry and Papal ban on Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to take care of it, I just summarized the Political section, (it was smaller) now attempting to do the religion, but there are no dedicated Islam and Free-Masonry article so I might have to create one as well. Tiestoclublife (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Well summarizing the religious section is more difficult than I thought. Tiestoclublife (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2026 (UTC)