Talk:Masonic Temple/Archive 1

The following archive consists of the talk page from the article List of Masonic Buildings, which was merged into Masonic Temple on June 8, 2010 _______________________________________________________________

removed link

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

This needs to go....

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

Agreed. This page could be put at the top of the cat: page, like say Category:Lodges, & nothing would be missed. Grye 03:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Freemasons meet as a Lodge not in a Lodge, although Masonic premises may be called Lodges, as well as Temples ("of Philosophy and the Arts"). In many countries Masonic Centre or Hall has now replaced these terms to avoid arousing prejudice and suspicion. Several different Lodges, or other Masonic organisations, often use the same premises at different times.Jokerst44 23:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree... list cruft. Blueboar 14:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

specific examples

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

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

What makes a building a "Masonic" building?

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

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

Well, here's my take, in order: your first option is not really a good choice as a title and would seem to be a frivolous list; the second would seem to be what a lot of people would consider, but that would mean adding taverns as well, which might not be clear, and which do not now have a connection; lastly, "associated" is not good either, because that's subjective. I suppose a better question is: if we cannot arrive at a set of consistent, useful, and clear criteria for inclusion, do we need this at all? MSJapan (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Good question. Personally I don't think we do... but given that we have prodded this twice, and the prods were overturned, I figured we should at least ask.... Does anyone have a clear concept of what a "Masonic building" is? Blueboar (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Hmmm... and what do we mean by "built for Masonic purposes"... holding meetings? Taking care of "Widows and orphans" (ie Masonic nursing homes, orphanages and schools?). What if the building is no longer used for "Masonic purposes"... Consider the case of the Renaissance Hotel in Providence... The building was originally planned to be a meeting hall for the Masons, but they ran out of money during the Depression and construction was stopped half way through. No lodge ever met there. The property sat half finished... owned by the city... until a few years ago when the Marriott Hotel chain converted it into a luxury hotel with a "Masonic theme". Do we include that building in the list?

There is apparently some objection to merging this list with Masonic Temple (see that page's talk page)... according to the NRHP Project (NRHP stands for National Register of Historic Places) that page is supposed to be a dab page... to disambiguate between the various articles (and red linked potential articles) on buildings named "Masonic Temple" (ie articles entitled Masonic Temple (Sometown, State) ). I am trying to get them to at least agree to move that dab page to Masonic temple (disambiguation).

By the way... we also have a short stub article entitled Masonic temple (small "t") which describes what a Masonic temple is.

Confusing, I know. That's why I raised the question. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, it is just me, Doncram, not the entire WikiProject NRHP, who has been working on fixing up disambiguation pages such as the Masonic Temple one which happen to include some NRHP entries, as well as other entries. The current Masonic Temple (disambiguation) page has at least 4 non-NRHP entries, by the way. And i did agree to the move of the disambiguation page to, well, "Masonic Temple (disambiguation)" with a capital T, because it is about proper noun places having name Masonic Temple (and close variations). About the capital letter or any other issues with that, please comment at the Requested Move now posted at Talk:Masonic Temple.

About this list-article on Masonic buildings, my personal view is that, because there are so many notable ones of various types and names, that it is or could be a useful article, if WikiProject Freemasonry or any one editor would choose to adopt it and develop it appropriately. I would leave it to whoever is developing it, about subjective choices to include the hospitals and other places, though i myself would tend to include them in. However, I myself am not willing, am not that interested, to develop it, so i will defer to others. I also recognize, agreeing with Blueboar above or elsewhere, that vaguely defined list articles tend to attract all manner of additions, and can be a royal pain to have association with. The disambiguation pages must conform to wp:MOSDAB so non-notable additions can be dealt with easily. But the list-article could tend to attract listing of any building anywhere where any masons ever met once, which is non-encyclopedic and not fun to work with. Or maybe it can be managed properly, but it could require some ongoing management. You all develop it, you can leave it for someone else to fix, or you can put it up for deletion by AFD if you like, i don't care. But, the category of Masonic buildings and the disambiguation pages are needed, whether this list-article is developed or not developed or deleted. That's my 2 cents. :) --doncram (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I think I would go as far as to include places like Masonic nursing homes if found notable, as well as buildings like the MTV headquarters in Toronto that were once Masonic temples but are no longer. The Renaissance Hotel is in issue unto its self but I think that makes it notable enough to include as well. But as far the Masonic Temple vs Masonic temple problem, that's a different issue entirely. Conflicts like that really shouldn't exist. I know from personal experience with the NHRP they have a huge problem with the entire "Masonic Temple" naming scheme due to inconsistencies in the nominations. Given so many are just named "Masonic Temple" the decision on how to name it is usually up to the person writing up the nomination with no oversight on consistency. Because of this the Masonic Temple article is fundamentally flawed because for the most part the various temples aren't listed in the format they have on the page PeRshGo (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"Masonic" is it a noun or an adjective?

