Talk:Masonic Hall (Wickenburg, Arizona)

Hassayampa

That statement probably belongs in the article, but it could stand a little more context -- such as that it's no longer used as a lodge hall because the owning lodge merged. Can we source that a bit better? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The statement belongs if we can establish that Hassayampa met in the building. I used Wayback to access the GL website from 2005 (here) (which was when Hassayampa was shut down)... it lists Hassayampa Lodge No. 37 and gives an address of 470 Rose Lane.... However, the address for the NRHP listed Masonic Hall in Wickenberg is 108 Teneger (This could be either North or South Teneger St.... while North Teneger does intersect with Rose Lane... 108 is no where near that intersection.)

Of course, this does not mean that Hassayampa didn't meet in the NRHP building at some point, but we should not say it unless we can verify it. Blueboar (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The statement worded by Clario was carefully written, I believe, to make a true, sourced statement. It's reasonable to believe that Hassayampa met in that building, but that has not been proven apparently. Until that is proven, it's reasonable to include the factual statement about Hassayampa. If anyone actually cared, they should request the free NRHP nomination document which probably addresses this. Yesterday or whenever i reverted a deletion of the statement, as the reversion appeared itself to be based on speculation. The statement is factual, and it is highly probable that Hassayampa met there. Who else could have been the Masonic group meeting there? So leave it for now, and in particular leave it until someone who knows the facts comes by. Having a statement about Hassayampa in the article does increase the likelihood that information will be improved. A reader who knows will comment, if they know about Hassayampa and/or this building. They would notice the currently slightly odd wording (odd because it is careful to say nothing unsourced) and they would smooth it out to say Hassayampa met there, if they knew it did. And then watchers can further ask for a source about that, if they don't immediately provide it. Okay? --doncram (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

...or, I could just block both of you again, and solve everyone else's problem. TALK IT OUT HERE FIRST, DON'T BLOODY EDIT WAR! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Sarek... thank you calling us both on this. I will stop as of now, (and revert my most recent revert to show good faith). Blueboar (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Doncram... I feel strongly that we should not mention Hassayampa until we can establish that it met in the building. Wickenburg is a suburb of Phoenix, not some rural backwater...it is quite plausible that more than one lodge has met in the town over the years. If Hassayampa never met in the building, then it is completely irrelevant to this article. If, on the other hand Hassayampa did meet in the building, then it becomes relevant. Until we know, we should not guess... and we should not assume. This is the entire point of WP:V and WP:NOR. Mentioning Hassayampa when we don't know if it ever met in the building creates a synthetic conclusion that is not directly supported by any of our sources we have found so far. In other words... Wikipedia policy tells us we should omit it until we know more. Blueboar (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion that there is original research or "synthetic conclusion" is a bit insulting. Your revising your statement above to express your "strong" feelings about this is unhelpful. Your link on synthetic conclusion links to the Original Research policy statement, that starts with "Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by the sources." There is no point of view being pushed by Clario or anyone here. There is no position being advanced. There is just a factual statement, that is in fact probably helpful. Given the available facts, it seems likely that the Hassayampa Lodge met there. It is also possible the building was used by a lodge not associated with Hassayampa that went defunct at some earlier date. However there is no original research issue here. I repeat, it seems insulting for you to imply or charge that Clario or I have done anything wrong like that. --doncram (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that you take offense at my pointing out relevant policy... but that does not change the fact that it is a WP:SYNT vio. WP:SYNT says: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. There is an implied conclusion in mentioning Hassayampa Lodge (the implied conclusion being that Hassayampa met in the specific Masonic Hall that is the subject of this article). Without a source that explicitly ties Hassayampa to the building, we should not mention Hassayampa.

