Jump to content

Talk:List of Masonic buildings/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Brosi 00:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)* Olathe #19, Olathe, Kansas. This is an interesting link that should go on lodges not here. This is for architecture and architectural history of the temples only.Brosi 00:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This needs to go....

This is going to turn into a list of random information. If these buildings are notable in and of themselves, and there are decent articles on them, just make a subcategory for them under Freemasonry (Masonic Buildings, maybe?), add the articles directly, and get rid of this list. MSJapan 04:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This page could be put at the top of the cat: page, like say Category:Lodges, & nothing would be missed. Grye 03:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Freemasons meet as a Lodge not in a Lodge, although Masonic premises may be called Lodges, as well as Temples ("of Philosophy and the Arts"). In many countries Masonic Centre or Hall has now replaced these terms to avoid arousing prejudice and suspicion. Several different Lodges, or other Masonic organisations, often use the same premises at different times.Jokerst44 23:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree... list cruft. Blueboar 14:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

specific examples

There are two mason temples in North Carolina, one in Swansboro, one in Newbern. I don't know their actual names, and I don't know where they should go on this article, so if someone else (who knows more about the sections/stuff) wants to add those in, go ahead. --WikiSpaceboy

My house used to be own by a master mason. just so happens i found Plenlty of masonic things. espically in the attic when we knocked down the walls, Things including Order of The Amartanth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.241.251 (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What makes a building a "Masonic" building?

Once again, this list needs a clear criteria for inclusion. Is this a List of buildings with the word 'Masonic' included in their names"?... is it a List of buildings built by the Freemasons?... is it List of buildings used (at some point in history) by the Freemasons?... is it List of buildings associated with the Freemasons? or what?

Is there any difference between this list and Category:Masonic buildings (which also needs a clearer criteria for inclusion by the way). Is there any substantial difference between this list and: Masonic Temple, [[Masonic Lodge {disambiguation)]], Masonic Building etc. We still have a huge duplication of lists here. Blueboar (talk) 11:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, here's my take, in order: your first option is not really a good choice as a title and would seem to be a frivolous list; the second would seem to be what a lot of people would consider, but that would mean adding taverns as well, which might not be clear, and which do not now have a connection; lastly, "associated" is not good either, because that's subjective. I suppose a better question is: if we cannot arrive at a set of consistent, useful, and clear criteria for inclusion, do we need this at all? MSJapan (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Good question. Personally I don't think we do... but given that we have prodded this twice, and the prods were overturned, I figured we should at least ask.... Does anyone have a clear concept of what a "Masonic building" is? Blueboar (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say that it is any building that was built for Masonic purposes. This definition would justify a merger between Masonic Temple and this article keeping the title of Masonic buildings. This would allow the article to also list things like the George Washington Masonic National Memorial and buildings like Shrine Mosques and Commandery Asylums. I doubt we're going to find a solid reference for the decision simply because it comes down to an opinion on how we wish to organize the data as editors. But if any justification is needed it might be worthwhile to mention on the page that most Masonic Buildings do have a "Masonic Building Association" which meets and handles the administration of their respective masonic building. PeRshGo (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... and what do we mean by "built for Masonic purposes"... holding meetings? Taking care of "Widows and orphans" (ie Masonic nursing homes, orphanages and schools?). What if the building is no longer used for "Masonic purposes"... Consider the case of the Renaissance Hotel in Providence... The building was originally planned to be a meeting hall for the Masons, but they ran out of money during the Depression and construction was stopped half way through. No lodge ever met there. The property sat half finished... owned by the city... until a few years ago when the Marriott Hotel chain converted it into a luxury hotel with a "Masonic theme". Do we include that building in the list?
There is apparently some objection to merging this list with Masonic Temple (see that page's talk page)... according to the NRHP Project (NRHP stands for National Register of Historic Places) that page is supposed to be a dab page... to disambiguate between the various articles (and red linked potential articles) on buildings named "Masonic Temple" (ie articles entitled Masonic Temple (Sometown, State) ). I am trying to get them to at least agree to move that dab page to Masonic temple (disambiguation).
By the way... we also have a short stub article entitled Masonic temple (small "t") which describes what a Masonic temple is.
Confusing, I know. That's why I raised the question. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
To clarify, it is just me, Doncram, not the entire WikiProject NRHP, who has been working on fixing up disambiguation pages such as the Masonic Temple one which happen to include some NRHP entries, as well as other entries. The current Masonic Temple (disambiguation) page has at least 4 non-NRHP entries, by the way. And i did agree to the move of the disambiguation page to, well, "Masonic Temple (disambiguation)" with a capital T, because it is about proper noun places having name Masonic Temple (and close variations). About the capital letter or any other issues with that, please comment at the Requested Move now posted at Talk:Masonic Temple.
About this list-article on Masonic buildings, my personal view is that, because there are so many notable ones of various types and names, that it is or could be a useful article, if WikiProject Freemasonry or any one editor would choose to adopt it and develop it appropriately. I would leave it to whoever is developing it, about subjective choices to include the hospitals and other places, though i myself would tend to include them in. However, I myself am not willing, am not that interested, to develop it, so i will defer to others. I also recognize, agreeing with Blueboar above or elsewhere, that vaguely defined list articles tend to attract all manner of additions, and can be a royal pain to have association with. The disambiguation pages must conform to wp:MOSDAB so non-notable additions can be dealt with easily. But the list-article could tend to attract listing of any building anywhere where any masons ever met once, which is non-encyclopedic and not fun to work with. Or maybe it can be managed properly, but it could require some ongoing management. You all develop it, you can leave it for someone else to fix, or you can put it up for deletion by AFD if you like, i don't care. But, the category of Masonic buildings and the disambiguation pages are needed, whether this list-article is developed or not developed or deleted. That's my 2 cents. :) --doncram (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Well I think I would go as far as to include places like Masonic nursing homes if found notable, as well as buildings like the MTV headquarters in Toronto that were once Masonic temples but are no longer. The Renaissance Hotel is in issue unto its self but I think that makes it notable enough to include as well. But as far the Masonic Temple vs Masonic temple problem, that's a different issue entirely. Conflicts like that really shouldn't exist. I know from personal experience with the NHRP they have a huge problem with the entire "Masonic Temple" naming scheme due to inconsistencies in the nominations. Given so many are just named "Masonic Temple" the decision on how to name it is usually up to the person writing up the nomination with no oversight on consistency. Because of this the Masonic Temple article is fundamentally flawed because for the most part the various temples aren't listed in the format they have on the page PeRshGo (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"Masonic" is it a noun or an adjective?

We now have clarified part of the confusion and overlap... The confusion between the Masonic temple and Masonic Temple articles has been resolved by moving the latter to Masonic temple (disambiguation). That leaves this list article to deal with.

I think the underlying problem lies in determining whether we are using the word "Masonic" as a proper noun, or as an adjective. Is this a list of buildings with the word "Masonic" in their names? (in which case, I think this list is overly duplicative of the disambiguation page). Or is it a list of buildings that are in some way "Masonic"... ie associated with Freemasonry? (and if so, then we need a clearer criteria for inclusion.) So... I must ask again... what do we mean when we use this word... if we mean buildings with "Masonic" in their names, do we need this list? If we mean buildings that are in some way "Masonic", then what makes a building "Masonic"? Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

OK... I see that the project banner for the dab project has been removed... and that at least one editor thinks this is not a dab page. That would indicate that the word is being used as an adjective. Do others agree? Blueboar (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

What makes a building Masonic? redux

To show how there is confusion here, let's take a look at some examples from the list...

  • The first entry we have is State House, Bermuda (built 1609). It is certainly a notable building... Other than fortifications, it was Bermuda's first stone building, and was the first building in Bermuda purpose built to house the Government. It is the oldest surviving Bermudian building. But... is it really a "Masonic" building. It was certainly not built as such. It has no architectural features that would define it as such... it is not decorated with Masonic emblems, or things like that. I assume it was included in the list because a Masonic lodge purchased the building in 1815 and has met there since (which means that for around half of its existence, the building did not have a Masonic connection at all).
  • Next we have Masonic Temple (St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador). Again, no question that the building is notable... and it was built explicitly as a Masonic building. The architecture and decoration are distinctly Masonic... However, the Masons stopped using it in 2007 and have subsequently sold it (not sure what the building is used for now). So is this still a "Masonic" building?
  • Next comes Masonic Temple (Toronto) aka the CTV Temple or MTV Temple... this too was originally built as a Masonic temple (in 1917) but was sold in the late 1980s... The exterior no longer has any Masonic decoration ... the interior has been completely re-designed. So is this now a "Masonic" building?
  • Jumping down a bit... consider Masonic Temple (Chicago, Illinois)... here we have a building that was built and used purely as a place for Masons to meet... but the building has not existed for over 75 years (it was demolished in 1939). So is this what we mean by "Masonic" building?
  • Then there is the wonderful case of Masonic Temple (Providence, Rhode Island)... aka "Mason building", aka "Renaissance Providence Hotel". It was originally intended to be a Masonic temple... but the Grand Lodge ran out of money half way through construction and abandoned it... so they never met there. The building sat half completed for decades, until it was finally purchased by a hotel chain. It does contain some Masonic symbolism and imagery... both on the exterior and in the interior (although some of that a modern addition created by the buildings current owner and not the masons themselves)... so what makes this a "Masonic" building?

