Talk:List of Masonic buildings/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Zetland Hall in Hong Kong

Multiple issues with this being on the list... First, there is no indication that the building is notable... either as a building or because it is Masonic ... the Wikipedia article is about a building that no longer exists (torn down) while the website cited talks about the "replacement" for that building (which happens to be called by the same name)... however the replacement is not even at the same location as the original. Why is this building listed? Blueboar (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that Zetland Hall is the name of the three buildings that have (in succession) housed almost all Hong Kong Freemasonry activities since 1846. (It's clearly the name of the second and third of these three buildings, anyway). Therefore, it looks like the Zetland Hall article needs to be expanded to cover all buildings by this name. As for notability, lots of Freemasonry websites tell about Zetland Hall as an important entity in the history of Freemasonry in China. Also, both the second and third Zetland Halls seem to be (or have been) landmarks. I found an article from a Hong Kong newspaper about a coffee-table book on the history of China whose author "reckons there were just three outstanding Hong Kong buildings: the old city hall (pulled down after becoming dilapidated), Beaconsfield House (disappeared probably during World War II) and Zetland Hall (``a beautiful classical building now the site of a power station)." --Orlady (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links Orlady... having read up a bit more... the current Zetland Hall houses the "District Grand Lodge of Hong Kong & Far East" (part of UGLE). In its function, it is similar to a Grand Lodge building for Hong Kong. So its Masonic tie is clearer. And from the article, it does indeed seem that the old Zetland Hall building was notable as a building. The only question I now have is whether the current Zetland Hall qualifies. Do we have a source that discusses this newer building? (note... I am not ruling out listing the older one... if we determine that the list should include buildings that no longer exist).Blueboar (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Between the two Zetland Halls, I'll wager that there's enough notability for one article. ;-) --Orlady (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably... but notability for an article is not necessarily note worthiness in context of another article. That's what I am asking about. I think the first Zetland Hall meets the note worthy as a building criteria, but not the note worthy in Masonry criteria... while the second may not be note worthy as a building, but is more note worthy in Masonic terms. So, when we list Zetland Hall, are we listing the first Zetland Hall, the second... both? Blueboar (talk) 03:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are listing both. Two different buildings named Zetland Hall have hosted Freemasonry in Hong Kong (currently some 27 to 29 lodges meet there, according to various not-real-reliable sources) for almost 150 years. The one article is about both buildings, and the entry in the list-article also could cover both. --Orlady (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I am not happy about that. First, I don't think we should list buildings that no longer exist (or if we do, they should go in a separate section)... Second, I think the buildings we do list need to be both note worthy as a building and note worthy in Masonic terms (i.e. both at the same time). What we are dealing with here is one building that was note worthy as a building, and a different building (in a completely different location) that is note worthy in Masonic terms. I think it wrong to conflate the two into one entry. I suppose this is symptomatic of the underlying problem with this list... when there is no clear criteria for inclusion, and no clear definition of what makes a building "Masonic"... just about anything can be made to fit. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I share your concern about the scope of this list. However, if this list is going to exist, it looks to me like Zetland Hall is an excellent example of what belongs on it. It's noteworthy as a building (at least the original one was) and it's a notable location in Freemasonry. As for the fact that the original building no longer exists: Landmarks don't stop being potential encyclopedia topics when they are destroyed by fire, bombing, bulldozer, or other causes. --Orlady (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Landmarks don't stop being potential encyclopedia topics when they are destroyed by fire, bombing, bulldozer, or other causes... I agree... but we are not talking about whether no-longer-existing buildings are encyclopedic (ie worthy of having an article about them in Wikipedia), we are talking about whether they should be listed here, in this list article. I suppose I am questioning whether such buildings should be considered within the scope of this list. That is something that needs to be determined by consensus. In some ways, this question is similar to the question: "should we list red links or not?". There is no set rule on it... it is up to consensus. My personal opinion is "no... the scope should be limited to existing buildings"; but as an alternative, I could see having a separate section for such buildings. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue inclusion criteria with you. I decided long ago that this list was a st*nking piece of cr*p because of its trivial inclusion criteria, which seem to encompass all buildings that are notability by Wikipedia criteria and are in some way associated with Freemasonry (sometimes indicated only by the fact that "Masonic" is part of the building name), but not including buildings used by Shriners, Scottish Rite, and certain other subdivisions of Freemasonry that don't generally use the word "Masonic" in their building names. However, if this list has an encyclopedic purpose, I still say that Zetland Hall should be part of the list, as it seems to have some importance both in Freemasonry and as a building (or two buildings, in this case). --Orlady (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

But inclusion criteria is exactly what my question is about? How can we say X building should or should not be part of the list if we can not agree on what the inclusion criteria is? My question is very simple... Do we want to include no-longer-existing buildings or not? If we do, should we place them in a separate section or not? Blueboar (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Same question as B asked in many other discussion sections, some now archived. One answer given was that naively arguing about exact, final criteria is not helpful, when so little is known by B or anyone about many/most of the candidate buildings. Please see those discussion sections. --doncram (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) If you claim nothing is known about these candidate buildings, then you have just destroyed your entire rationale for creating this list in the first place. MSJapan (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

History shows it was editor Brosi in 2006, then Blueboar, then you yourself MSJapan!, then Clariosophic, and others who created and developed this list-article. It's not my article. I came by much later, probably to tie in disambiguation. I never wanted to develop this, although I do think most of the real content here is by me. I did kindly provide decent references and development for the Virginia ones by way of providing examples (you're welcome!) and I also felt forced to provide NRIS-checking to address questions about red-link entries. Actually i would be very happy to leave this behind. Like i said before, i don't want to develop this, never did. Hmm, maybe no one else is developing, maybe everyone is "helping" by criticizing. Hmm, maybe best for everyone to leave, let the contention fade away, let someone else down the road develop this in some peace. --doncram (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

My point is that you've backpedaled on your entire earlier premise, and what occurred four years ago has no bearing on now. The article has sat until you came along, asserting that all these various buildings were notable for being "Masonic" buildings. You claim you don't want to develop this article (for the second time, BTW), yet you haven't left it alone, and now, after weeks of discussion over citations, what should be included, etc., you say that "we don't actually know anything about these buildings." You can't have it both ways - they're either "notable Masonic buildings", or "we don't know anything about them." So where did your assertion come from? MSJapan (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You're manufacturing misunderstanding. You said "If you claim nothing is known about these candidate buildings, then you have just destroyed...." I don't and never did claim "nothing is known about" these buildings. I have asserted that other editors here seem not to have read a single one of the very good NRHP nomination document sources that are available about every one of the NRHP-listed ones. Some of these documents are directly linked now, by my edits. Others would be obtained by request to the National Register. Have you read a single one, by the way? I don't recall now how i got re-involved. I think i might have gotten dragged in by Blueboar or you or others seeking to delete related disambiguation pages. It's not an either/or situation. There are places where some information is known, including that they are named "Masonic Temple" or similar and that they are NRHP-listed and when they were built and what is their architecture (from the NRIS source), but not everything is known about them and some more information collection is well-advised (to include requesting a copy of the free NRHP nomination document). I am losing belief that you can serve as an impartial mediator related to this article, based on your making misleading statements of this sort. --doncram (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

disputed tag and placeholders

In this edit, meant to be entirely neutral, I tagged the article as disputed and I marked, as best I could, where a certain source was used, so that other editing cn proceed without losing that information. The basic validity of the source, and/or how best to construct a footnote reference to it, is indeed disputed. If the dispute is resolved by consensus in favor of any version of a single reference to NRIS, that can be implemented easily by changing the placeholder. I just want to keep track of where information in the article did actually come from a source, to separate it from original research and other unsupported additions. The placeholder message is now "This is a placeholder indicating where information was obtained from a source whose basic validity is disputed, and/or for which the format of an acceptable reference is disputed." I would not mind any other neutral wording, as long as the placeholder is used to mark the places where information was obtained from NRIS. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think your edit is fine... I will note that your edit essentially does exactly what I suggested a few weeks ago... removing the problematic citation, but leaving the buildings listed (temporarily uncited, while we figure out what should replace the flawed citation). I am glad you finally understand that there was a flaw with your original citation. Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with other assertions in what you just say, but I am glad you agree with the edit. --doncram (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The basic idea is fine, but these sorts of work-in-progress memos to editors should not be visible to readers. I've commented them out, easily reversible once a source is agreed upon. Station1 (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(SIGH) Argh, that sucks. I just removed the disputed tag, too, because it displayed "This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (July 2010)". In fact no one is disputing the accuracy of any information supported by NRIS references, i.e. that certain places are NRHP-listed or have certain architectural styles or were built on certain dates. Actually, I think it is worse to suggest to readers that there is no support for facts asserted in the article, rather than pointing them to the Talk page. So I think showing the placeholder reference was better than commenting it out everywhere. So far there are 2 editors, myself and Blueboar, voting for the placeholder, versus just Station1 so far voting for showing no reference whatsoever to any source. If there are not further comments within some reasonable time, i will restore the placeholder display. --doncram (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "voting" at all and certainly not against showing references. Show whatever references you like, just don't show a footnote under the heading "References" saying nothing more than "this is a placeholder". That is not encyclopedic. Station1 (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, could you please suggest what you think should display, for information that is in fact obtained from NRIS, in the discussion sections further above? And, while there is debate pending, what as a placeholder should display. Your edit suggested you think nothing should display. There are two editors who think the following should display: "This is a placeholder indicating where information was obtained from a source whose basic validity is disputed, and/or for which the format of an acceptable reference is disputed." Please keep this discussion section about what should display in the absence of resolution of the issue. Frankly, the self-appointed mediator MSJapan is falling down on the job, making no choice on possible good options for a temporary NRIS reference. --doncram (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Doncram wrote "If there are not further comments within some reasonable time, i will restore the placeholder display". Apparently he considers 39 minutes reasonable, because I've been reverted. Station1 (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong... but doesn't the NPS-Focus get its information from the NRIS database? If so, then I would suggest that we already have a working model for how NRIS information should be displayed... As was suggested about a week ago, it should be displayed along the lines of:

• "Masonic Temple in Kingman, National Register of Historic Places NPS Focus website, accessed July 19,2010."