However, since I doubt you will accept my word for it, I have asked for a second opinion at WP:NORN. Blueboar (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Right. Your looking for other opinions is better than some other options. But I don't get why you are bent on this, and forcing others' attention upon this. Three editors, Clario, SarekOfVulcan, and I have judged that a factual statement like the one in the article is okay. It rubs me the wrong way that you choose to make a stink of a sort here, and to make what i feel is overstatements and over-judgments of what policy is, as if to address some great wrong, when there is no great wrong. It seems a lot like previous assertions that places named Masonic Temple or Masonic Hall have no association with Masonry, assertions which have been abundantly enough rejected by more editors. I am not agreeing with your judgment. But, thanks seriously for not making it worse. I am not familiar with this wp:NORN but am happy to see what it amounts to. --doncram (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And it rubs me wrong when people add information to an article based on their own assumptions and not on sources. Why does it rub me wrong? Because I care about policy. If you look at my edit history... you will see that. Probably my largest area of contribution to Wikipedia after Freemasonry related topics is either helping to edit policy pages ... or assisting at various policy noticeboards (like WP:NORN). It happens that the NOR policy is one policy that I particularly care about... and so I strongly object when I see it being ignored. This isn't about whether Hassayampa met in the building or not ... I honestly don't care about that one way or the other... What I do care about is including the implication that they met in the building when there is no source to support that implication. Find a source that ties the lodge to the building, and I'll stop objecting. Blueboar (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note the comments at WP:NORN#Is this WP:SYNT. Several independent editors are agreeing that this is synthesis and should be taken out. Blueboar (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the unusual bounce-back-and-forth indenting in above comments, that Blueboar had developed. This is an aside: I think that conveys arrogance that his opinions are worth more than others, that he should edit in a Talk page discussion differently than all other editors. The minor irritation that this provides has been discussed elsewhere with Blueboar, and I believe he understands it is distracting and undermining of discussion, so i don't see why he resumes with that pattern here. Hopefully it won't be restored; there are few things more silly than edit-warring about formatting of Talk page comments.

About the subject matter, I object to continued, deliberately "pain-in-the-ass" type ramblings! There is no policy violation; it is insulting for Blueboar to continue to claim that he reads policy and others do not. I and others do, and most others commenting have more experience with these type of articles on historic buildings, and I and think all others see no policy violation from the inclusion of factual statements. It is Blueboar's personal problem to be reading into the article some type of violation. Blueboar, if you really think there is something mistaken implied, you have a clear way forward: lift your fingers and request the stupid NRHP nomination document which probably describes the Masonic lodge affiliation directly. You don't have an infinite right to waste others' time and attention, because you personally suspect something might be incorrect. If you really think that, do the research. Your personal, uninformed judgment that something might be wrong is simply inadequate and obviously not convincing to me. I have seen you crying wolf on too many similar manufactured issues. Here, do the work or be quiet, please. I may not reply further, if the only further response is a predictable restatement by Blueboar of what he has said already. --doncram (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "There is no policy violation"... Several independent, non-involved editors commenting at WP:NORN#Is this WP:SYNT disagree with you. They say the sentence is a WP:SYNT violation. And they agree that the easiest way to resolve the problem is to simply remove the sentence. Do they have some sort of "personal" problem with this article? Blueboar (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I factored the discussion yet again to remove yet another slightly odd partial outdent. Blueboar, do you want to bring up and discuss the conventions of Talk pages, or do you want to discuss the supposed issues of content for this article?

Also i reverted a new Bold edit by Blueboar which removed factual info from the article. B's edit summary referenced support for his view at a noticeboard elsewhere. Actually i thot B was soliciting other opinions for discussion here, and they have not joined the discussion here. Given just B presenting a case there, and their glancing quickly at one version or another of the article here, which has changed considerably through time, two persons sort of agreed offhand with B there. I am not convinced, and that does not govern what is done here. Blueboar, you have a clear way forward, to lift a finger and get info. Those other editors did not understand that, i believe. They also did not understand wider context here, of B opening dozens if not hundreds of separate issues by now on Masonic buildings, based on B's misunderstandings or B's non-informedness about policies and practices or B's speculations. Here, I believe B has gotten an adequate hearing, and there is a clear way forward, and further discussion is not warranted. --doncram (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)