I could go on... but I think I have made my point. We need a conclusion criteria that is more than "The building is, or was, associated with the Masons in some way." So I ask YET again... what makes a building "Masonic"? Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, those are buildings and they all have a significant Masonic association. --doncram (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
In what way are the associations significant? Please be specific. Blueboar (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
All are wikipedia-notable (all have wikipedia articles and there is no suggestion that should be disputed). As your own discussion indicates, the first one has masonic association of meetings there over almost 200 years. The second one, constructed in 1894, has association of over 100 years. The 2nd thru 5th ones have association via their name being "Masonic Temple". The 5th one is represented as being a wonderful, exceptional case, even. Your comments describe the association in each case. But hey, i don't want to develop this list-article. I thot u didnt either. Leave it for someone else? --doncram (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
You are correct, I don't want to develop it... but as a member of the Freemasonry Project, I want to try to define and clarify its scope, so other editors can develop it.
So... You take a very broad view of what should be on this list. Just to see if I understand your take on this... Is it your view that any building that is listed by the NRHP (or similar preservation/historic oriented orgs) under a name that includes the word "Masonic" has a significant connection to Freemasonry?
If so, I would disagree. My view is that, for us to say that a building is "Masonic", the first criteria is it must have been built by the Masons for Masonic purposes (ie as a place for them to meet). As a second criteria, I think it must still be in a state that can be considered "Masonic"... a building that was originally built by the Masons, but has been subsequently substantially altered (such as the Renaissance Hotel or the MTV Temple) no longer qualifies. Blueboar (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
As an addition... we should drop the Shrine buildings... the Shrine is a separate organization that happens to require one to be a Mason to join... but it is not part of Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the shrine "just happens to require one to be a Mason to join." It's relationship with Freemasonry is pretty paramount. More to the point though I would say that axing buildings that no longer serve as the home to lodges wouldn't be appropriate. Many of these buildings are still referred to as Masonic Temples and still have Masonic Temple written on them. The MTV headquarters in Toronto for example. PeRshGo (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the connection between Freemasonry and the Shrine is tenuous at best... to the point that, a few years ago, the shrine came very close to removing its requirement for members to be Masons. And from the Masonic side of the relationship... well, there is no real relationship. The Shrine is not officially recognized as being "Masonic" by any Grand Lodge.
As for buildings that are no longer used by the Masons... I understand the point, but we already have a dab page that lists all the notable buildings that are named "Masonic Temple" (See: {{Masonic Temple (disambiguation)]])... so what is the purpose of this list? Blueboar (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, a disambiguation page is not a regular Wikipedia article. It is not allowed to contain photographs or descriptions or history. In general each entry should not contain anything more than what is helpful to identify to readers which is the item they are looking for. It certainly should not contain any of the nuances of how one place is or was once associated. And, it should not / does not include mention of many of the most notable Masonic Temples or Lodge buildings or whatever you want to call them, wherever those have different names. It can't convey the relative importance of the different buildings. In short, I think you are way over-weighting the importance of disambiguation pages. Whether they exist or not is irrelevant. Again, i don't get why you keep on talking here, if you are not interested in developing this article. Not sure why i reply, either. :) --doncram (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
No... I get what a dab page is... I am asking what the purpose of THIS page is. How is THIS list of Masonic Buildings page different than the dab pages that cover the same buildings? THIS page does not contain descriptions or history (ok, it does have a few photos)... and it certainly does not contain any of the nuances of how one place is or was once associated and it does not convey the relative importance of the different buildings. In other words... THIS page seems to be nothing more than a dab page with a few pictures. Blueboar (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Goose and Gridiron? ... Roslyn Chapel?... What about the Statue of Liberty?

The first was a pub in London (no longer in existence)... very notable for being where the first Grand Lodge was formed. Shouldn't it be considered a Masonic Building? The second has long been associated with Freemasonry (although most of the association has been debunked)... is it a Masonic Building? The third was built by a Freemason, the base was paid for largely through the donations of the Masons, and there was a Masonic cornerstone laying (the corner stone has a square and compass on it)... so should it be considered a Masonic building?

Or what about the US Capital... and no, I am not talking Dan Brown here... it was dedicated by the Masons (including George Washington) in full regalia... does that make it a Masonic building? And there are rumors that Jackson held a Masonic Lodge meeting in the White House while he was President.

Or what about places like Fraunces Tavern here in NYC... It was noted for hosting lodge meetings both before and after the American Revolution. Blueboar (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this sarcasm? I don't believe you are suggesting adding those. --doncram (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Mostly sarcasm .... but not completely. There is a point that sarcasm. I don't mean to be a broken record, but we need to clarify what qualifies a building for inclusion in this list. At the moment we have a very open ended "the building has some sort of association with Freemasonry" criteria, and all of the buildings I mention above fit that broad description. So why shouldn't they be on the list? I agree that they shouldn't be included ... but WHAT disqualifies them? Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The ratio of edits to discuss the list article and its redlinks vs. edits to develop the actual material is too high here, it is 1000:1 or so. The efficient way to proceed is to develop actual material on the obvious cases. Don't waste time on hypothetical questions about marginal cases until basic work is done. Do you need help starting articles on the NRHP-listed ones? There are tools available and NRHP application documents available that provide good historical accounts for you to draw from. I think in many cases your developing actual articles will clarify for you what is the individual notability of each and what is the relevance of including them in this list-article. --doncram (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
This thread isn't about the red-linked articles (that is discussed below)... this is about the criteria for adding buildings. You keep avoiding my questions... (perhaps because you don't have an answer?)... what disqualifies these buildings from the list? Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Let's take a more realistic (and non-sarcastic) situation... the DeWint House in New York... as the article states: "The property was acquired by the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of the State of New York in 1932." The Grand Lodge owns it and maintains it. It thus has a Masonic association... It is listed by the NRHP. So why is it not on the list?
My answer: it is not (and should not be) on the list because it is not notable for being a "Masonic building". It is merely a historic building that the Masons happen to own. Blueboar (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I dunno what to believe. You imply it is random that the Grand Lodge "happen" to own it, but it is clearly not random. Per one of the sources for the article, this one, the Grand Lodge was happy to step in to take ownership and preserve the house for its previous association with George Washington, and by doing so they are obviously strongly asserting association with GW, apparently a Mason. The house is one of few (I presume) "National Masonic Historic Sites". Are there others? Perhaps/probably every "National Masonic Historic Site" should be identified and added to the list article. This house also is or was the site of a Mason-focused museum in the carriage house. It seems more obvious to me that this one should be listed. I don't get why you would want to exclude it, unless you want (why would you?) to adhere to an arbitrary and a very narrow view of what the list-article should be, a view formed early on when you actually know very little about most of the candidates for coverage in the article. You have more idea about this one house because i and others developed this article (in this diff in 2007 i added the NRHP documents) somewhat. But it has not yet been much developed what is a National Masonic Historic Site (are there others or not?) or otherwise developed. In this case and in others not developed, you would learn more by developing the articles. Why would you want to exclude this, i don't understand, and why you want to exclude all others you know less about, before learning about them, i also don't understand. You're not informed to make these judgements; the judgements about what exactly should be included or not should not be be made now. First, develop coverage of the obvious-to-include ones. Get familiar with the types of sources available, etc. It's not productive yet to define a fine line. --doncram (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Merger

Can anyone think of a reason why Masonic temple, Masonic_temple_(disambiguation) and this page shouldn't all just be the same page? PeRshGo (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No objections from me, as it would eliminate the over duplication issue. The question is... which article do we merge them to? To some extent, the answer will determine both the scope and the format. Blueboar (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I would propose we take the informative part from Masonic temple as well as include a list of all active and former Masonic Temples sorted by country and state. We should then probably stick with the title Masonic Temple. PeRshGo (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, I could see that as a possibility... but then what about the Masonic Temple (disambiguation) page? We would still have a huge duplication between that page and the list you propose. Also, would the resulting list article include something like Freemasons' Hall, London, or the George Washington Masonic National Memorial in Alexandria, VA (both of which are arguably very notable "Masonic Buildings", but neither of which would fit into a list entitled "Masonic Temples"). Blueboar (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Well what I'm proposing would leave Masonic Temple (disambiguation) nonexistent as this would serve as both an explanation and listing of Temples. As for the handful of notable masonic buildings that aren't temples I'm sure we can throw those in the See also section. PeRshGo (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I expect you will receive opposition from the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (especially from User:doncram) as they see that dab page as vital to their project. But I would have no objection if you can gain consensus. Blueboar (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
And as a further question... what would you do with Category:Masonic buildings (which is essentially a duplication of this list without the redlinks but could not be included in the merger)? Blueboar (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This has been talked out on this Talk page and in other discussions with Blueboar. The disambiguation pages are different from a list-article; they cannot contain photos and descriptive information. The disambiguation pages are just about places that are named (always or sometimes) by a given name like "Masonic Temple" and cannot be a complete list of all notable Masonic buildings. A category is also different. Yes, they all do provide some overlapping functionality for Wikipedia readers to navigate among articles. But, they are different. See wp:MOSDAB and other guidelines/policies.
No, the NRHP WikiProject does not regard the "List of Masonic buildings" list-article as "vital to their project". In fact they, including me, basically do not care about this list-article, which is why they and i have not developed it. Note, it is not a list of NRHP-listed Masonic buildings, it is a list of notable Masonic buildings. Yes, all the NRHP-listed ones are wikipedia-notable and probably should be listed here. Why am i participating in this discussion at all, and sometimes editing the article? Well, it happens that I am pretty experienced in disambiguation policy/guidelines and in list-article policy guidelines and i guess i am somewhat willing, as a volunteer, to try to help other volunteer editors here. Although i grumble some, because there is no one present AFAIK who is a volunteer who actually wants to develop this list-article. I would be willing/glad to help such a person, and until then i guess i may continue to revert occasional attempts to strip or delete this list-article, which is pretty surely a valid wikipedia topic. Hope this helps! :) --doncram (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to make it happen. PeRshGo (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a clarification... I was referring to Masonic temple (disambiguation) and not this list when I said the NRHP project sees it as being vital. Blueboar (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the underlying TOPIC notable?