Blueboar (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

@Station1, yes i thot about it further and think showing a placeholder is needed. Please discuss here what change to the placeholder, in absence of full resolution of a perfect NRIS reference, you would like to see. You yourself say you want something rather than nothing.

@Blueboar, you're wrong for many cases, as has been explained many times to you. NPS Focus reports some of the same info that appears in NRIS. It does not report other NRIS info. It has some info that is not in NRIS. And this is not a discussion section about the improved reference to replace the standard NRIS reference. This is a discussion section about what to display in the absence of resolution. You already agreed to display the placeholder text. --doncram (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not say I want something rather than nothing. Please don't put words in my mouth. Station1 (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, sorry, you said "Show whatever references you like, just don't show...". I would rather show a reference, but every reference suggestion has been disputed, and the self-appointed mediator has not picked any. In the absence of a reference, I believe the placeholder is better than nothing. --doncram (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now at least we understand our difference. In the absence of a reference, I believe the (visible) placeholder is worse than nothing. It is of no use to the reader and looks unprofessional. Station1 (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Station1 that the placeholder reference was worse than nothing. I have replaced the text with "U.S. National Park Service, National Register Information System, March 13, 2009 version," which identifies the source (unlike the silliness I replaced). --Orlady (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is problematic, because Doncram (who added most of the entries in this list) has admitted that he never actually looked at the "U.S. National Park Service, National Register Information System, March 13, 2009 version," ... but looked at results on Elkman's website instead. Orlady, do you have a copy of the 3/13/09 version of the database in your possession? Blueboar (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Off-the-topic of this discussion section: Orlady, I, Elkman, and others all have full copies of the 3/13/09 version of the NRIS database in our possession. It's a public domain database. Do you want me to email you a copy? You would need to have relational database software and understand how to use it to interpret it.

Back on topic: Orlady has put in different placeholder wording, which meets Station1's and her concerns. It overrided my proposed placeholder wording, but I am inclined to think it is better. There are 3 !votes for it, and 1 !vote against this new placeholder wording, if you oppose this new wording. What wording for a placeholder message do you now prefer, and why? Perhaps if you get some support it can be changed. --doncram (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, if I misinterpreted your previous comments, then I apologize. From your previous comments, I was under the impression that you relied purely on Elkman and did not have a copy of the actual database. If you actually have a copy of the database that changes everything. If you have a copy of the actual database to take information from, then I don't think we need a "place holder"... Orlady's proposed "place holder" can be the actual citation. Essentially we would be citing as if you looked at the information in hard copy. I would simply add either the name of the property (as it appears in the database) or, alternatively, the NRIS ID number... as being the equivalent of a page reference.

So, the citation for Yell Masonic Lodge Hall would either read: "Yell Masonic Lodge Hall, U.S. National Park Service, National Register Information System database, March 13, 2009 version," or "U.S. National Park Service, National Register Information System database, ID no. 84000178, March 13, 2009 version," (or perhaps a combination of both). Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, I'm sure you've misbelieved and/or misinterpreted what i have said many times. I do have a copy of the NRIS database and I have used directly for some of my edits in Wikipedia. (Some reports i generated from NRIS using my own programming appear here.) As I explained in sections further above, I used the convenient Elkman-supported interface to the same NRIS database (his copy of the identical database), to look up each of the Masonic buildings in this list-article where I wrote "NRIS" as the source. That's what I said, already.

To respond, I don't think that customizing the reference to NRIS in the way you suggest now would add any value for anyone, especially for use as a placeholder. I think it is misleading to suggest there is a database named "Yell Masonic Lodge". Perhaps yours is a suggestion for a different discussion section further above? Here, the topic is what to show in every place the single placeholder message appears in this list-article. I oppose showing "Yell Masonic Lodge" or that i.d. number 84000178 in about 100 places for about 100 Masonic buildings mostly not named Yell Masonic Lodge, where the real source is the National Register Information System database copy of March 13, 2009. We're talking here about what the single placeholder to appear for every one of these spots in the article should show. Perhaps you want to argue it should go back to the original message "This is a placeholder indicating where information was obtained from a source whose basic validity is disputed, and/or for which the format of an acceptable reference is disputed."? --doncram (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The citation I propose does not say that there is a database named "Yell Masonic Lodge"... It says there is an entry in the NRIS database for "Yell Masonic Lodge"... or an entry id number 84000178 within the database that relates to Yell Masonic Lodge. The point is that someone trying to verify what we say in our article can more easily find the specific information that relates to Yell Masonic Lodge within the NRIS database when we include such entry specific information in our citation. Again, this is analogous to giving page references when citing to a hard copy book... or giving the specific web page within a multi-page a website where the information is to be found.

I am saying that I object to having one single "cut and pasted" citation for each and every NRHP building on this list... we should have a separate citation to the specific NRIS database entry for each building listed. And if we do this there is no need for a "place holder" any more, because we have an acceptable citation format to go in its place. Blueboar (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion section is about the placeholder, thanks. There is a mediated discussion section above for discussing what is your preferred ultimate solution. This discussion section is about the placeholder. It seems 3 out of 4 editors commenting prefer the current placeholder to the original one. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

*Grand Opera House (Wilmington, Delaware).

I would like to thank Doncram for linking to the actual nomination documents for this building. They clearly indicate that the building is notable for being a performance venue, and not for its Masonic connections. This is exactly why we need more than just a NRHP listing to qualify for inclusion in this article. I think the building should be removed from the list. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(sigh) Another strong position asserted. Reading the current wikipedia article and the NRHP nomination document now linked, yes I agree the building is highly notable for its theatrical associations, and that is the emphasis in its current Wikipedia article. The nomination does clarify that it was, at that time, still the meeting location of many Masonic lodges as it had been for a hundred years. It seems likely that it is the most prominent Masonic-associated building in Delaware (I don't know of any other candidates). Also, it could be one of the most important examples of Masonic buildings being used as a theatre (for its time or world-wide forever, I don't know). The theatre is asserted to have been the second-largest in America when constructed. Also, there are bibliographic references given in the NRHP nomination which would likely speak more to the Masonic importance and associations and architectural aspects of the building. So, it is not obvious that mention of this Masonic building should be deleted from this article.

In general, I object to an editor participating here almost exclusively by attacks on everything. Everything that could conceivably be criticized has been and is criticized. Must every iota be criticized stridently, persistently, from the very first opportunity? Are you trying to drive away any editor that does research and adds material? --doncram (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Don, you said; "It seems likely that it is the most prominent Masonic-associated building in Delaware (I don't know of any other candidates)." Another illustration of my above point - you don't actually know that what you are saying is accurate, you have no independent proof of it, but since you think it is the case, then we should accept it as verifiable fact? That building is not historically notable as a Masonic building, and does not belong on this list. Add that to the synagogue in CT, and that's two buildings that are NHRP-listed that do not meet the criteria for this list. And yes, don, when your arguments for inclusion are based on opinion and not fact, they need to be criticized. If you don't like it, that's too bad, but the facts do not support your argument. MSJapan (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the theory that this doesn't belong on a list of Masonic buildings. The building (including the auditorium, which is the main topic of the current article) was built by Freemasons and had been used for Masonic meetings for over a century as of 1972. I've gotten the impression that many grand auditoriums such as this one were built by Masonic groups in the 19th and early 20th century, partially for their own purposes, but also to serve as venues for the arts and other big public events (other examples include the Masonic Temples in Detroit and Toronto and the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles). As Doncram notes, the list of sources in the NRHP nom form includes several Masonic documents. I agree with MSJapan that Doncram's assertions that "it seems likely that it is the most prominent Masonic-associated building in Delaware" and "it could be one of the most important examples of Masonic buildings being used as a theatre" are nothing but idle speculation. However, those statements can be ignored, as he didn't add his speculations to the article about the building or to this list. --Orlady (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The title of this article is "List of <notable> Masonic buildings". This title clearly implies that the primary criteria for inclusion is that the buildings listed must be notable because they are Masonic buildings. This building does not fit that criteria... as the nomination documents demonstrate, it isn't notable because it is a Masonic building... it is notable because of its history as a performance venue. Thus, it does not belong in this list. It's that simple. Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I just came across something that I think applies... from WP:ORG... which states: If a notable person buys a restaurant, the restaurant does not "inherit" notability from its owner. As I understand this passage, while the Masons may be notable... the fact that the Masons built (or subsequently purchased) a building does not confer notability. Blueboar (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That definition of notability that you are looking at is used to determine whether a topic is sufficiently notable to be the topic of a Wikipedia article. Merely being associated with Freemasonry would not cause any building to be considered notable. This is clearly a list of buildings that are notable for some reason and that are associated with Freemasonry. What has not been established is what type of association(s) with Freemasonry is/are sufficiently noteworthy (and verifiable) as to be the basis for a list of Masonic buildings. --Orlady (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you're back to attempting to define the scope of the list-article. Normally, at Wikipedia, when a "list of somethings" exists and the universe of "somethings" is very large, it is presumed that all items included on the list defined as notable by Wikipedia criteria AND they possess the attributes that cause them to be included on a particular encyclopedic list. I get the impression from the current article intro that you think that this list should include only buildings that are well-documented to be the current meeting location of one or more Masonic "craft" lodges. That focus on the current use of the buildings smacks to me of creating a directory (or perhaps a Freemasons' travel guide), which are things Wikipedia is not. This is an encyclopedia. If an encyclopedia contains a "List of Masonic buildings" and a particular building was (for a hypothetical example) built by Masons and was used for Masonic meetings for 147 years, until 2002, a user should expect to find that building on the list.