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

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

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

What makes a building Masonic? redux

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

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

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

Yep, those are buildings and they all have a significant Masonic association. --doncram (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

In what way are the associations significant? Please be specific. Blueboar (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

All are wikipedia-notable (all have wikipedia articles and there is no suggestion that should be disputed). As your own discussion indicates, the first one has masonic association of meetings there over almost 200 years. The second one, constructed in 1894, has association of over 100 years. The 2nd thru 5th ones have association via their name being "Masonic Temple". The 5th one is represented as being a wonderful, exceptional case, even. Your comments describe the association in each case. But hey, i don't want to develop this list-article. I thot u didnt either. Leave it for someone else? --doncram (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, I don't want to develop it... but as a member of the Freemasonry Project, I want to try to define and clarify its scope, so other editors can develop it.

So... You take a very broad view of what should be on this list. Just to see if I understand your take on this... Is it your view that any building that is listed by the NRHP (or similar preservation/historic oriented orgs) under a name that includes the word "Masonic" has a significant connection to Freemasonry?

If so, I would disagree. My view is that, for us to say that a building is "Masonic", the first criteria is it must have been built by the Masons for Masonic purposes (ie as a place for them to meet). As a second criteria, I think it must still be in a state that can be considered "Masonic"... a building that was originally built by the Masons, but has been subsequently substantially altered (such as the Renaissance Hotel or the MTV Temple) no longer qualifies. Blueboar (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As an addition... we should drop the Shrine buildings... the Shrine is a separate organization that happens to require one to be a Mason to join... but it is not part of Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the shrine "just happens to require one to be a Mason to join." It's relationship with Freemasonry is pretty paramount. More to the point though I would say that axing buildings that no longer serve as the home to lodges wouldn't be appropriate. Many of these buildings are still referred to as Masonic Temples and still have Masonic Temple written on them. The MTV headquarters in Toronto for example. PeRshGo (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the connection between Freemasonry and the Shrine is tenuous at best... to the point that, a few years ago, the shrine came very close to removing its requirement for members to be Masons. And from the Masonic side of the relationship... well, there is no real relationship. The Shrine is not officially recognized as being "Masonic" by any Grand Lodge.

As for buildings that are no longer used by the Masons... I understand the point, but we already have a dab page that lists all the notable buildings that are named "Masonic Temple" (See: {{Masonic Temple (disambiguation)]])... so what is the purpose of this list? Blueboar (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, a disambiguation page is not a regular Wikipedia article. It is not allowed to contain photographs or descriptions or history. In general each entry should not contain anything more than what is helpful to identify to readers which is the item they are looking for. It certainly should not contain any of the nuances of how one place is or was once associated. And, it should not / does not include mention of many of the most notable Masonic Temples or Lodge buildings or whatever you want to call them, wherever those have different names. It can't convey the relative importance of the different buildings. In short, I think you are way over-weighting the importance of disambiguation pages. Whether they exist or not is irrelevant. Again, i don't get why you keep on talking here, if you are not interested in developing this article. Not sure why i reply, either. :) --doncram (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No... I get what a dab page is... I am asking what the purpose of THIS page is. How is THIS list of Masonic Buildings page different than the dab pages that cover the same buildings? THIS page does not contain descriptions or history (ok, it does have a few photos)... and it certainly does not contain any of the nuances of how one place is or was once associated and it does not convey the relative importance of the different buildings. In other words... THIS page seems to be nothing more than a dab page with a few pictures. Blueboar (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Is this sarcasm? I don't believe you are suggesting adding those. --doncram (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Mostly sarcasm .... but not completely. There is a point that sarcasm. I don't mean to be a broken record, but we need to clarify what qualifies a building for inclusion in this list. At the moment we have a very open ended "the building has some sort of association with Freemasonry" criteria, and all of the buildings I mention above fit that broad description. So why shouldn't they be on the list? I agree that they shouldn't be included ... but WHAT disqualifies them? Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The ratio of edits to discuss the list article and its redlinks vs. edits to develop the actual material is too high here, it is 1000:1 or so. The efficient way to proceed is to develop actual material on the obvious cases. Don't waste time on hypothetical questions about marginal cases until basic work is done. Do you need help starting articles on the NRHP-listed ones? There are tools available and NRHP application documents available that provide good historical accounts for you to draw from. I think in many cases your developing actual articles will clarify for you what is the individual notability of each and what is the relevance of including them in this list-article. --doncram (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This thread isn't about the red-linked articles (that is discussed below)... this is about the criteria for adding buildings. You keep avoiding my questions... (perhaps because you don't have an answer?)... what disqualifies these buildings from the list? Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's take a more realistic (and non-sarcastic) situation... the DeWint House in New York... as the article states: "The property was acquired by the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of the State of New York in 1932." The Grand Lodge owns it and maintains it. It thus has a Masonic association... It is listed by the NRHP. So why is it not on the list?