I have finally realized what bothers me about this list... it is the question as to whether the underlying topic (as opposed to the individual entries) is notable. Yes, there are individual masonic buildings that are notable, but are "Masonic buildings", as a class, notable? To some extent, this relates to my previous question of "what makes a building 'Masonic'?"... but it goes deeper than that. I think we need to establish that the concept of a "Masonic building" is notable... and that means finding sources that discuss the concept in some detail. Does such a source exist? Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the topic is notable. I think you would agree eventually if you browsed more in wikipedia list-article examples and relevant guidelines. Perhaps participating for a while in the wp:FLC Featured List Candidacy process would be helpful; they need reviewers there. Here, there is no one developing this list-article, and no request for review / no one to implement the suggestions of a would-be reviewer. So, i think reviewing the status of this article is really not helpful at this time. If you want to develop it, go ahead. Otherwise, i don't think this discussion is helpful, as i have otherwise stated, but new discussion sections keep popping up, so i repeat myself. --doncram (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, Please explain why you think the concept of a "Masonic building" is notable. Blueboar (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Just re-read WP:Red links... which states:

  • Lists of "notable people" in an article, such as the "Notable alumni" section in an article on a university, tend to accrue red links to names of people of unverifiable notability. Such list entries should be removed; the lists should remain confined to names of people whose notability is attested by an existing article or other reference.

While I suppose one could take a narrow interpretation of this and say that it only applies to lists of people... I don't think that was what was intended. I think it is a broader statement about red links in list articles. If so... we should remove the red links (to be re-added once an article is actually written about them). Blueboar (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I have done so. Feel free to add the link back once an article is written on the building. Blueboar (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I restored the redlinks. I believe they all are NRHP-listed, notable places. The correct treatment in this case is to create articles for them, and/or to provide additional descriptive information in this list article clarifying their notability (i.e. that each on is NRHP-listed). Blueboar, you have repeatedly stated you are not interested in developing this list-article and not interested in developing articles for the redlinks. That's fine. But, then, I think you should refrain from deleting the useful structure/content of this list-article. It is ripping the guts out to delete mention of all the NRHP-listed places that are clearly wikipedia-notable. --doncram (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Please do see Wikipedia:Red link guideline on redlinks. In general the ones here are clearly in the "good" type covered in that guideline. Good redlinks help grow the wikipedia, etc. --doncram (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
First, WP:Notability relates to articles, not content within articles. You say these are notable buildings that should be on the list... OK... WP:PROVEIT ... please provide an inline citation for each and every one of them (individually), per WP:V. We can not simply take your (or any other editor's) word for it that all these red-linked buildings are listed on the NRHP.
Second, I don't think simply being listed by the NRHP as a historic building qualify a building to be on this list. I think this list needs something more. I think you need to establish what makes the building "Masonic". Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I have "proven" well enough that the NRHP-listed items are NRHP listed on the disambiguation pages, where i put in supporting blue-links to the NRHP county list-articles which show the items. The NRHP list-articles are based on reports out of the National Register. You have access to these disambiguation pages. You can verify that they are NRHP-listed also by looking them up yourself. I don't promise every redlink on the page is NRHP-listed, but the majority/possibly all are. This is not a list-article that has attracted a lot of random additions; it is still mostly the NRHP-listed ones that were added early on. Your deleting them all seems wp:POINTY, i.e. disrupting wikipedia to make a point that you don't like the somewhat poor state of the list article. The most relevant suggestion is wp:SOFIXIT. If you don't like the red-links, please develop short articles on them, and/or add pictures, develop material here. The productive task for development of wikipedia is to develop the wikipedia-notable topics, not to argue endlessly about how to index/list the topics. The efficient thing to do is to develop the articles, then the notability will be clear, and one or two exceptions may come to light and then be eliminated. --doncram (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
No, it is not disruptive... it is enforcing Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy. Please read WP:BURDEN... I have issued a legitimate challenge... it is now up to you (as the person who wishes to keep the information in the article) to provide inline citations to prove that these buildings are on the NRHP, and are thus (potentially) notable enough to be included on this list. Otherwise the information may be removed. Simply pointing to another article is not enough. That is core policy. I will give you a reasonable amount of time to comply, but will not wait forever. Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
What i see you doing is seeming to chip away negatively at something you don't like. You've added little negative tags to the list-article; you call for reinforcements about some supposed conflict here; you open multiple repetitive discussion sections. I get that you can't and/or don't want to develop this list article. You have not made a legitimate challenge to the facts. You are not serious. You know that most / perhaps all of the redlinks are NRHP-listed. You can look them up yourself, either in the corresponding disambiguation pages as i have described or by access to the National Register database via [1] or one of Elkman's NRIS data access tools or going directly to the National Register's webpages. Basically they have been looked up already. --doncram (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I am very serious... this page has some fundamental problems that need to be resolved... 1) establishing that the topic of "Masonic buildings" is notable in the first place... 2) Establishing a clear and coherent criteria for inclusion ... 3) the ridiculous number of red-links ... 4) the duplication between this list and several other pages... All of these are somewhat open for discussion... but the one thing that is not open for discussion is the requirement that this list comply with WP:V.
You yourself said you are not sure if all of the redlinks are actually on the NRHP list... so... since you are the one who wants them to remain in the list, it is up to YOU to supply citations for the information, per WP:BURDEN. If you do not do so, I will start to remove them. Blueboar (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't be a jerk. I have been conversing with you, grumbling along the way but basically being civil and being responsive to your questions. I have given you suggestions and useful information. I have given you informed judgements based on my experience which is, well, more informed than yours in this area. You are reciprocating by ratcheting up threats to delete stuff which has already been explained to you has merit. You are right, i am not guaranteeing every item is NRHP-listed because i have not checked that. You could easily check that. You don't have to choose to engage with me or other editors by making threats and trying to make others do what you could/should easily do. You are the one who is owning some uncomfortableness about the inclusion of some items about which you know little. You could jolly well lift a little finger and look up all of the items you don't know about. If you did some such work, and came back with an informed judgement that one or two seem not to be NRHP-listed, I would then be happy to check further and verify that, drawing upon my not-terribly-clever-but-still-somewhat-better-than-yours knowledge of some of the NRHP sources. You could ask me to do that. You are insulting me, otherwise, in your implicitly denying that all of them are not NRHP-listed, by your attempting to delete them all, which i reverted. I don't think of you as being a jerk in any permanent way, but your behavior with these threats seems pretty jerkish. Please don't choose to be that way. --doncram (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
If adhering to Wikipedia's policy and guidelines is "being a jerk".... then I am proud to accept the name "jerk". A legitimate challenge has been issued... the ball is now in your court. Blueboar (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's see how this flies...

I've got a serious problem with the basic criteria that NRHP listing confers notability as it applies to this article. Considering that the only basic issues for a listing on NRHP are that it is >50 years old and can be said to be significant to history, there's a lot of places that would qualify. "First Masonic Lodge in town" sounds great historically, but it really doesn't mean anything when almost every state has 200+ buildings that can lay claim to that statement, and I think that's what we are running into here.

Several incorrect premises in that. The reason why NRHP-listed places are notable is not that the event of NRHP-listing occured, but that the places are important historically as determined by a rational process involving several layers of review and intelligent judges. No one asserts "First Masonic Lodge in town" is sufficient for NRHP listing; that is NOT "what we are running into here". The current dab pages and/or this list which largely overlaps capture probably almost all the individually listed ones. There is not some impending flood of new NRHP listings. And no one adding redlinks willy-nilly, as far as i can see. --doncram (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

doncram wants to see development of redlinks. This is all well and good, but the only place that we're going to find such information is in the NRHP itself, if it's even available to the public. Other than that, it's just a building on a street like any other, and no one is going to have any more particular interest in it than any other building. So I don't think that many of these buildings are developable into articles in the first place.

Pretty much every one is quite "developable" into an article. The NRHP's NRIS database is indeed available to the public. A public domain copy of most of its information is available via the private website nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com; that is a convenient source for you perhaps. The good big NRHP application documents are also publicly available, free upon request to the National Register. Send an email request to "nr_reference (at) nps.gov" for any one. These are good, reliable sources, often 20-30 pages written by qualified professionals such as architectural historians. They often provide primary type information in terms of description of architectural details; the history information provided is secondary or tertiary usually as these cite all the reasonably available sources. The sources cited are also good possible sources to get. Also there are usually subsequent local newspaper articles and mentions in architectural and historical guides. --doncram (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Therefore, we've got a conflict between guidelines. In short, there are Masonic buildings on the NRHP. This makes them notable. However, there likely aren't any sources on them other than the NRHP documentation that made them notable in the first place, which would be a primary source. There's a serious question of "it is really encyclopedia-worthy?" that the NHRP project should think about, but we need to do something one way or another here.