As I have stated elsewhere, I am not convinced that this list article belongs in Wikipedia. However, if the list is going to be defined as a list of buildings currently used for Masonic meetings or if it is going to exclude landmark buildings long associated with Freemasonry, it definitely doesn't belong. --Orlady (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Not to belabor too much, but many buildings have been used to some extent by Masonic groups for at least a short while. In fact, most lodges first met in taverns. I know of Masonic groups that have at one time used private homes, churches, senior centers, and other community spaces. Those can be tenuous connections (along the line of "George Washington slept here"). There is also a concern with the listings in that being unable to see the documentation, simply being "Masonic building #1 in <town name>" may be enough for a listing, but that it creates a false notability because in every town that has or had a lodge building, one of them had to be "first".

Therefore, in an effort to have some sort of manageable list, there are those of us who wish to see the list here consist of buildings listed primarily for a strong Masonic connection. What we have gotten in reply has been the sort of conjecture that Don has put forward, and what I have found from two source checks is that those two buildings were repurposed at some point after the Masonic association ended and were NRHP-listed under their later purpose. So I personally see an issue with calling a Masonic building a Masonic building when it isn't now, and if it was, there's no indication of the strength of the connection.

However, the examples you cite are well-known, and there is really no need for discussion in that vein. The Detroit Masonic Temple (and others like it) are well-documented for both their Masonic connection and non-Masonic notability. The sources are indisputable - it just doesn't make sense that when big-name musicians play a huge venue that has been around for decades, that the notability of the building is questionable. The further fact that it has always been Detroit Masonic Temple (and has never been sold or repurposed) also makes things easy. Most of these entries here, however, have no such wealth of exposure to draw on, and therefore the level of connection is not easily discerned.

Due to the above points, the existence of this list must be justified. There's got to be a reason to have this particular list of buildings. As you may or may not know, this started out as a list of every building in the database with the word "Masonic" in the title, and that's really not due diligence in terms of asserting the connection this list is supposed to illustrate. This list has to be more than just a list of NRHP buildings that have coincidental links to one another, and to do that, we need more than just conjecture, and we just don't have it. The information I have found has not supported the assertions made, and for much of the rest of it, I cannot locate the information. MSJapan (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Before you can decide whether a particular building fits the criteria for this list, you need to have a set of criteria to apply. Earlier I argued for deletion of the list because I did not see any evidence that the list was built around a set of criteria other the nonnotable intersection of "notable building" and "includes 'Masonic' in one or more of the names it is known by." The current theory regarding criteria for inclusion seems to be equally nonencyclopedic, being (as I perceive it -- my perception may be wrong) "notable building" and "currently used for meetings of at least one Masonic craft lodge, but not by some other division of Freemasonry such as Scottish Rite or Shriners." --Orlady (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

As for the inclusion of the building in Wilmington, Delaware, the sources I've looked at indicate that it was built by a Masonic group in 1871 and included (from day one) a huge auditorium that hosted many notable performers in the 19th century (and later). The building was known as the "Masonic Temple" through most of its history (and likely still has that name) and housed Masonic lodge meetings until at least 1972. However, some time after the early 1970s the auditorium acquired the name "Grand Opera House." We don't actually know whether Masonic groups still are involved with the building, but the building is a landmark that Freemasons built and used for over a century. If there is an encyclopedic purpose for this list-article, I would think that buildings like this one should be included on the list. --Orlady (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The criteria I would apply is quite simple... the building's Masonic connection must be what makes the building note worthy. If the building is notable for something else (such as being a performance venue, for being an excellent example of neo-colonial-gothic-revival architecture, or for being the birth place of a town's founder, etc.) then it does not belong on this list. In the case of the Grand Opera House building, this is the case. According to the NRHP application, the building is primarily notable for being a performance space. The application goes on and on about the building's history as a performance hall... and only mentions the Masons in passing. This tells me that what makes this building note worthy is its history as a performance hall, and not the fact that the Masons built it or met in it. It is a notable performance venue, not a notable Masonic building.

I would contrast the Grand Opera House to the George Washington Masonic Memorial in Alexandria, where the building's Masonic connection clearly is what makes it notable. Blueboar (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

non-U.S. ones

I've noticed editors who i think are U.S. editors (as i am) removing non-U.S. entries , e.g

• Masonic Hall, Nottingham

from the England section.

Especially as there are relatively few non-U.S. entries, and the U.S. editors are likely less familiar with the available sources for non-U.S. items, I would like to suggest that either we refrain from removing them from the list-article OR that they be noted here in a list on the Talk page, to call attention to future editors getting around to supporting them more fully. This is just a suggestion, towards being courteous to non-U.S. editors in the future who will visit and wonder why the non-U.S. sections are so sparse. --doncram (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that ALR is from England.

But where we are from should not impact editing. WP:BURDEN makes it clear that unsourced material may be removed. Now... as a matter of politeness as opposed to policy, I agree that (most of the time) we should at least tag an unsourced entry, so people know that a citation is needed and have a chance to search for one. However, tagging is a warning... not an end result... If there seems to be no effort to find a citation, I believe the unsourced material should be removed. In the case of the Masonic Hall in Nottingham... the entry has been tagged for several weeks... there has been more than enough time to find a citation. I see nothing wrong with removing it. Remember, removal is not necessarily permanent... it can always be returned with a proper citation. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

We're back into the situation where the burden of evidence lies with the individual wishing to include an entry, that is after all what the policies require.

That particular entry didn't even have a Wikipedia entry, so in the absence of any evidence of notability either as a building or in Masonic use it can go. I'm unconvinced that the Letchworth entry is particularly notable from a Masonic perspective, although Grand Lodge probably makes the cut.

ALR (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Your statement that the Letchworth entry is not "particularly notable from a Masonic perspective" suggests to me that you are assuming that this list has inclusion criteria that require some sort of significance within the worldwide history of Freemasonry. I have not seen any indication that such inclusion criteria exist. On the other hand, it does seem to be a WP:notable building, and the article clearly states that it's used by Masons ("About sixty Masonic lodges and 'side degrees' meet at The Cloisters..." etc.). --Orlady (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Lets face it, we have no real inclusion criteria, never mind anything about association with Masonry. Despite the majority opinion thius article is still worthless.

ALR (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

To ignore the issue of a building's significance in the world of Freemasonry is ridiculous in an article entitled List of Masonic buildings ... It's like ignoring the fact that a building is located in New York and arguing that it be added to National Register of Historic Places listings in Missouri. Blueboar (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that the number of lodges and other orders meeting in a centre denostes significance. Being a district masonic centre is predominantly a business decision and even smaller centres in the UK will have a dozen or so meetings taking place there.

In this case the building is merely a meeting place, the provincial offices aren't even located there. It's not a listed building by virtue of its masonic use.

ALR (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"Former" Masonic buildings

The addition of India Temple Shrine Building in Oklahoma city revives an issue that we let slide... Should we list buildings that were originally built by the Masons but then sold off and remodeled for other uses? If so, I suggest that we place them in a separate section. Blueboar (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the geographic ordering, currently, makes sense. There is still very little known about most of these buildings. It would seem inappropriate and directory-like, to have a hyper focus on which buildings are currently the site of a Masonic meeting. The extreme version of that would be to edit this list hourly, to show which buildings have a meeting going on right at the current moment! :) --doncram (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying we should do away with the geographic ordering for the bulk of the buildings listed ... only that we should separate the ones that we know are no longer tied to Freemasonry. I think that would probably be no more than 10 or so (if it is more than that, we have a larger issue that needs to be discussed). I am trying to compromise here... my other option is to challenge whether they qualify as "Masonic buildings" and delete them from the list. Blueboar (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you don't know which of these buildings is a current meetingplace and which is not. So it seems silly to discuss organizing the article on that basis. We do know where they are located though. :) Why not try to actually add sources and develop articles, instead? :)