Nope. There are non-primary sources available, including the NRHP application documents. You are just not familiar with these, which is okay. --doncram (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Having given careful consideration of what to do, I've used the following items as my basis for conclusion:

1. A "Masonic building" is a vague term, as we have seen in earlier discussion. 2. A Masonic building is a relatively new development; meetings were originally held in taverns, and I believe that extended as far up as Grand Lodges as well. This is where the argument that certain taverns should be on this list originates. 3. Many of what I would consider notable buildings are notable because a Grand Lodge bought said building and converted it, and it is notable not by dint of having a GL in it, but by being a piece of architecture that stands out. 4. A building should not be inheriting notability as a separate article because a notable organization meets there. This is a pretty solid piece of WP policy, but it seems that the NRHP may be conferring listings IRL based on that very premise, so when it comes over to WP, it's technically causing a policy contradiction. If said building was done by a famous architect, that's a different matter, but I haven't seen that as of yet in relation to a Masonic building.

Nope, i doubt the NRHP gives a listing merely because a place is the first or other meeting place of Masons in a town. You aren't familiar with NRHP listed places. --doncram (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

5. If a Masonic group never met there, it's sort of strange to call it Masonic. That should eliminate the hotel in RI. 6. Shrine buildings should be separate - even though a Shriner is a Mason, the buildings generally don't have any other purpose than for Shrine-related stuff, and Lodges don't meet there. 7. If a building was Masonic, but was sold, destroyed, whatever, then it should go in a historical subsection. That should address any chronological issues. 8. Regardless of HRHP status, some of this buildings just have nothing that can be said about them that isn't actually related to the group that meets there, and cannot be developed into articles. It's the same way that every Grand Master isn't notable just for being Grand Master - there's just nothing there to work with to make something in the first place. 9. most importantly, we can do what we want with this article as far as WP:FM guidelines go, and they don't need to match or coincide with any other WikiProject. We simply agree to disagree if need be.

Therefore, I propose the following guidelines:

1. A "Masonic building" should be defined as a building that was either purpose-built or converted to be a long-term Masonic meeting place, meaning it's got a lodge room in it with all the furniture, and was used for some fairly lengthy period of time.

2. The building must be notable under general guidelines, not simply by dint of being on the Register, though that may establish why it was notable. The "first/only Masonic Hall in town" alone isn't going to cut it for this list.

3. The building must have an article prior to being included here. The sheer number of potential entries on this list makes retaining redlinks a serious hindrance to list maintenance and utility. It will also give the NRHP folks a chance to create something we can take a look at - that's their area of expertise, not ours.

4. If a building used to be Masonic but isn't any more, it should go in a historical section, but it must meet the above criteria.

Well? MSJapan (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you... at last someone has proposed a clear definition of what makes a building "Masonic" and a clear criteria for inclusion. I think MSJapan's guidelines work well... He provides a clear rational for why buildings are included or are not included on the list that is easy to follow. I especially like the idea of breaking this into "current" and "historical" subsections. (note: we still need to address the issue of duplication between this list and the category... but lets save that for after). Blueboar (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Given that several the premises of the proposal are incorrect in my view, I don't really agree with all of the proposal. I don't see much impact of items 1, 2, 4 in the proposal so i don't particularly oppose them (but maybe i would if i understood impact differently). But in particular i disagree with guideline 3. It is perfectly within Wikipedia guidelines, in particular about red-links, for redlink items to be included. All the NRHP-listed ones are legitimate wikipedia topics; that does not need to be revisited really. There is no issue as far as i see about potential entries arriving and cloggign up this list. If you don't want to create articles about the places or develop this list-article to summarize about them, that is fine. The project should be left to someone else who is interested and has time. It would be unhelpful for non-interested parties to hack away at a list of notable Masonic buildings simply to make it harder for other future-arriving editors to learn what are already known to be notable buildings that could be photographed and researched and described by them. There was other input in a section far above here about what buildings are sensible to include, too, from another editor or two.
Here's my counter-proposal: editors interested in this article should pick several of the Masonic buildings listed and do articles for them. That would include getting NRHP application documents for them and looking for available photographs. And develop the articles. That would be a direct contribution to wikipedia and it would bring you up to speed about articles about buildings. --doncram (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
You say all the NRHP-listed ones (and I note you don't even know for sure which are NRHP-listed!) are legitimate wikipedia topics. So what? The Empire State Building is a legitimate wikipedia topic... it does not belong on this list.
The title of this article is "List of Masonic buildings"... I don't think it is unreasonable to say that, given this title, any building included on the list has to notable because it is a Masonic building... the fact that a building is notable for some other reason (for example because it is on the NRHP) is nice, but is ultimately irrelevant for this specific list. If it does not meet that primary criteria, it does not belong. It must be notable because it is a Masonic building.
Here's my counter-counter-proposal why don't you and the rest of the NRHP project write those articles... you are the one on the NRHP project after all. From the POV of the Freemasonry Project these buildings are not notable, so it is unrealistic to expect any of us to work on them. Gee.... Think how many stub articles you could have created just in the time you spent arguing with me. Blueboar (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, i just get down to this further comment from you after i already replied in several other places. Blueboar, it doesn't help for you to open repetitive conversations. I substantially replied elsewhere to most of what you say, if you would read what i said elsewhere. But, simply, it is not appropriate for you to decide; you don't get to decide what is the definition here in some arbitrary/bureaucratic fashion. You are not in charge; you do not own this; i would much rather defer to someone actually developing material. You are not informed to make any such decision; you have repeatedly stated you are not interested in the buildings or developing the articles. I also don't get why you want to encourage a narrow "POV" of the Freemasonry Project. Why do you assert they would not be interested, when you don't know anything about most of these places? You could be right in the end, but right now you don't know enough to make such judgements. --doncram (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
True, I am not in charge... neither are you. Things on Wikipedia are done by consensus Unfortunately, we do not seem to have a consensus on several fundamental questions relating to this list... One of those questions is: What do we mean by a "Masonic Building"? As a long time member of the Freemasonry Project (not to mention a long time Freemason) it is absolutely appropriate for me to state my opinion on that question. Does that mean my views must be accepted... no. But it certainly is appropriate for me to share my views and give the reasons why I hold them.
So far, the only reason you have given for including all the NRHP buildings is that they are listed by the NRHP... you have not laid out why being listed should qualify them for inclusion. Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And the problem grows

Now we have yet another page that duplicates this material... PeRshGo has cut and pasted this list into Masonic Temple. Just to keep tabs... We now have essentially the exact same list duplicated at:

And we still don't have a clear consensus about what a Masonic building is or clear criteria as to what makes a Masonic building notable... Great... Just Great! Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Actually, I see that his idea is a Merger of this list into Masonic Temple. I can live with that (at least the number of duplications has not grown)... but it simply moves the problem to a new article. We still need to form consensus on what should and should not be on the list.
  • I- will complete the merger and move this talk page to the archives of Talk:Masonic Temple. Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Sigh... merger objected to and reverted by Doncram. See... Centralized discussion at: Talk:Masonic temple (disambiguation)#Requested move 2 Blueboar (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, absolutely i reverted, and yes please do let's see there. I restored the article List of Masonic buildings and this Talk page. It seems absolutely wrong, by the way, to kill an ongoing Talk page and copy-paste its discussion to somewhere else. Obviously we were discussing the issues for a list-article about Masonic buildings HERE. About the somewhat overlapping structure of articles and dab pages and categories, do let's discuss that at the centralized discussion--doncram (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • It's a moot point, now that you undid PeRshGo's merger... but most of the discussions we have been having here on this talk page relate only to this list (where ever it eventually ends up), and not to the dab page. For example, the issue of whether to include red links... red links are generally considered appropriate in dab pages, but are generally considered problematic in list articles (different standards for different kinds of pages). When PeRshGo moved the list to Masonic Temple the issues we have been discussing moved to that page as well. Thus, I felt it was appropriate to move this talk page over to Talk:Masonic Temple. It was also appropriate to undo my move when you undid the redirect of the list. Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • See move discussion at Talk:Masonic Temple#Move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
And it grows yet again... with the creation of List of Masonic Temples. We now have no less than five duplicative iterations of this list. None of which clearly establish what makes the underlying topic notable in the first place. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)**+

merging technicalities

I believe the consensus at the AFDs of "List of Masonic Buildings" and of "Masonic Temple" and elsewhere is that the list of buildings named "Masonic Temple" is to be merged back into this list. Since it was originally generated from this list, just with editing down to remove redlink items and Masonic halls named otherwise, i believe it is mostly already included here. Additions to the separate "Masonic Temple" article which need to be checked, i think consist only of the following items and pics:

I think that's it. Any other differences to check? Otherwise I believe it would be ok to finish implementing the merger by striking the section from the Masonic Temple article. I would wait for its AFD to conclude, first, though. --doncram (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Shrine or not Shrine?