By the way, Orlady did a nice job developing the Oklahoma City one's article. It challenged me to try to develop the other two Oklahoma ones, following her example of finding the NRHP nomination document at an Oklahoma Historical Society website. Those are now under construction, with links to their NRHP nom docs in place now, and also links to their photos. One of the buildings is regarded as the best example of Georgian Revival architecture in all of Osage County! Isn't that grand? :) --doncram (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, there are several buildings listed that we do know are not currently used by the Masons. For example, we know that India Temple Shrine Building is no longer used by the Masons... we know that because it says so in the nomination documents. We know that the Masonic Temple in Toronto, also known as the CTV Temple is no longer used by the Masons... because we have sources that say this. We know that Masonic Temple (Chicago, Illinois) is no longer used by the Masons, because the building no longer exists. Blueboar (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not only is it wildly impractical for Wikipedia to try to maintain this as a list of buildings currently used for Masonic meetings, but that would violate Wikipedia policy at WP:NOT (specifically, see WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTGUIDE -- Wikipedia is not a directory of useful information, nor is it a travel guide). Also, I think that limiting the list to extant buildings that are currently used for a particular purpose is generally inconsistent with the principle that notability is not temporary. If a building ever qualified for inclusion in a list of notable Masonic buildings, it should not suddenly stop deserving to be on that list. (Thus, if a famous building that is currently used for Masonic purposes is destroyed by earthquake next week, it will not suddenly stop being a notable building and a Masonic building. Similarly, if a notable building was built by Masons and used by Masons for several decades, but stopped being used by Masons in 1942 or 1952 or 2002, that doesn't change its notability or its Masonic association.) --Orlady (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that the fact that the Masons stopped using a building at some point does not change its notability... but we do not include buildings in this list simply because they are notable. The fact that they stopped using the building, however, absolutely does change its Masonic association. Buildings that no longer serve a Masonic purpose are no longer "Masonic buildings". By your reasoning we should include New York City and Philadelphia in List of national capitals... After all, both were at one time the capital of the United States. Both remain notable... but the fact that they are no longer the National capital means that we do not include them in the list. And the fact that these buildings are no longer Masonic buildings means that we should not include them in our list... or at least list them separately as "Former Masonic buildings". Blueboar (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Your concept that the list should include only buildings currently used by Masonic lodges is one that would be appropriate if Wikipedia were a directory, a travel guide, a handbook, or a similar resource, but those are all examples of things that Wikipedia is not. (A list of notable buildings currently used for Masonic purposes would logically belong in a directory, handbook, or travel guide for Freemasons, but not it does belong in an encyclopedia.) If there is an encyclopedic purpose in maintaining a list of WP:notable buildings with some sort of Masonic association, both the "notability" and the "Masonic association" must be qualities that have permanence -- not attributes that can be erased overnight. --Orlady (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with the implicit assumption that this list is unencyclopedic. We have no set criteria for building inclusion, nor do we have a set of criteria for defining "Masonic connection." Shriners is not Masonry proper - not all Masons are Shriners, but all Shriners are Masons. Same goes for Scottish Rite. The connection can be erased overnight - once the building is sold or demolished, that's the end of it, really. What Blueboar is proposing is not to create a directory, but only that a building have a demonstrable reason to be on this list. Don, on the other hand, is simply listing anything he can find without bothering to look at any documentation first, and is then leaving it up to others to sort out his lack of effort. He is not meeting BURDEN by any stretch of the imagination, and as long as that continues to be the case, this article is, as Orlady says, unencyclopedic. MSJapan (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As you note, I still doubt whether this list has encyclopedic value. As for inclusion criteria, I object to the criterion "building is currently used for Masonic lodge meetings" as nonencyclopedic. I'd be far more willing to accept this list as encyclopedic if the "Masonic" inclusion criterion were something like "built, owned and/or managed by a Masonic group" (at one time or another). However, the Freemasons participating in this discussion seem to feel strongly that the only potentially significant "Masonic" attribute is "being a place where Masonic lodges currently meet". I (as a non-Mason) fail to understand the emphasis on current meeting places -- I am beginning to guess that buildings currently used for Masonic meetings are deemed to be consecrated in some way, and that "consecrated" status (my terminology, used out of ignorance -- I apologize if my choice of words is inappropriate) is removed when Masons stop using the building. Distinctions are made between active churches and former churches in Wikipedia categorization, such as in Category:Anglican church buildings and Category:Former Anglican church buildings -- however, note that "Former Anglican church buildings" are a subcategory of "Anglican church buildings" -- when a church is disbanded the building does not stop being an Anglican church building. Similarly, while there aren't many "lists of churches" or "lists of church buildings," those that exist (such as List of churches in Florence and List of United Church of Canada churches in Toronto) seem to include destroyed and abandoned churches (once a church, always a church). (As for your comments on BURDEN, I'm trying to refrain from discussing personalities here.) --Orlady (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

To address that, let's back up a bit to some basics. Freemasonry is a fraternal organization, not a religion, so the status of a building can (and does) change. Masonic buildings aren't necessarily distinct architecturally like religious buildings are (e.g., a Star of David or a steeple or a minaret or a torii, etc.) - many times, meeting places began as larger homes. Therefore, many Masonic buildings were repurposed in the first place. So there's very little visually that indicates Masonic usage other than signage. When the Masons leave, all their stuff goes too, and that's it for the building - it becomes something else (as we have seen from documents). I also know of no situation where a Masonic group has sold their building and then taken it back later, so the building loses all significance it might have had.

Consecrating a building is something that is done by Masons for their meeting places, but it has also been done for the Capitol Building, the Washington Monument, and other significant structures. It's a public ceremony that imparts nothing to the building by way of permanent status, and is done in a professional rather than a religious capacity.

I think an important point to make regarding the viability of the list is that there are nowhere near as many Lodge buildings in a given area as there are churches. Most towns have one Masonic building at most, and almost always have multiple churches. Even major cities often only have one Masonic building. It may be a large building, but it's still only one building. Compare that to the number of churches. I mean, we have around 7 listings per state here for buildings, and that's what the average town has for churches. MSJapan (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that its four of us who don't see this article as encyclopedic that are discussing this!

We're probably back at the General notability guideline for Masonic significance; substantive discussion in multiple sources independent of the subject. I appreciate that's for an article rather than inclusion in a list, but if this is a list of links to existing articles then the GNG does apply. If a subject doesn't justify an article then it shouldn't be listed (whether red-linked or not). Even where a building has an article the masonic significance still needs to be substantiate.

So I think we need to appreciate what masonic significance might look like, in order to direct what sort of sourcing we'd expect to see? I share the discomfort about current use being a key criterion, but equally was ever used doesn't denote masonic significance.

ALR (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What i see going on is two editors, Orlady and me, actually developing articles and material from time to time. And four editors, perhaps all Freemasons, debating and disputing every step of the way! Orlady has differences with me, including that she has objected to my starting stub articles. I believe strongly that my starting stub articles here has moved the "debate" along mightily far; the Freemason editors are no longer sputtering that there will never be any articles for the former redlinks. And they are no longer complaining about the alleged non-notability of places they knew nothing about, but now do (e.g. the Delaware one, where i developed the article somewhat and Orlady convincingly devastated arguments against it). Of course I agree that more developed articles are better than less developed articles. Of course I agree the list-article should be encyclopedic. I disagree that the way to get there is to sit around complaining about criteria. You are not going to come up with criteria that make any sense, if you know nothing about the buildings that are obvious candidates for permanent inclusion in a solid list-article here. Funny, i got the impression that Freemasons were builders, but I see scant evidence among present company. --doncram (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If candidates are3 obvious candidates for inclusion then perhaps you'll articulate clearly the criteria that make them obvious, preferably whilst avoiding some of the wording that many of the stubs that you have created tend to include.

It would also perhaps be more productive if you could desist from making this an interpersonal rather than content issue.

ALR (talk) 10:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I apologize for my last comment. ALR, I was responding to your apparent attempt to make it personal; your clear implication was that 4 superior-type editors not including me are concerned with encyclopedic content. Your last comment is not a good model either, to include a veiled link to wp:Weasel that way. I rather appreciate Orlady's leadership in declining to get personal, and I should have followed her lead. Places which are listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places named as "Masonic Temple" and similarly are obvious candidates for being notable Masonic buildings. And, seriously, this is yet another useless discussion section. There have been probably now over 80 discussion sections opened, with little gain. --doncram (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In what way is it obvious? (tbh if I tried that in my real job I'd get sacked for gross negligence)

I'm content that those of you who focus on the NRHP see notability of the building being conferred by that listing, that's fine and it appears that listed status is assumed to confer notability in the UK. What I'm struggling with is how we demonstrate any masonic significance, rather than just vague association.

At the moment this is turning into an indiscriminate list of NRHP listed buildings. That's fine if that's what you're after. To make it meaningful from a Masonic perspective then I continue to take the view that there should be something significant about it, otherwise it turns into a directory.

If we can identify inclusion criteria from a Masonic perspective, and if the evidence for meeting those criteria can be demonstrated then this whole thing can be simplified. The main reason for my objections at the moment are that non-masonic buildings are being included and that the main inclusion criterion at the moment appears to be opinion.

ALR (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of this discussion section, the proposal was to set off Masonic buildings that are no longer used as meetingplaces in a separate section. I believe that has been disposed of. --doncram (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless you are now agreeing that those buildings that no longer serve any Masonic purpose are no longer "Masonic buildings" and thus should be listed separately, this issue has not been "disposed of"... We have three editors (ALR, MSJapan and Me) who lean in favor of either removing or segregating these buildings, and two (you and Orlady) that do not. You can not simply dismiss the opinions of other editors because you disagree with them... especially when those opinions are in the majority. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

We need to establish that the topic is notable

I think the issue of inclusion criteria will be clarified by addressing another problem: we do not (yet) properly establish that the topic of this list ("Masonic buildings") is a notable topic. What is needed is reference to reliable sources that discuss the topic of "Masonic buildings". Note: I am not at this point asking whether we can or can not establish the topic's notability... I am merely pointing out that we have yet to do so.

Assuming that we can establish the topic's notability, by referring to reliable sources that discuss the topic, we will then be able to use those sources to tell us how to define terms and establish the inclusion criteria. Rather than arguing over our own interpretations of what a "Masonic building" is (which violates WP:OR), we will be able to refer to sources that tell us what a "Masonic building" is. Blueboar (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

RFC at Village pump

Whoosh!! I just now stumbled upon a discussion at the "Village pump" that is inspired by and/or focused on the ongoing contention over this page. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 78#RFC: Inclusion criteria of "List of X". I do appreciate being notified of new discussions related to a topic with which I've been involved... --Orlady (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The issues being discussed on VPP relate to all list articles... and it was inspired by more than just the issues facing this list (although since this is a list, the discussion will have an impact on this list. I apologize if you feel you should have been notified. Blueboar (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I rewrote the opening sentence to comply with the Manual of Style advice for lists. I also remove the uncited opening statement which has little relevant anyway on the list article. Above Doncram says it is obvious that there exists numerous significant buildings associated with Freemasonry. This is as maybe - however it does not mean we can then say it without a source. Wikipedia works on verifiability not truth. So, if it is obvious there will be sufficient reliable sources to support such a statement :) I'm sure someone can find one --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually have a question about the very first sentence of the lede... Is this article "a list of notable Masonic buildings from around the world." as we state, or is it a list of notable buildings from around the world that have some sort of ill defined Masonic connection? Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I wrote that in line, pretty much, with how list introductions start. Usually we say "list of notable x" then in the next sentence define what we are covering. I don't think adding comments about ill-defined Masonic connection is constructive.... that's all. Even if it is true for the article we should aim to remove that ambiguity not edit it into the lead :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem... What I was trying to get at is that there is even some disagreement as to what this article is supposed to be about... and determining that may help us to move forward. Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - just running through the archives properly now (youch). Looks like there was some tentative consensus at times but it kept falling apart. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Notability & inclusion ambiguity

The notability of some of the redlinks concerns me; I suggest removing them till notability is established. Currently most appear to be supported by U.S. National Park Service, National Register Information System, March 13, 2009 version. - I assume this is used to establish that it is a Masonic connection, however that does not really confer notability on the building.

In addition there is some ambiguity about the inclusion criteria into the list. Is this a list of notable Masonic buildings? or notable buildings with a Masonic connection? Or buildings with a notable Masonic connection? Or a combination? I think it should be established a solid bar for inclusion (as we do with all such lists) and then carefully source each one :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally I'd support a fairly inclusive criteria - as long as it is clear :) In terms of the referencing - any building with a Wikipedia article which states a Masonic connection does not really need it sourced here. For the purposes of list clarity, and in my experience, it is fine to allow the WP article to support the inclusion/notability in most cases :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest we do actualy need to be clear about what we mean by a Masonic connection, many of the entries on the list do not have such an association at present.

Are we discussing sustained and significant use, a financial interest such as ownership, or a significant architectural involvement?

ALR (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point - I'd tentatively say all three (although financial interest may be problematic - a Masonic owned tea shop isn't too notable :)). And modify the sections to reflect that (depending on how well we can source it). As it is I propose we do the following:

• Remove all redlinked buildings unsupported by a source to show notability
• Remove the source link (mentioned above by me) for buildings with a WP article that show a Masonic connection reliably in the article (to make the list cleaner)

Then decide on inclusion/structure criteria and go from there (with a clearer lead). --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 16:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That was intended to illustrate the issue, we haven't as yet managed to identify, and source, anything that can be used as an objective criterion. Doncram takes the view that inclusion is obvious, he's been asked to amplify on that since obvious should be pretty straightforward to articulate. He's so-far refused to do so.

Bluntly I can only think of a couple of buildings, at least in the UK, that have any real masonic significance, the rest are just places that Masons meet. Those are the three Grand Lodge buildings.

And all the best in trying to remove anything from this page!

ALR (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Errant asks: Currently most appear to be supported by U.S. National Park Service, National Register Information System, March 13, 2009 version. - I assume this is used to establish that it is a Masonic connection? Actually, no... that is part of the problem. Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok, that presents a massive problem. What exactly is the content of the entries in that database? is there a link? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 16:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a difficult question to answer... in one sense No. Doncram has been basing his citations on a hard copy of the database that used to be accessible but is no longer on line (it was taken down)... there is a new website, but that does not mention whether the building has any Masonic connection. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that means it probably fails WP:SOURCEACCESS. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well... that was my initial reaction too... but apparently not. This was a huge issue about a month ago, and we went round and round over exactly that question... you should probably look through the archives before you reach a determination on that. Blueboar (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You'll note from the discussion that one can write to the parks service and ask for a copy of the nomination documents, which summarise the nomination and inclusion rationale. It wasn't clear whether that would also provide references or copies of the other supporting material.

ALR (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The NHRP is a list of places that have some sort of historic, sometimes architectural significance. According to those who involve themselves in that project the evidence required to gain a listing implies sufficient evidence to meet the General Notability Guideline. The snag we have is that there is a reluctance to cite any of that supporting evidence, instead asserting that the listing itself should be sufficient. From a personal perspective I'm reasonably content that listing probably does confer some form of notability, it seems to be somewhat similar to the Listed Building status in the UK. What would be extremely useful though would be some reference to some of the supporting material.

What the listing doesn't assert is any Masonic significance. There is an assumption in some quarters that merely the name should be enough, but it is also apparent that the Masonic dimension isn't part of NRHP listing. In some cases there may only be one Lodge meeting in a building, in others there may be more than one.

A useful example in the UK context, is the Letchworth Masonic Centre. It's a listed building because of it's architectural significance. It was sold to a Masonic buyer, although it's not clear who that was, and is used as a meeting place for a range of Lodges and other orders. It's probably owned by a Hall association, that's quite a common business model in the UK, who hire it out to the various Lodges, other organisations and for private functions. It has no real Masonic significance, the it's a meeting place, dining room and bar. The offices of the Provincial Grand Master are elsewhere. The argument could go either way, if this is a list of notable buildings with some form of Masonic connection then fair enough, if it's of notable masonic buildings then I wouldn't say that it justifies inclusion.

So we still haven't got clarity around the topic of the article, once we have that then we could work on how to evidence inclusion in the list. Of course the topic should be demonstrably notable in its own right.

ALR (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Which brings us to the issue establishing notability of the topic (as opposed to establishing notability of the items listed). Whether we consider the topic to be "notable masonic buildings" or "notable buildings with a masonic connection"... we still need sources that establish that the chosen topic is notable. I have serious doubts as to whether such sources exist. Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This is all repetitive. Blueboar's objections to the notability of the topic of Masonic Temple were addressed by AFD on that article, which resulted in Keep decision. It was abundantly pointed out in the AFD for that and for this list-article and elsewhere, that there are tons of sources available. I see no need to revisit the topic of notability.

I also do not see a need to follow Blueboar and ALR's apparent wish to define notability for this list-article at some high and insular standard. I believe they are both Masons and could be interested in the list-article being limited to buildings that are important for Masons like themselves to know about according to masonic teachings or something. One or both have voiced strident opposition to including the Delaware building that is NRHP-listed and appears to be the most important Masonic-associated building in the state. Another standard that they may have promoted is to list all buildings which are notable for being current Masonic meetingplaces. Perhaps that would be a useful list for a Masonic private webpage, in order to direct prospective new members to those meetings, but that would not be encyclopedic. It seems more reasonable to include buildings on this list which are wikipedia notable and have Masonic association, and for the moment it seems best not to finetune exactly what is significant enough. So far the proposals to restrict inclusion have seemed really arbitrary and have been rejected by general consensus. We have made progress in advancing the views of a couple Masons here, knock on wood, by discussing individual cases. But it would seem more productive if editors could divert some small percentage of their time on this important topic, if they could divert some time towards actually developing articles and material. --doncram (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as Masonic Temple is concerned... it isn't so cut and dried as Doncram makes out... there were actually two almost simultanious AdD discussions on that article... this one that resulted in a "Delete" decision... and this one that was a Keep. It seems that someone convinced the closer of the first AfD that I must not have been telling the truth when I said that I had actually looked for sources and could not find any, and that I lied when I had actually read the sources suggested for that topic and found that they did not support the article. I note that no one !voting keep on either of those AfDs has edited that article to include one single sentence that is supported by a citation from those suggested sources since the AfD.

As for Delaware building... "...appears to be the most important Masonic-associated building in the state"... No... it is one of the most important Arts related buildings in the state and happens to have a not so important former association with Freemasonry. The building is important, yes... but you ignore the issue of why it is important. It is important because of its connection to the performing arts, not its connection to Freemasonry.... The nomination documents devote several paragraphs to its importance to the performing arts... and toss in the Masonic connection in one sentence at the end. In other words... the Masonic connection isn't why the building is considered notable. Blueboar (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This article clearly fails WP:LIST "If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list. " Active Banana ( bananaphone 23:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what I have been saying for the last month. Blueboar (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and that is exactly the issue that we're trying to clarify. This article does not have explicit inclusion criteria, and there is a refusal, in some quarters, to engage in any discussion around what those inclusion criteria should be.

ALR (talk) 07:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Orders that should not be included

I want to restate my objection to Shriner and Scottish Rite buildings being included in this list, unless there is explicit evidence demonstrating that they are used by a Masonic Lodge for the purposes of holding Masonic meetings. These objections were essentially just ignored up the page, so the issue should be clear, rather than getting lost in the noise.