The Shrine is a completely separate organization that happens to require its members to be Masons. I don't think we should include their buildings. Blueboar (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Topic discussed in the AFD, still ongoing, and perhaps at a few other Talk pages already. I suggest wait till AFD is closed. --doncram (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
OK... ADF has been closed (no consensus what so ever)... so, can we discuss this now? Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Great that the AFD which you opened, is closed in favor of keeping this list. Given you wanted this list deleted, why do you care about some subissue now? I don't want to be jerked around to new fake issues. How many discussion sections are open on various pages by you, on these articles? Are there any other discussions opened by you about this question, already? Anyhow, Shriners is a Masonic organization, and Shriner-associated buildings would then seem to fall naturally within the general Masonic buildings category and this list. Perhaps it would make sense eventually to split them out to a separate list, but having a few notable ones in this list, currently organized geographically, seems fine for now. Could you please develop a list of the most notable Shriner buildings, in a userspace page perhaps, to inform a future discussion? Please allow editors to develop material here gradually. If you yourself contribute constructively, i think that could earn some consideration, but there is no need to have a lot of further contention here. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I care because these are not Masonic buildings and thus do not belong on the list. Articel development does not just mean adding things... It means making the article the best it can be, which might inlude removing things that don't fit. Why do you care? Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Let me start off by saying that aside for what they do for kids I'm not a fan of the Shrine. Personally if they did away with the organization, buildings, ritual and all, but merged the charitable aspects into another branch of Masonry I'd be thrilled. But the fact is they are a Masonic branch. They were founded by the Masons, they share the same members, they often share the same buildings, and their symbols are found side by side throughout the world. As much as I dislike it the Mason, Shriner connection is undeniable. PeRshGo (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I would have significant concerns about equating the Shrine with Masonry, but recognise that the distinction isn't all that clear to many.
The pre-requisite for membership of the craft is not rooted in ritual or allegory in the same way that the various appendant bodies are, it doesn't promote itself as more than a charitable activity and there is no suggestion that the ritual, such as it is, may be allegorical or speculative in a masonic sense.
ALR (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you, but would you say that the Shrine has Masonic endorsement? PeRshGo (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
No.
ALR (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
ALR is correct. The shrine does not have Masonic endorsement. Unlike the York or Scottish Rites, the shrine is not considered an extension or continuation of Freemasonry. It is a completely seperate entity that happens to require (at the moment at least) that its members be Masons. The problem for this article is that some Shrine buildings contain Lodge meeting rooms in them, while others (most?) do not. These were built by the Shrine chapter so they could raise more money to support their hospitals by renting the rooms to local Masonic lodges.
This highlights why we need a clearer definition of what a "Masonic building" is. If a "Masonic Building" is any building that freemasons have ever met in, then those Shrine temples that contain lodge rooms would be included... as would all sorts of other buildings... nothing in Masonry requires meeting in a purpose built buildign... Masons meet in private homes, church and synogogue halls, and even bars and taverns that have a private dining area. If we define a "Masonic Building" as a building that was purpose built by the Freemasons, then most of these would not be included... and the Shrine buildings should be removed (even if they contain lodge rooms) because these buildings were built by another organization, and the Masons simply rent the room for the evening. Hell, I even know of one lodge that shares a building with the local Knights of Columbus chapter... so is it a "Masonic Building" or a "KofC Building?". I realize this is all confusing to a non-Mason... but this is exactly the sort of confusion we need to sort out. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Accessing the NRHP website

I have tried to verify the NRHP citations on several computers (with both IE and firefox)... the link provided (here) is a front page that supposedly contains a way to access the pages or files that discuss the specific buildings. However I can not gain access anything beyond the front page. Can anyone else do so? If so, how? Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What, now you disbelieve the references that i put in? Yet another discussion section attacking this page? Anyhow, click on Download on that page. You can then download the NRIS database and check them yourself. --doncram (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
It's entirely reasonable to seek to validate the references, per verifiability.
I would observe that the web page in question is quite user hostile.
ALR (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, in context of multiple AFDs and negative comments in many opened discussion sections, it also is reasonable to believe the question is unfriendly. For one example, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry#Request for assistance - List of Masonic buildings, the same questioner seemed to want to quash development of articles on the buildings and this list-article itself. In that discussion, I gave a link to a different, more-user-friendly interface to the NRHP database, too. --doncram (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't disbelieve your references... I would like to improve them by linking directly to the page that discusses the buildings, rather than a front-end search engine (that does not work for me). The intent of the question is not unfriendly... it is not desinged to "quash" developement of the article ... it is an attempt to improve the article. Please assume good faith. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Please read #Let's see how this flies... discussion section above. I gave you directions there on how to obtain NRHP nomination documents, which are good, reliable sources on these places. The nom docs are often written by architectural historians or other experts, and include bibliographies of their sources about the historical importance of a place. They also often include some primary-type information, such as detailed description of architecture observed by the writer, but it is acceptable and good to use primary source info in Wikipedia, when used with care. By the way, I also there gave a link to another copy of the NRHP database information (the private website which I refer to as "NRHP.COM"), which, as i stated there, you might find more user-friendly. But, the NRHP.COM website has known, systematic errors due to imperfect understanding of the National Register by its private programmer(s), so in general direct links to it will be removed in favor of links to the National Register directly. If you actually want to find out more about a given NRHP-listed building, the best way to start is to get and read the NRHP nomination document. --doncram (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Bizarrely, apparently because i explained why references to NRHP.COM would be removed in favor of direct links to the National Register, Blueboar goes the opposite way, in an edit just now. I reverted, and i am already sick of this new approach for B to attempt to cause drama. --doncram (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, now I am confused... first you point me to a website that you say is "a good, reliable source on these places". Then, when I use it as a source to directly verify that a building is on the NRHP list, you say that website isn't reliable and revert my edit. All I want to do is provide a more direct link to a webpage that discusses each building and verifies that it is indeed on the NRHP. I am not attempting to cause drama... I am simply attempting to improve the references. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I did not point you to the www.NationalRegisterOfHistoricPlaces.Com website (which i refer to by shorthand of NRHP.COM) and say that was a good, reliable source. What I said was "NRHP nomination documents [emphasis added]... are good, reliable sources on these places. The nom docs are often written by architectural historians or other experts, and include bibliographies of their sources about the historical importance of a place." NRHP nomination documents are documents, not entries in a database. I used NRHP nomination documents to provide better references for the 3 NRHP-listed Virginia masonic buildings. I suggest that if you want to improve other references, you could do the same. NRHP.COM is in fact an inferior copy of the National Register's National Register Information System (NRIS database), which provides brief database-type info taken from the NRHP nomination documents and adds NRHP-listing date and other status info. NRHP.COM introduces errors (for one example, it lists places as listed that in fact NRIS reports instead were de-listed from the NRHP) and is otherwise inferior as a reference. It is now usual wikipedia practice to delete NRHP.COM references in favor of direct references to NRHP's NRIS database. Further, the most obvious way to improve a reference to NRIS is to replace it by reference to an NRHP nomination document. Do you want to get the NRHP document for one site, to see what that is like? Pick one site, please? --doncram (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, OK, I now understand a bit better... thank you. So is there a web site (or sites) where we can access the NRHP nomination documents for all of these buildings? Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
No. There are state government websites in some states, including Virginia and New York, that provide these. For a few other states there are documents available for most of the state's places in a National Park Service system. For most states they are not available online. --doncram (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
OK... then, as a first step, where we can, we should link to those documents that are on line ... and then cite to the hard copy documents if they are not on line. My point is that the website that is currently used as a citation is so user-unfriendly that it is essentially useless for someone who wants to verify that a building is indeed on the NRHP and why it is on the list. So, for each entry, we need to cite the documents that discuss that specific building. If we can link to something on line, great... but that is not required. At least we can tell readers what specific documents support the information. And yes, I do understand that this is a daunting and time consuming task... it will take us a while to complete it. I am not in a rush and I will be happy to help. Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
To start us off... which States are on line? could you provide a link? Blueboar (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
In recent days i cleaned up wp:NRHPhelp to be able to provide it in semi-decent form to you. It provides info on which states have NRHP documents on-line and which do not, although i have not checked the info for accuracy recently. I actually prefer to start an NRHP stub article and add the NRHP document reference to that, first, like I did for the Virginia ones. Constructing a proper reference with authors and date of preparation and so on is a little bit time-consuming. It seems more worthwhile in the actual article for the place. Then you can swoop by later and grab copies of those references to use also in this list-article. The first step in starting an NRHP article can be to use the "Elkman NRHP infobox generator", also described at wp:NRHPhelp. I would focus first on picking a state to work on where the NRHP docs are on-line, and then create the NRHP stub articles with infoboxes using the generator. Then add the NRHP doc reference there with some summary info. Then bring back info to the list-article which should provide just snippets from the actual articles. --doncram (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Doncram... the links on the wp:NRHPhelp page should move us in the right direction. Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Masonic... or not?

The recent addition of The Level Club in New York City again raises the question... what makes a building a "Masonic Building"? The Level Club was founded in the late 1920s as a private gentleman's club (along the lines of the Union Club, the University Club or the Racquet Club). However, the men who founded it all happened to be Masons, and membership was restricted to Masons (although being a Mason did not guarantee membership in the club). The building originally contained the type of rooms one would expect in a private men's clubhouse... bedrooms for out of town members, kitchen and dining facilities, bar, a ball room for dances with the ladies, a billiards room and a card room, an auditorium for lectures and plays, (a swimming pool was planned but not built). However, absent from the building were lodge meeting rooms. The club never had any "official" connection with the Grand Lodge... it was simply a private club that required its members to be Masons.

The club lasted only a few years... closing its doors when the depression hit. The building still stands... it became a hotel in the mid 1930s, 40s and 50s... and then a drug re-hab center in the late 60s and 70s. It was recently renovated as luxury condominiums. Thus, for most of the building's existence it has not had any connection to Freemasonry.

That said, the building, as a structure, was certainly inspired by the fact that its builders were Freemasons. Its dimensions are supposedly based on those of King Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem (a structure of significance to Masons)... The exterior is festooned with carvings of Masonic emblems... levels, beehives, hexagrams and such. When people see the building they often (incorrectly) assume it must have been a Masonic temple at one time. There is a connection between the building and Freemasonry... although the connection is somewhat indirect.

So the question is... Does this building belong on this list, or not?... is it what we mean when we use the term "Masonic building", or not? We are once again faced with the fact that we have yet to properly define and state a criteria for inclusion in this list... and to do that, we must answer the question: what makes a building "Masonic"? Blueboar (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with what Blueboar writes, and admitting that I simply assumed that it was masonic, I would like to say that if a stricter definition of Masonic building is adopted, there really will need to be a subcategory of some sort to enable interested people to find buildings like th elevel Club because that is some eye-popping, over-the-top Masonic facade.AMuseo (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
That's what the "See Also" section is for. I would have no problem with linking to the article on the Level Club there. Blueboar (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Significant association

The second paragraph of the lede states: "These buildings have significant associations to the fraternal organization of Freemasonry." I have tagged it as dubious. I thought I should explain the tag... first, I think that is the sort of statement that needs a source (I know the MOS says that normally we don't put citations in the lede, but that assumes the information is discussed and cited later in the main text of the article... in this case it isn't). Without a source, the statement is essentially WP:Original research. It is also confusing... are we saying that these buildings are significant to the Freemasons? (if so, who says so?... my personal opinion, as a Freemason, is that a few are, but most are not)... or are we saying that the association of these buildings with Freemasonry is significant to others? (but again, who says so?). Blueboar (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like forced notability to me, which is why it comes out sounding strange. Having cogitated on the matter at length, I think it's a bit backwards; what we have is not a bunch of Masonic building on the NRHP, but rather a bunch of NRHP-listed buildings (which is from whence notability arises as far as WP is concerned) that happen to have some connection to Freemasonry (which I believe we don't have nailed down quite yet, because the majority of the documents aren't accessible). Reversing the lede should solve that part of the problem. MSJapan (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the topic (and perhaps the title) of this list should be: "Buildings on the NRHP that have a Masonic connection"? ... hmmm... It would make the list more explicitly a sub-page of the NRHP project, which I see as a good thing (as it would give the list a clearer focus and a definite primary criteria for inclusion... being listed on the NRHP... the Masonic connection would be shifted to being a secondary criteria). We would still need sources to substantiate both the NRHP listing and the "Masonic connection" (and we would still need to define what we mean by "Masonic connection")... but I do think this idea is a step in the right direction.
That said... We should definitely wait to see what Doncram thinks before we make such a major change. He and I already have a somewhat adversarial relationship... and I would like to ease away from that. Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • question What would that do to buildings that are notable because some significant Masonic event happened in them, but that are not notable architecturally?AMuseo (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Define "significant Masonic event" - an assertion that was made earlier in tihs discussion when we were trying to ascertain notability was that these "Masonic buildings" aren't notable solely because they are the first Masonic building in a given town, and there's not much else that's significant in the grand scheme of things that I can think of offhand. The vast majority of the really major things (formation of GLMA as the first constituted GL in the US, formation of Prince Hall, and the printing of the first Masonic book on US soil, as examples), happened well before the concept of a "Masonic building" existed. So I think we need an actual NRHP documented Masonic building to see why it's listed and go from there. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find one with digitized records yet, so a few more hands in in that area would be helpful. MSJapan (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

sourcing

Which brings us to the issue of sourcing. The sources provided so far are far from adequate. From what Doncram tells us, a lot of the NRHP documents we need for proper sourcing are off-line... yet the NRHP entires are all cited to a website that does not even list the buildings. (ie the website provided does not provide direct support for the fact that any of these buildings actually are listed by the NRHP.) That needs to be changed. We also need a citation that clearly demonstrates that the buildings listed actually have "significant associations to the fraternal organization of Freemasonry". From a strictly WP policy based perspective (WP:BURDEN, WP:RS and WP:NOR all apply), if this is not fixed, we would be within our rights to start deleting buildings from the list. I would prefer to fix the problem... but removal is an option. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Ridiculous. After all you have pulled with your 20 or 30 or more discussions opened everywhere, and your multiple AFDs, I will certainly revert your edits myself and/or seek ANI type actions against you if you embark on such a tactic again. The info is in NRIS. Are you trying to suggest that i am lying, with my saying NRIS was the source for my entry that a given place is NRHP-listed? NRIS was/is my source. I pointed you to several ways to verify any and all, and you are rejecting all that again? There is no requirement that every source used in wikipedia must be on-line. Your tactics for building a cooperative editing spirit, or whatever you are seeking by making new threats, are frankly bizarre. --doncram (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
No I am not saying you are lying... I am saying a) that the website that is currently cited does not directly support the fact that these buildings are on the NRHP (this is a WP:RS issue) and b) that we need a source that shows that the buildings have a "siginficant association to Freemasonry (this is a WP:NOR issue). I am saying that these two problems need to be fixed by providing proper sources... but I am also warning that if it isn't fixed, Wikipedia policy tells us that the problematic information may be removed. Blueboar (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The sourcing as it stands is not correct. You cannot source to a DB main page (or a website index page) to refer to a specific entry within its structire; you must source to a specific page which includes the entry. If the entry doesn't exist, then there's no source. MSJapan (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
There is an entry in the NRHP's NRIS database for each item that I noted by footnote to NRIS as being NRHP-listed. I looked up each entry in the list, in the NRIS database (actually, i searched NRIS for every instance of "Masonic" and similar strings, and these are the entries in it). There is no page number in the database. Please explain, what else would you want? Please explain, what fact are you questioning? --doncram (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
A database works by having unique records that are searchable and cross-referenceable through certain fields. Each record has a unique number in the database. This means that every record is locatable by a reference number of some sort. Now, shift the database to a web server, and every record now has a unique URL. If it doesn't, no record actually exists, or it's not a database. That specific record's URL is what we need as a cited source. Search results aren't good enough, because those don't substantiate the statement.
I am also very interested in seeing what the rationales for inclusion were on these buildings, because the lede is contradictory and we need clarification. That clarification will also clear up all the issues we are having in this article. If the building is on the NRHP due solely to the architect or the architectural style of the building, its Masonic association is irrelevant, and it moots the purpose of this list. If, however, the building is on there for some Masonic reason (other than being Masonic Hall #1 in a given town), now we have something to work with in terms of criteria, and write a lede that makes sense. MSJapan (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
MSJapan says in a few brief paragraphs what I have been trying to say for a while. Blueboar (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The database is a fully adequate source for documenting the fact that a place of a specific name in a specific town and state is NRHP-listed. I consulted the database, in fact using the Elkman interface, and I discovered/verified that each of the places where I added footnote to NRIS, is in fact listed on the NRHP. Would it make you all happier if the footnote was changed, so instead of linking to the URL which you find so unfriendly, so that it just read "National Register's NRIS database", with no URL? It is fine for us to use an off-line source. It is effectively off-line to you, because you have not tried to download the database available at the URL and because you have not used the Elkman or NRHP.COM or Archiplanet.Com or other online variants of it. Would that suffice, to change the reference so that it does not give a URL?
About the reason why each place is listed, that is best found out from the place's individual NRHP application document. That is different than the database. The database does actually contain some general codes, i think four "event" vs. "architecture" vs. two others, which broadly categorize which one or more of 4 general NRHP listing criteria are met. But the database does not include the paragraph or two, or in some cases several pages of text, explaining why the place was being nominated for being NRHP-listed. I do encourage you to collect those, where available on-line, or by request for free copies to be emailed to you or sent by postal mail, if you would like to develop those further. --doncram (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
You want this article, you get the info. You're making up all these reasons to explain why burden of proof does not apply to you. There are indeed URLs in those search results; they're just blank. The PDF link is supposed to have the information, because that's what it is there for; it doesn't because the records haven't been digitized. My point is that your sources don't exist as you claim them to (because querying the DB doesn't get the information), and your idea of sourcing does not match with policy. And in bold once again, so that there's no misunderstanding: You can argue all you want about how you're right, but since it isn't consistent with policy, it doesn't matter. You are too busy trying to prove you're right to solve the greater issue. If readers don't have access to the documents, and the writers don't have access to the documents, then it's not possible to generate this list in accordance with Wikipedia policy. MSJapan (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
If you want to query the database yourself for "Masonic", try this link. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
And for a specific listing (i.e. "Crane Hill Masonic Lodge" in Alabama), use this link. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I've done that before. The majority of URLS therein contained are blank, which is why this discussion is going on. There's nothing accessible to get usable sources. MSJapan (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Well if you click on the result returned in Crane Hill's case, at the bottom of the page (below the PDFs), there's a "Published" field that shows you the NRHP listing date (11/29/2001 in this case), and there's an "Item No." field that tells you the NRIS database reference number (01001294 in this case). No, for this specific property, the pdfs haven't been digitized yet, but I believe there is enough information in the database already to sufficiently assert that the site is listed on the NRHP. If not, the pdfs can be freely requested from the National Park Service (see here for more information). --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that without the original paperwork, we here are unable to create an adequate article. There are too many underlying questions of why a building was listed. If its listing has nothing to do with its purpose as a Masonic building, it's not really appropriate to be on here, in my opinion. I can't tell that from the sparse data. I will also point out that there are 209 entries on that search you have linked, and I figure if I'm going to have to go get all that, I might as well get everything related. I also have a real issue regarding agitating for an article and then telling others to go do the work, but that happens more foten than not. MSJapan (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I came across this conversation late, so I neglected to actually read the arguments above. I thought the problem was not having a link directly to the information about a specific building (which I provided as my second link and could be done for all 209 on that list). I guess the question then becomes, "Does an NRHP-listed building with 'Masonic' in its name always relate to a Masonic building?" While I would see no reason why they would not, I can see why you are expressing the need for more sourcing, and I actually tend to agree with you.
While it is easy to obtain the documents for all of these places – even by snail mail if necessary – you should not be required to. The person who added the material, which I believe to be Doncram, should have the burden of proof. Unfortunately, you will get nowhere with him, as I have tried many times unsuccessfully to try to get him to change the way he works in several different areas. He has one set way of doing things, and even if everything he adds may be completely correct (it's not), he has not the slightest regard for existing policy that supercedes his goals with the NRHP wikiproject. His outlook is that since all NRHP listings are inherently notable, the articles will be eventually created (though "eventually" may be in the year 2598 or it may mean next month). All he has to do is oppose any threat to what he has set up for as long as possible until 1) he gives in creates some short, one-sentence stub to smoke-and-mirrors appease his perceived threat, or 2) someone creates an actual article with third party sources and actual information.
Though, like I said above, I believe the simple fact that "Masonic" is in the NRHP listing title denotes that the buildings were in fact Masonic buildings, if another editor requests more sourcing, the original author is obligated to provide it, especially in such a case as this, where articles were added en masse. If, Doncram, you would simply look for sources instead of opposing, opposing, opposing for the sake of opposing, maybe you would get something done. Hell, you may even find enough sources for a few of these buildings to make a few new articles (and by articles, I mean actual freaking articles; not the crap you usually spit out in these discussions). Yes, this is a major task, but you can't keep expecting to lay out ground work for some other editor to come along and fix all your mistakes; at some point you have to realize that you are the other editor, and you need to start making some actual substantiated edits if you wish to continue to be treated with any respect whatsoever. I am honestly physically growing tired of listening to you whine about how NRHP properties are so notable and how all these people are out to attack you. It makes me wonder: After encountering so many people with opinions differing that those you hold, you have to think....... maybe it's you? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Dudemanfellabra. As we've covered before, we are all volunteers, and I have been unable to influence you to engage in certain big editing campaigns and vice versa. I have provided substantial information in the list-article and in this Talk page, about specific places and about the sources available. I don't care for your language and negativity, but thanks for your thoughts otherwise. --doncram (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
What is it with all this new-found "we are all volunteers" stuff as of late? Yes, we are all volunteer editors to this encyclopedia; now stop using that as an excuse for your laziness. My unwillingness to sort through all your mistakes is secondary and irrelevant to the fact that you make the mistakes. If you didn't feel the need to add 80,000 redlinks to disambiguation pages... if you didn't feel the need to insist that every single one of these listings – no matter how obscure they are – deserves its very own article even if it's only 1,500 bytes long... if you didn't feel the need to oppose everyone you come into contact with, you wouldn't have to convince me to help you with these endeavours. No one forced you to begin doing all of these things; you did them under your own free volunteer will. Other editors, under their volunteer will have found issue with your contributions, and you cannot defend them because of the minuscule and lackluster sourcing put forward by the NPS and the NRHP, on which you based much of your editing. Had you not undertaken such a task and focused instead on creating quality articles and adding sourced content to the encyclopedia, I assure you that you would not be facing as much opposition. Do not pull the "We're all volunteers" card on these opposing editors; they didn't make you add the material in the first place... you chose to. Now man up to your additions and stop whining. That's all I have to say to you. This page is now off my watchlist. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Umm, i did "man up" and provide lots in response to other editors' concerns over a long period. Specifically it was complained that significance of many places wasn't known and perhaps there were just directory-style mentions of non-significant places. I then devoted some time to identifying which ones were NRHP-listed and adding more, and noting which entries seemed not supported by that source. D applies judgmental negative language about the fact that the wikipedia is not fully developed everywhere by me, i guess, already. Well it is equally he and everyone else at fault for not developing everything already. :) And following recent practice by D, D makes a driveby comment and flees. Seems like D not manning up, to me. --doncram (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Doncram... when you say, "...I then devoted some time to identifying which ones were NRHP-listed..." How did you identify these? And exactly what do the rest of us have to do to replicate your identification process? Give it to us step by step. Blueboar (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll answer here to Blueboar's question here and also partially answer B's questions in other discussion sections by my explanation here.
Specifically, i ran searches within this "Who Has" search tool supported by User:Elkman, which queries a downloaded copy of the free, public domain NRIS database. I searched on "Masonic" and "Mason" and discarded any items that seemed not to apply (e.g. a house named "John Q. Mason House"). I added entries to this list-articles for places named "Masonic Temple, Mason's Hall, etc. You could check any one item, e.g. for the "Masonic Temple" one in Grandin, Missouri, search on "Masonic" and scroll down to find it. If u further click there in the "Infobox" column you will be brought to a cut-and-paste-ready NRHP infobox for use in creating a wikipedia article. I used that already to create a starter article at Masonic Lodge (Grandin, Missouri). If u scroll down within that suggested infobox text, you can find "added = October 14, 1980" which is the date of NRHP listing, and "refnum = 80002335" which is the NRIS reference number for that item, and if you scroll further down u'll find a suggested category for Carter County, Missouri, to be included in the wikipedia article. The date of NRHP listing and the refnum will usually be the same as will appear in the "NRHP.COM" webpage for NRHP listings in Carter County, Missouri. But Elkman's interface is reliable, in that if a Masonic building is listed there, it can be believed to be NRHP-listed; the "NRHP.COM" webpage would list a place as being listed on a certain date if in fact it was in fact de-listed on that date, and there may be other errors in its data. So, in general it is better to cite NRIS directly, and not promote the error-prone NRHP.COM site. But, the Elkman interface does not display the reason code for NRHP listing, which the NRHP.COM site does display. For a site that has been verified to be NRHP-listed already by checking Elkman's interface to NRIS or otherwise, I will tend to believe the NRHP.COM's reason code and its reported reference number for a place is accurate, though i still don't like to cite it in a wikipedia article. It is far better to cite NRIS for the reference number and for reason of listing get the NRHP nomination document which is the true source for the NRIS data entry (which is the source for NRHP.COM). Both the NRIS data entry and the NRHP.COM's programming can introduce typos/errors, relative to the NRHP document. Does this help? --doncram (talk) 02:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm.... so the only thing you actually looked at was a search tool created by Elkman (another Wikipedia user) and hosted on his personal website (http://www2.elkman.net) ... if this is the case then 1) according to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, that website should be included in the citation... However, 2) personal websites are not normally considered reliable. Blueboar (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