ALR (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I second that Objection. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the Objectors. It is not at all clear why Wikipedia should define "Masonic" in a restrictive fashion that limits its application to certain organizations within Freemasonry, while excluding others. I gather that both ALR and Blueboar are themselves Masons who belong to whichever Masonic organization is deemed to be the only true Masonic order, but the distinction that is being made is utterly opaque to me -- and, I suspect, to the world at large. In common usage, "Masonic" is adjective that refers to Freemasonry in general, including not only Free & Accepted Masons and/or Craft Masonry, but also York Rite, Ancient & Accepted Rite, Scottish Rite, Prince Hall, Royal Order of Scotland, Shriners, and various other groups that appear to the world to be types of "Masons" but apparently are deemed to be "appendant bodies" to Freemasonry. The distinctions that Masons are making seem analogous to saying that only the Roman Catholic Church can be called "Christian" (because its adherents consider it to be the only true church). --Orlady (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I can understand the argument for including the York Rite and Scottish rite... In the US these bodies have a semi-official recognition by the Grand Lodges. They are routinely referred to as "appendent" or "concordant" bodies. However, I also understand ALR's objection. In England, where he is from, these bodies are definitely NOT considered part of Freemasonry. The Grand Lodge officially frowns on them. In Europe the situation is even more mixed and confusing. Some jurisdictions reject the rites... others embrace them to the point where they are intertwined and one organization. So, we seem to have a choice between favoring an "Amero-centric" POV, or an "Anglo-centric" POV. Not sure how to resolve this in a list article.

The Shrine is different... it is not considered "within Freemasonry"... It is not considered an "appendent" or "concordant" body. It is a completely separate organization that requires its members to be Masons. Its goal and purpose is different from that of Freemasonry. It simply is not "Masonic". Blueboar (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Orlady, including that some editors here seem too close to the topic to have objectivity. It is not necessary and in fact not practical to limit the list to buildings that have no association with any subgroup. There is at least one building, and perhaps more, that is named "Scottish Rite Cathedral" or other name with "Scottish Rite" included, and the same building is also named "Masonic Temple". I imagine it would be impractical to define what percentage of notability of that building is associated with the Scottish Rite subgroup as opposed to other subgroups. Also, it would probably be politically incorrect and/or breach into potential issues of apparent racism, if editors began to argue that the Prince Hall subgroup ones (which reflect Freemasonry's heritage of white vs. black segregation) should not be included. No one has made such arguments yet, AFAIK, but I could just imagine it being messy and impractical to argue that a building where one subgroup met sometimes should be invalidated because of that. It is impractical to keep upt to date about what percentage of Masonic involvement at a given building was associated with each of many subtypes, and it is not important. Broadly they all are Masonic associated, and this list-article provides a way to navigate to their articles. --doncram (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of reasons for objecting, the first being principle, the other main one being practical.

Freemasonry is a system of three initiatory degrees, and within that all Masons are equal. A number of bodies build on that, using their own initiatory system, and are recognised as doing so in a way that is additional to Freemasonry, but not part of it.

We have a significant difficulty adequately defining Freemasonry in Wikipedia and came to the conclusion on the Freemasonry page itself that the focus would be limited to Freemasonry, and not the various other bodies that are associated, or would wish to associate themselves with Freemasonry. The relationships between the various bodies that direct Freemasonry and the other bodies is complex, in many cases mutually exclusive, and in many cases uni-directional inasmuch as a body may claim Masonic significance or relationship but that is neither recognised nor reciprocated.

To illustrate some of that complexity, Prince Hall Freemasonry is something that would be reasonable to include, notwithstanding the absence of inclusion criteria, as it is a system that practices the same Three degree system that sees achievement of the Master Mason degree as the highest level a Mason may attain.

From a practical perspective we limit our scope. I rather think that Doncram has recognised that already as he's started a List of Scottish Rite Cathedrals listed in the NRHP.

I'm having difficulty responding to your use of the RCC as an example because it's not a reasonable comparator. I guess the closest I can get is that Catholicism and Hinduism are both religions but you wouldn't describe Hinduism as Christianity.

My specific objection to the Shrine is that whilst the Shrine requires those who join it to be Freemasons they don't have an initiatory system, to the extent that there was talk in some Shrine governance organisations of opening up membership to non-Masons.

To illustrate some of the issues with other bodies, as an English Mason I'm not permitted to have anything to do with an Eastern Star Chapter, although as a Scottish Mason I am, and in fact both my parents were members of the Star. Also as a member of the Antient and Accepted Rite in England I'm not permitted to take dual membership in the US as the advancement is very different. The imapact of that is that while all US A&AR Masons are 32nd Degree, I'm 18th and can't in practice attend in the US, although I am permitted to.

And bluntly, just because you don't appreciate the complexity doesn't mean that we need to dumb down this article. If we eventually get some clarity around what this article should look like, or indeed if it justifies it's own existence, then there may be scope for future expansion or subordinate articles.

If there is evidence that these buildings are in use by a Masonic Lodge for the purposes of Masonic meetings then they presumably will meet the criteria that we eventually decide on for inclusion. If they don't then they shouldn't be listed.

ALR (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You state: "If there is evidence that these buildings are in use by a Masonic Lodge for the purposes of Masonic meetings then they presumably will meet the criteria that we eventually decide on for inclusion. If they don't then they shouldn't be listed." As I have said before (repeatedly) in various ways, that sounds like a charter for a directory or travel guide for Masons (and apparently you would further restrict it to a set of Masonic groups that are allowed to associate with each other). Regardless of which Masonic groups are included or excluded, "directory" and "travel guide" are two things that Wikipedia is NOT. --Orlady (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You and I share the view that this article probably has no encycopedic value. I would argue that we improve the chances of finding some encyclopedic value if we restrict inclusion, rather than open it out.

ALR (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Umm, ALR is so touchy now that he has twice reverted my edits to this section. I think it is appropriate for me to insert a short correction, within his longish comment, regarding an incorrect claim about what i did. He has deleted that. I also think there is misunderstanding about how editors usually indent comments in Talk page comments. When one editor fails to add an indent mark, others frequently fix the indentation so that the Talk page flows properly. I really don't want to talk about, much less fight about, indenting in Talk pages!

I do believe the comment works better indented underneath the statement that it contradicts, somewhere above, but here it is again:

CORRECTION: Note, that seems not accurate. There is indeed a Scottish Rite Cathedral disambiguation page to which i have contributed, including adding several ones listed on the NRHP. This like other dab pages provides means for readers to find there way to articles. It is not a standalone list-article. I have no intention to create one on the narrow topic of SRCs that are NRHP-listed. I thot that we were successfully educating several editors here about the difference between dab pages and list-articles! This List of Masonic buildings article is the only list-article about masonic buildings that i am aware of. --doncram (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've thought a little more about the RCC comparison, and I think this can illustrate it a bit more meaningfully. If we open this article up to anyone who who describes themselves as Masonic then it's wide open. There are bodies that are tacitly recognised, some that aren't.

Using the example of the RCC, we don't have a List of Roman Catholic Chapels article, but if we did have would you consider it appropriate to include Canterbury Cathedral, I can see an argument why you might given that it was an RC Abbey until the early 16thC. The practical comparison I'd make there would be a list of Masonic buildings and including perhaps a Swedish Rite building. How would you feel about including North London Central Mosque in a list of RCC Chapels? I'd put that in the realms of a Scottish Rite Cathedral in comparison to a Masonic building. Moving out a bit more, and reflecting back on my earlier comment, how about including an Ashram in a list of RCC Chapels? That's probably comparable to including entries on Feminine or Atheist Freemasonry.

I hope that helps illustrate why my view is that if we are going to have this article, bearing in mind that the majority of votes in the last AfD were for keeping it, then it should be meaningful and appropriate. It should also be easier to determine effective inclusion criteria if it is.

ALR (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is caused in part because of the major failing of the article to meet WP:LIST "If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list." Active Banana ( bananaphone 23:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This will be difficult since editors can not agree on inclusion criteria. That disagreement is caused by the fact that there are no sources on the subject to guide us on what the inclusion criteria should be. Blueboar (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Refimprove tag

I have re-added the {{refimprove}} tag... specifically, what we need are two things... a) sources establish the notability of the topic (as opposed to the notability of the items listed)... and b) sources that establish that each item is considered a "Masonic building". Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed the "refimprove" tag. There is not likely to be consensus soon on what this list-article should be, and what exactly sources should support. Tagging it just seems negative and tedious. I also even object to this discussion section, now number 80 or so in a long campaign to tar this and related articles and disambiguation pages. But, go ahead and discuss, if you like, what you want sources to show. However, don't tag the article while others are developing it somewhat positively. I thoroughly thoroughly get that you hate everything about this article, about Freemasonry, about architecture, about everything. There's no need to lay it on thicker. --doncram (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Doncram: I think you are misinterpreting Blueboar's motivations. Blueboar appears to me to be very fond of Freemasonry, but not particularly fond of buildings as a topic. Regardless, I suggest that you try to focus on the content and not on the motivations of other contributors. ;-) --Orlady (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I am replacing the tag... the issues I have raised have not been dealt with. I am also going to add the NOR tag since the definition of "Masonic buildings" in this list seems to be based on Original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 18:43, 21 August 2010

I removed the 2 tags (refimprove and original research) added by Blueboar. Blueboar, I have no idea what specific statement(s) in the article you view as original research. There may be stray remarks that could be questioned legitimately, but I have tried to use sources wherever making any specific assertion that would benefit from a source. It is not necessary to provide a source for very general statements that are obviously true. Please do identify and discuss any statements that you actually question on factual grounds here on the Talk page. But I believe there is no attempt in the article, as written, to define some new formal term ("Masonic building" or any other) as anything novel. "Masonic buildings" in the title of the article and in the usage in the article seems to mean buildings that have significant Masonic association (without defining what is "significant"). It does not seem to be necessary to define exactly what is significant enough, for development to proceed. Each questioning of a specific building, here on the Talk page, has led to a consensus decision to keep the mention of the specific building. You are welcome to complain further here on the talk page about the vagueness of inclusion criteria or any other matters, as you do. But if your complaint is the same old general notability complaint that you've raised in the AFD for this and several related articles, that's been answered in discussions on this page and elsewhere. --doncram (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Doncram... I have already explained exactly and in detail why I added the tags, but I will do so again ...