lede and "refimprove" tags

I restored the following passage as lede to the article. In doing so I removed some assertions about what the list should or should not include, that should be discussed in the Talk page but not argued by making technically inaccurate assertions in the article. I also removed the overall "refimprove" tag. I can only imagine it was applied to question some assertions in the lede, because the building list is factual. With the restored version of the lede, I see no particular need for questioning of it, but I would welcome reasonable discussion here of any specific element that someone believes is not entirely factual.

Here's the passage:

This is a list of Masonic buildings that are notable. Many are architecturally significant and are listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places for that reason. Others are significant for other reasons.

These buildings have significant associations to the fraternal organization of Freemasonry. The basic organizational group of Freemasonry is the Masonic Lodge. The buildings in which lodges meet are variously referred to as Masonic buildings, Masonic halls, Masonic temples, or, confusingly, Masonic lodges. Some of these buildings may be used by one lodge in particular, others are used by more than one lodge (or by associated groups such as Scottish Rite bodies or Knight Templar commanderies.) Some of these buildings may have historically been used to house Masonic lodge meetings, but are now used for other, non-masonic, purposes and are no longer owned by the Masons.

There are thousands of Masonic buildings around the world. Between 1870 and 1930 a large number of the Masonic buildings in the United States were built. American architects who designed them include Burnham & Root, Napoleon LeBrun, Osgood & Osgood, John Russell Pope, and John C. Austin.

Shrine mosques are related buildings that were built by the Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine (more commonly known as the Shriners), a separate group that happens to require membership in Freemasons as a prerequisite for joining.

--doncram (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The first issue I see in the first paragraph is "notable for other reasons" - such as what? It's all well and good that these buildings are on the list, but the fact that no one can access the majority of the listings still makes this a very vague sort of notability, and hasn't really addressed the issue of Masonic connection. There is a difference between factuality and utility in a lede, and yet I believe here we have neither.
In the second paragraph, the issue of significant association has still not been clarified to my satisfaction, and having been unable to locate any documentation on any of these buildings to indicate why they are on the list, I dispute the factual accuracy of the statement, especially because it has been implied in the next paragraph and the previous paragraph that the listing of the building may have more to do with the architect than the purpose of the building. Again, no available sources to prove anything either way.
No documentation or sourcing has been shown to assert any of the third paragraph, and the last paragraph is irrelevant.
My main concern in all of this discussion is that doncram claims offline sourcing is OK (which it is), but also asserts ready availability (which is not true). I've tried to look at the online DB, and none of the documentation is available for any of the buildings I have searched for so far, and I must also note there is a tremendous amount of user unfriendliness involved in said system. As far as I ma concerned, the burden of proof is not being met for this list as it stands now, and the assumptions and statements being made in the lede have no corroboration whatsoever aside from doncram's claims. Correct or not, we cannot go on one person's claims. I want to see sources, period, or I'm going to have to ask for further outside intervention on this. I think both sides here are acting in good faith and somehow are unable to reach a common ground, and it's wasting a lot of time and effort to be going in circles over the same points. MSJapan (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The first paragraph consists of two statements: 1) that some buildings in the list are architecturally significant (which is supported by several examples in the list-article, for example the Virginia ones), and 2) that not all buildings in the list-article are significant for that reason. The second part allows for buildings to be listed here for other reasons. In fact there are 4 generic reasons why buildings are NRHP-listed. I am not looking it up right now, but I believe the 4 reasons are approximately: they can be significant for their architecture, for their association with a specific event, for their association with an important person, or for their being a good example of some common type of historic building. I do not know that all the NRHP-listed ones are significant for their architecture (and based on percentages and the large number of places here, I strongly believe not every one is listed for architecture), and there may be other buildings listed here or which could be added which are listed for some other reason. So, it is necessary to allow for that in the lede. You can call it awkward, but the wording is okay/accurate: some are significant for their architecture and some are significant for other reasons. It really does not say much. The current version is, I think, what i wrote at one point to replace some assertion which in fact was not true. This is true, and doesn't say much, and that is fine for now in my view.
About the second paragraph and about the ready availability, how can you say that you cannot find "any documentation on any of these buildings to indicate why they are on the list". What about the Virginia ones and possibly others that have full NRHP application document footnotes? Have you read a single NRHP application? It seems essential that you read several, in order to educate yourself on what kind of sources they are. Their purpose is to explain the significance of the place and why it is nominated for NRHP listing. And, they are readily available. Some are on-line. All are available for free. I have given instructions repeatedly how you can obtain them for free by request to the National Register. They will mail them to you by postal mail, if they do not have a scanned version to email. Please, please, please, pick one or several, and make a request to the National Register to get them, by email request to nr_reference (at) nps.gov. I agree wholeheartedly about the waste of time it is to go around and around in circles, which is what is going on again and again and again. I think this responds to most of what MSJapan has just said, and i will stop now. --doncram (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I further reverted again when ALR just now restored an earlier version of the lede and tags for "refimprove" and "pagenumbers". What page number do you want, for what? I won't keep reverting the lede if others want to change its wording, unless the new wording is actually false in some way, or unless it amounts to wishful thinking / assertion of what one editor wishes the Talk page consensus to be about which buildings will be included in the list-article. The version i just removed included assertion about which type of Prince Hall buildings are included, which seems to be an assertion of control over which non-existent entries might be added. That should be discussed on talk page, not argued by adding controlling-type assertions to the lede. The lede is meant to be a summary of the article, not a set of rules guiding the building of the list. Arguing about the lede is pretty useless now, as it is hard to summarize a list-article that has not been built. I wish the concerned editors would get sources and develop entries in the list, not quibble about the lede. --doncram (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
You'll note that what I did was re-add the two Quality Assurance tags asking for better evidence, and more accurate referencing of your sources. Your edit summary when you reverted my request for improved quality did not cover the substantive content changes that you made as well.
With a database you should be able to provide pointers to the specific records pertaining to the buildings. As was indicated when that tag was inserted, it's not perfect but it does illustrate the issue. Might I suggest that rather than quibbling over the specific tag in use that you respond to the suggestion and provide much more detailed pointers to the records.
With respect to the request to improve sourcing, it is wholly inappropriate to continue removing this tag without providing some substantive improvement to the sourcing. At the moment there are several sourcing issues:
  • There is no clear inclusion rationale, with evidence to support that. We've already been through that in the AfD, nobody was able to provide a source asserting an inclusion rationale. I would suggest that this topic needs to be addressed before specific items are included.
  • The majority of US buildings are supported by only a single source. From an evidence perspective this is very questionable, I don't believe that it meets the needs of Notability policy, although clearly you disagree. If the tag is added the burden of evidence rests with you to to support removal, if you can't then it should remain.
  • You have no inclusion rationale for non-US buildings. Until such time as these are evidenced then they are, as observed, vulnerable to removal. I have stated several times that this looks like a US specific list, and the requirement for evidence with respect to the non-US buildings could be resolved by re-titling and making this a US specific article.
I would suggest that it would me more productive to respond to the criticisms, provide some evidence.
ALR (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you also are finding this unpleasant to deal with. I definitely am. It appears currently there is no one present who is willing and interested to further develop this article, by doing the possibly enjoyable work of obtaining free NRHP documents and other sources, and developing up some information about each of the significant Masonic buildings. That's okay. You and me and everyone, we're all just volunteers. There's no incredible urgency to developing this list-article. I happen to think there's no benefit to tagging it negatively, or to making threats intended to force another volunteer editor to do something or another. It is well enough established that the general list-article topic is notable, and it is well-enough established that each of the NRHP-listed items, at least, are notable items to be included. To best advance this list-article, i suggest everyone present please give it a rest, for six months or a year. That would perhaps clear the air and allow some interested editors to make something better of this, free from too much criticism. I do not intend to let others' irate demands affect my life very much more here. I may give intend-to-be-helpful information from time to time, and I may return to remove negative tags and to restore adequately-established-as-notable items to the list. I did already help out by defending it in the AFD, by developing some of it (specifically the Virginia entries with additional sources, and the identification and documentation of all the NRHP-listed ones). I hope you all could find your way to seeing those as helpful contributions. But basically I overall find this unpleasant. Good luck in finding someone else to do for you all whatever it is you want, subject to all the criticism you will provide to them. --doncram (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Can I suggest that you may find it less unpleasant to deal with if you actually respond to the concerns raised, rather than disrupt the QA process by removing the tags that indicate those concerns.
You've been asked to provide detailed pointers to database entries, it is recognised that the request for page numbers is not an entirely accurate request, but of the available tags it is the most appropriate, since database record pointers are a reasonable substitute. The burden of evidence remains on you to provide that.
I remain unconvinced that this is a notable subject, and the inability to provide a clear inclusion rationale is pretty strong evidence of that. Once we have clear, supported, inclusion criteria then we can work on what to include in the list. I'm afraid that walking away from a weak article with no valid inclusion criteria is intellectual cowardice.
We have to work within the recognition that the majority of votes in the AfD were to keep the article, so despite their fairly specious reasons we're left with a weak article to try to improve. Calling for QA on the article is a way to do that. Persistently removing the QA tagging and arguing that WP:Notability does not apply is not a particularly constructive approach. If we can agree inclusion criteria, then I'm content to work further on the actual content. Until that time I would intend to focus effort on applying some intellectual rigour there, rather than elsewhere.
ALR (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
You haven't done anything except tell other people what to do and claim that your methods are correct when they are not, so let's not play the victim here. MSJapan (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

At this point I can't even tell what the problem is anymore. Are people just complaining that the NRHP documents arent 100% online yet? PeRshGo (talk) 08:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the complaint is that the citation that is currently given for bulk of the entries in this article is inadequate. the article make two claims: 1) that the buildings are on the NRHP list and 2) that they are significant to the Masons. We currently attempt to cite the first claim... but the citation that is given is insufficient. The bulk of the article is cited to a website that tells you (very indirectly, and with a lot of confusion) how to obtain certain documents, when what we need is a citation directly to the documents themselves (whether on line or in hard copy). In cases where the NRHP documents that support inclusion in this list are not online, it is inappropriate to cite to a website; and in case where the NRHP documents are on line, it is inappropriate to cite a website that does not directly link to the online version of those documents. We do not even make an attempt to cite the second claim. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I have to say that I'm finding this persistent removal of QA tagging rather tedious and the specious reasoning and circular arguments rather frustrating. It's increasing difficult to interpret any of Doncrams behaviour as exhibiting anything resembling good faith.
Given that the majority opinion is that there are issues around inclusion criteria and general sourcing are we approaching a point where gaining some outside view on Doncrams behaviour is appropriate?
ALR (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I repeatedly removed the "pagenumbers" tag you've added, because there are not page numbers to add. It seems wp:POINTY or bad or something for you to keep adding that tag, when you understand there are no page numbers to add. Perhaps we should get an outside view about that, yes.
There are reference numbers on the NRHP entries in NRIS. You can see that in the nrhp infobox for places that have an individual article; you can see the same reference number in the NPS Focus system; you can see it in the NRHP.COM entry; you can see it in other versions of NRIS information. I don't happen to agree that adding them to this list-article would help; it would detract from its readability and give undue importance to a set of arbitrary code numbers. The places can be looked up by their name plus location in any system that also reports the reference numbers. An internal reference number is okay to include in an infobox in an article about a specific place, but cluttering up the list-article is not helpful, i don't think. I don't really care if you want to add them or not; i would just observe it as basically a waste of your time, serving no purpose for readers. --doncram (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah... now we are finally getting somewhere... It sounds as if those reference numbers might count as an equivalent to page numbers... I think this is exactly the sort of building specific information that needs to go into the citation for each entry. I would be willing to remove the "page numbers" tag if you were to add those reference numbers to the citations. Blueboar (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, i won't add those reference numbers. I think they would detract from this list-article; i fail to see how they would add anything for readers. You can look them up and add them if you like, however, via Elkman's interface (or via NRHP.COM for any site that has already been verified to be NRHP-listed from NRIS via Elkman's interface or otherwise, which all of these have), and you can then cite NRIS directly as the source for the reference number. Better, you could create articles for any red-link ones, using the Elkman infobox generator. And better yet, you can request some NRHP nomination documents and use those to form good references like i did for the Virginia items in this list-article, to be included in articles about them and also here.
If you add the reference numbers, then sometime later we can delete them all, as they are not helpful for readers. Adding them could perhaps serve temporarily as verification to you that you verified the NRHP listing (which was already verified by me); you can add them all in many small edits and then we can later delete them all in one big edit. Note, Wikiproject NRHP editors do not bother to report NRIS refnums in the big state and county NRHP list-articles indexed from List of RHPs. In wikipedia they appear only in infoboxes in individual NRHP articles. Some states have different identifier codes they use, too, which we also don't report. Hope this helps. --doncram (talk) 02:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
You say you already verified the NRHP listing... exactly how did you do this? Blueboar (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Never mind... you answered a similar question above. Blueboar (talk) 03:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Masonic_buildings/Archive_1&oldid=375873280"