1. We need a source that defines the term "Masonic building", without such a source, the entire list is based on Original research. you note above that "Masonic buildings" in the title of the article and in the usage in the article seems to mean buildings that have significant Masonic association (without defining what is "significant"). That, right there, is exactly what I am challenging... I believe that this definition is Original research, and to show it isn't OR you need to provide a source for this definition.
2. Each item listed needs a source that explicitly notes that the building is a "Masonic building", otherwise inclusion is based on an editors assumption that the building is a "Masonic building"... that too is Original research (we can not go by the name of the building... after all, the name Empire State building does not mean that New York is an "Empire").

If you remove the tags again, without at least making a good faith effort to provide the sources I am requesting, I will consider removal disruptive and take this to ANI. Blueboar (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. The location where you actually placed a citation needed is following: "Numerous buildings around the world have significant Masonic association. This is a list of some notable Masonic buildings.[citation needed]".

Come on now! Do you seriously want to assert that there are NOT numerous buildings having significant Masonic association? Or to assert that there are no notable Masonic-associated buildings in this list?

I suppose you might want me or someone should make up some bogus Masonic building definition (i.e. indeed apply wp:OR, and then be stuck proving with sources that that exact term applies or not, when there are no sources applying that made up term. The term Masonic building is properly used here loosely as what it should and does mean: buildings having some significant Masonic association. Indeed, it is not exactly decided by the productive editors here what are the exact borders of inclusion/exclusion criteria. That means the list-article is not final; it does not mean that your adding random tags helps clarify anything or speaks to any general need. For you to protest continuously at every step of the way here, and to backtrack to questions decided by consensus to keep/not delete this article, is a waste of editors' time.

I'll pause with myself removing the petty tags you've added for the moment. Would anyone else care to comment and/or step in to fix this again now? --doncram (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll step in and restate a few questions from up the page that were ignored.

On the topic of notability of the topic, it's still not evidenced that Masonic buildings per se is a notable topic. I am aware that the majority vote in the AfDs was to retain the article, however we're now struggling with lax inclusion criteria.

You stated that it is obvious that some buildings should be included, which implies to me that obvious can be reasonably easily identified. Therefore I asked you:

In what way is it obvious? (tbh if I tried that in my real job I'd get sacked for gross negligence)

On the subject to notability of the building I'm content that those of you who focus on the NRHP see notability of the building being conferred by that listing. That's fine and it appears that listed status is assumed to confer notability in the UK. What I'm struggling with is how we demonstrate any masonic significance, rather than just vague association. What we have is a list of notable buildings that you think have an association with Freemasonry. What I think should be identified is how we substantiate and evidence that association.

At the moment this is turning into an indiscriminate list of NRHP listed buildings. That's fine if that's what you're after. To make it meaningful from a Masonic perspective then I continue to take the view that there should be something significant about it, otherwise it turns into a directory.

If we can identify inclusion criteria from a Masonic perspective, and if the evidence for meeting those criteria can be demonstrated then this whole thing can be simplified. The main reason for my objections at the moment are that non-masonic buildings are being included and that the main inclusion criterion at the moment appears to be opinion.

My main objection to the lack of inclusion criteria is that the list is being populated with buildings that you think are associated with Freemasonry. Many of the stub articles that you create are littered with speculative wording. You're also determined to force in buildings that are explicitly not masonic like Shrine buildings, I also object to the inclusion of AASR buildings as that is an appendant body to Masonry, not craft Freemasonry.

The basis of the list has no substance, therefore reasonably constitutes Original Research, and many of the entries have no evidence of any masonic significance, hence Synthesis.

ALR (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you've changed what i said. I said before that NRHP-listed places named Masonic Temple or similarly are obvious candidates for inclusion in this list. They are. I have demonstrated that by developing articles about some of them, some extensively enough to make it clear to anyone. For example, the several virignia ones. It was proven that they were good candidates, because it turns out they have significant association with Freemasonry and they are notable, some highly so. Some articles haven't been developed so far. I can't explain that much more.

Now, I think you're misstating and/or misinterpreting what i said, and then getting angry at that. I stated only that these buildings are obvious candidates for inclusion, not that they absolutely must be included, no matter what is found out about them. I was the editor who pointed out, 30 or 40 discussion sections back, that there is one NRHP-listed place named Masonic Temple or similarly in Connecticut, which turned out to be NRHP-eligible for its being a synagogue building that has fairly completely renovated the building to eradicate any trace of prior, Masonic use, and to use decorations appropriate for a synagogue instead. I put that forward as one that I would agree should probably not be included in this list. It is an exception that proves the rule. I expect that 99% of NRHP-listed places named Masonic Temple will prove, as many have already, to be significantly associated with Freemasonry, and documenting the past wealth / status / influence physically and otherwise of Freemasonry in American hamlets, towns, and cities. --doncram (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not willing to spend a lifetime here, so I may or may not reply much further. This is a courtesy reply to ALR, who has several times asked me to comment. --doncram (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for finally taking some time to try to capture what your rationale is. If I might just read that back to be sure that it's come across as you intended.

As far as you're concerned the only notability that's significant is the listing in the NRHP? If the name suggests Masonic use then one might assume significance to the extent of inclusion?

Does that bring it down to the key points, or was there more?

ALR (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if you're trying to understand, or about to try to twist my words. I have asserted that NRHP listing establishes wikipedia notability, which is generally true (and early on it seemed helpful to identify that many of the places that were listed here are in fact NRHP-listed, which I took time to do). Don't you agree with that? Most AFDs on NRHP-listed places have failed with Speedy decisions to Keep. I have said that an NRHP-listed place named Masonic Temple is a good candidate for inclusion in this list, indeed a pretty obvious good candidate. --doncram (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally speaking I'm ambivalent about listing per se denoting some form of automagical notability, but as you indicate the majority of voters on these types of issues have indicated a tendency to keep the articles. What I'm trying to get to is a statement as to what the direction of this article is.

What I'm trying to get to is how we get beyond the assumption that the name indicates some form of association, and start providing an evidence base, particularly around Masonic significance.

There appear to be a couple of alternative ways to take this, one of which is re-titling the article to reflect the content. Indicate that it's a list of listed buildings with a (possible) association with Freemasonry, rather than masonically notable. I would hope you see why I make the distinction. My personal perspective is that would best be limited geographically to the US, as you have access to the source material.

The alternative would be to identify some form of Masonic notability, and use a converged set of historic/ architectural notability, along with masonic notability/ significance. I am conscious that probably doesn't meet your desire to replicate the NRHP list, as many of these entries have no real significance to Freemasons.

A third option would be to consider the suggestion made by Orlady below, change the emphasis of the list to be around Masonic Architecture, although to an extent I'm very wary of basing that on extracts available through Google as it's very easy to take things out of context.

How do you feel about which of those three would be the most beneficial way ahead to develop a meaningful article?

ALR (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The above reference to "some sort of automagical notability", along with the suggestions that the scope of this list should be restricted to "listed buildings" or to "some form of Masonic notability" or to "a converged set of historic/ architectural notability", makes me think that the term "notability" needs to be explicated here, so we are all talking about the same thing.

Here at Wikipedia, "notability" is defined (at Wikipedia:Notability) differently than it might be defined in your real life. As that page states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity." The general notability guideline establishes a presumption that a topic is "notable" (and thus potentially eligible for treatment in its own article) if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (Read the guideline page for more information.) Listed buildings usually meet the general notability guideline, largely because the listing process ensures that the building will have received the necessary "significant coverage". However, it is a misconception to suggest that listed buildings are the only buildings that are notable -- there are myriad other reasons why a building might be notable, including (but not limited to) its height ("tallest buildings" are the topic of many lists in Wikipedia), its architecture, or the significant things that happened there. Additionally, it's a misconception to suggest that "notability" is something that Wikipedians should determine based on our own set of criteria for measuring characteristics like architectural value or importance to Freemasonry. --Orlady (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of the GNG, and given the issues that we've had in flushing out further sources about a number of NRHP entries I'm unconvinced that it's a valid point. We've had assertions from a number of people that listing implies the existence of a range of sources, but nobody has actually offered any of those up. As I said, I'm content that the majority of votes in many of these assessments are to keep the entries. I've not seen any evidence to convince me that it's actually compliant with the GNG. I'm also aware that, as a professional in the Knowledge Management domain, most of the Wikipedia policies don't actually make sense... However that's all pretty peripheral to the point made.

With the GNG in mind the suggestion that this article is misnamed is probably most apposite. The list is not notable masonic buildings it's notable buildings that might have something to do with Freemasonry (or indeed some organisation that claims an association with Freemasonry). The buildings are notable by virtue of a majority opinion on their listing in the NRHP, that notability appears predominantly based on architectural or historic value. Indeed most of the stubs use phrases like assume, appears to be and similar suggesting there is an absence of evidence about Masonic use.

We have a significant difficulty reconciling two different views on how to populate this list. You've identified a number of times that it risks being an indiscriminate directory. What I'm trying to do is reconcile the evidence/ original research.

These are all options about how to make some progress. Once Doncram has indicated which option most reflects his view of this article then we can explore the implications of that in more depth.

Your own point below about using some reference around masonic architecture as a basis, as I identified in the third option above, is an option. Notwithstanding some concerns about how the sources are being represented based on de-contextualised extracts this is an approach that I think could have some mileage, but I am aware that some of the NRHP listed buildings would probably not meet criteria based on that. What I'd like to see is whether Doncram is content with that, since his focus is firmly on a comprehensive representation of the NRHP.

Of course all of the Wikipedia fantasy policies and guidelines can be applied either literally or with somewhat more pragmatism. If we take a very literal interpretation of the GNG then every masnoic building in Scotland would be notable as every meeting is reported in the local press. Very quickly one could work up multiple discussions, independent of the subject. I'm not sure if you think that would be sensible, particularly as you have repeatedly raised the risk with the current direction of the article becoming a directory.

ALR (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I have not ever advocated and do not want to make this into a list-article about NRHP places only. The list has become a list of nearly only NRHP-places, because there is relentless-seeming pressure to oppose everything and to reduce the topic, and I happen to know about NRHP sources and I am only able to defend those ones successfully (and I have mostly only been willing, myself, to develop those ones). I suspect that other Masonic buildings that were listed here by others, but which have not been defended, were/are probably notable. For one example of a non-NRHP-listed one which i did choose to defend, the Dayton Masonic Center is significant building and a huge monument to the influence/wealth/willpower/etc. of Masons in Ohio at a certain time. I think it is pretty obviously deserving of being listed in this article, as from its sheer appearance we can safely judge there will be plenty written about it, and the mere fact/story of its construction has some importance. (It turns out it is included in a NRHP district, but that is far less that being NRHP-listed individually; there is not a separate NRHP nom document for it and the historic district's importance probably has little to do with this one building being in it.)

From the individual articles that I worked on and read the NRHP nominations for, in VA, NY, DE, OK, especially, it seems to me that the built legacy of Masons in america is pretty striking. As on Oklahoma nomination states, the Masons were an important force in America, and in many Oklahoma small towns the Masonic building was a significant contribution to the town and remains a significant landmark, the same as I believe applies in many areas of the U.S. It may not be this way at all in the U.K., but in small towns in the U.S. I have personally observed the striking presence of Masonic buildings and Elks/BPOE buildings and similar. They show up as significant buildings in many NRHP historic districts nation-wide. I have myself noticed them in New York State, in Colorado, in California, and probably in other states. From what I see on the ground, I expected that there is some story to be told, and that fleshing out a list-article would eventually help to tell that story.

One part of the story to be told, is that the built legacy reflects the waxing and waning of Freemasonry influence. There are buildings in VA and elsewhere that reflect colonial era influence of masons. There are pre-civil-war ones; there are buildings which were subsequently lost from Mason ownership during/following the Civil War, and again later in the Great Depression. There is evidence in what was built in New York State of what was apparently an anti-Masonic period, in which building was rare. I just followed a link from the Freemasonry article to some description of a Morgan affair, which was rather a huge PR disaster for Freemasonry (involving a New York resident who was apparently killed by Masons) and caused or was part of pretty big reduction of Masonic presence/activity in New York State and elsewhere. One of the New York state NRHP nom documents refers to that. There is illustration in the built legacy of a boom period, ending in 1930, of Masonic buildings construction.

I am sure the surviving, NRHP-listed buildings that were built as Masonic halls are only a small fraction. Also there are significant other buildings like the DeWint House one.

I see some of the pieces of the bigger story, and see generalizations in the NRHP nom docs that could be used as quotes. But I think the general story outlines are better told from general architectural history or other general references that some have found and linked to in AFD discussions and this Talk page. The repeated claims of no sources being available, in the face of scads of sources being pointed to, and AFDs closed as keep on the basis of them, is just exasperating, cumulatively.

Also, it is not NRHP-listing that makes a place notable, but NRHP-listing is a strong indicator of notability of a place. And NRHP nomination documents are available for every NRHP-listed place. They're available on-line for NRHP-listed places in Alaska, Delaware, Virginia, New York State, Oklahoma, and some other states. --doncram (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that really answers the question, although it may be that I'm just not extracting a clear position from what you've said.

In an effort to try to reconcile the issues around sourcing and defining this article do you have a preference from:

• Retitle to reflect what the content is.
• Try to find a way to evidence Masonic connections, rather than speculating on possible connections.
• Work from the suggestion from Orlady below, that the focus could become masonic architecture and run with that.

Of course if you have any other suggestions that avoid the need for speculation and analysis then that would be very welcome as well.

ALR (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: To make this very very clear... Article tags alert editors to problems with an entire article, a problem that relates to more than just one sentence or paragraph. The reason why I placed the {{refimprove}} tag was to avoid placing multiple in-line {{cn}} tags. Every entry in this list needs to cite a source that establishes that the building is a "Masonic building". Only a few do so. I could have put a {{cn}} tag on every entry, but that would be considered pointy and disruptive. It is not one sentence or paragraph that needs references... references are needed throughout the article.

The {{Original research}} tag was placed because a) the definition of "Masonic temple" that is being used in this article is Original research (it is the invention of a Wikipedian or group of Wikipedians), and b) the individual entries are being added based on that Original research definition, and are thus OR themselves. This is another issue where a page tag is more appropriate than an in-line tag, as the problem affects the entire article and not just one sentence or paragraph. To resolve this issue, and remove the tag, we need a) a source or sources that define what a "Masonic building" is, and b) sources for each item listed that demonstrate that they fit a sourced definition. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: You don't own this article, and you don't get to judge that "Masonic building" must be defined in some formal way and that every entry here must meet whatever your foottnote standards are proving that it meets that definition for you. It is pretty obvious that there are many Masonic buildings having notability, and that many of them are listed here.

About the original research tag, I see no statement in the article that is original research. There is no definition of Masonic building in the article, and no particular need for one, I think. I suppose there may be a definition at the Masonic Temple article. Your concern might better be directed there.

About both tags, I see no purpose served by tagging the article. You are free to raise your concerns, as you do, here on the Talk page. Tagging the article just seems to detract from the readers experience, and does not provide any benefit in conveying anything new to editors. Other editors are fully aware of your views on this article, already. --doncram (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You are correct... I don't own the article... neither do you. As for the rest, I am merely telling you what Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines tell us we must do. These are not rules I have made up just for this article... They are Wikipedia's rules, and if we want to contribute to Wikipedia we have to follow them.

And as for the Masonic Temple article... We don't have a source for the definition there either. I should know... I wrote it... I fully admit that that article is 90% my own Original Research that should be sourced or removed. Blueboar (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Topic vs Content

I think the problem here may stem from a confusion between the Topic and the Content of an article or list These are two distinct concepts... related to each other but not the same. The topic is "what the article is about"... the content is "what the article says".

The Topic is primarily governed by WP:Notability ... what we don't do (and need to do) is establish that the Topic of the list ("Masonic buildings") is notable. We need to do this through citation to reliable sources that discuss the topic of "Masonic buildings". Remember... The topic is not the same as the content. You can have a list entirely populated notable items, and still have a non-notable (Consider: List of US Presidents who like broccoli for example... everyone listed would individually notable, but the topic would not be notable).

The Content is primarily governed by WP:OR, WP:V (and WP:NPOV)... in a list, the content is both the introductory text that explains the topic, defines terms, and outlines any inclusion criteria, etc. and the individual items listed. To satisfy WP:OR and WP:V in a list, we need to cite sources... to verify that the explanatory text is based on reliable sources and is not OR, and that the items listed fit the inclusion criteria and are not being added based on OR. In this list, to satisfy WP:OR and WP:V, we need to verify that the buildings listed are considered to be "Masonic buildings" by a reliable source.

Now, this list has problems with both its Topic, and its Content. We need to establish that a) the topic is notable, and b) the content is verifiable and not OR. Both of these problems can be resolved with proper sourcing.... but that begs another question... do the sources we need exist? Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, maybe this is discussion section #82 now.

The answer to your question, for you, is NO.

What is your goal here, to kill the article? To kill off the interest of other editors in identifying historic and current buildings associated with Freemasonry? To prevent readers from being able, in the future, to learn about them? You are killing us all.

For other editors, including those involved in the AFDs on this and related articles, it is obvious that there exists numerous significant buildings associated with Freemasonry. There are some very large, significant ones in major cities. There are small buildings in small towns that were, like one in Oklahoma, one of the major buildings of the small town. The buildings erected throughout the U.S., at least, were often one of few major buildings in a given small town, besides churches and town hall buildings, and they stand out as landmarks. In some small towns, the significant such building is an Elks building; in others it is a Masonic Hall. The list-article provides a place to identify and describe the significant, wikipedia-notable ones. --doncram (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

My goal is to apply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to this article. No more, no less. Blueboar (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Right. Well, your leadership in opposing every aspect of this list-article and associated articles has been found lacking, in dozens of decisions taken by other editors' consensus so far. The other editors, including me, have applied Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I do not agree with your current concerns, either, again based on my understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --doncram (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What "other editors"? Its just you Doncram. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)