My answer: it is not (and should not be) on the list because it is not notable for being a "Masonic building". It is merely a historic building that the Masons happen to own. Blueboar (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I dunno what to believe. You imply it is random that the Grand Lodge "happen" to own it, but it is clearly not random. Per one of the sources for the article, this one, the Grand Lodge was happy to step in to take ownership and preserve the house for its previous association with George Washington, and by doing so they are obviously strongly asserting association with GW, apparently a Mason. The house is one of few (I presume) "National Masonic Historic Sites". Are there others? Perhaps/probably every "National Masonic Historic Site" should be identified and added to the list article. This house also is or was the site of a Mason-focused museum in the carriage house. It seems more obvious to me that this one should be listed. I don't get why you would want to exclude it, unless you want (why would you?) to adhere to an arbitrary and a very narrow view of what the list-article should be, a view formed early on when you actually know very little about most of the candidates for coverage in the article. You have more idea about this one house because i and others developed this article (in this diff in 2007 i added the NRHP documents) somewhat. But it has not yet been much developed what is a National Masonic Historic Site (are there others or not?) or otherwise developed. In this case and in others not developed, you would learn more by developing the articles. Why would you want to exclude this, i don't understand, and why you want to exclude all others you know less about, before learning about them, i also don't understand. You're not informed to make these judgements; the judgements about what exactly should be included or not should not be be made now. First, develop coverage of the obvious-to-include ones. Get familiar with the types of sources available, etc. It's not productive yet to define a fine line. --doncram (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Merger

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

No objections from me, as it would eliminate the over duplication issue. The question is... which article do we merge them to? To some extent, the answer will determine both the scope and the format. Blueboar (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I would propose we take the informative part from Masonic temple as well as include a list of all active and former Masonic Temples sorted by country and state. We should then probably stick with the title Masonic Temple. PeRshGo (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I could see that as a possibility... but then what about the Masonic Temple (disambiguation) page? We would still have a huge duplication between that page and the list you propose. Also, would the resulting list article include something like Freemasons' Hall, London, or the George Washington Masonic National Memorial in Alexandria, VA (both of which are arguably very notable "Masonic Buildings", but neither of which would fit into a list entitled "Masonic Temples"). Blueboar (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well what I'm proposing would leave Masonic Temple (disambiguation) nonexistent as this would serve as both an explanation and listing of Temples. As for the handful of notable masonic buildings that aren't temples I'm sure we can throw those in the See also section. PeRshGo (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I expect you will receive opposition from the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (especially from User:doncram) as they see that dab page as vital to their project. But I would have no objection if you can gain consensus. Blueboar (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And as a further question... what would you do with Category:Masonic buildings (which is essentially a duplication of this list without the redlinks but could not be included in the merger)? Blueboar (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been talked out on this Talk page and in other discussions with Blueboar. The disambiguation pages are different from a list-article; they cannot contain photos and descriptive information. The disambiguation pages are just about places that are named (always or sometimes) by a given name like "Masonic Temple" and cannot be a complete list of all notable Masonic buildings. A category is also different. Yes, they all do provide some overlapping functionality for Wikipedia readers to navigate among articles. But, they are different. See wp:MOSDAB and other guidelines/policies.

No, the NRHP WikiProject does not regard the "List of Masonic buildings" list-article as "vital to their project". In fact they, including me, basically do not care about this list-article, which is why they and i have not developed it. Note, it is not a list of NRHP-listed Masonic buildings, it is a list of notable Masonic buildings. Yes, all the NRHP-listed ones are wikipedia-notable and probably should be listed here. Why am i participating in this discussion at all, and sometimes editing the article? Well, it happens that I am pretty experienced in disambiguation policy/guidelines and in list-article policy guidelines and i guess i am somewhat willing, as a volunteer, to try to help other volunteer editors here. Although i grumble some, because there is no one present AFAIK who is a volunteer who actually wants to develop this list-article. I would be willing/glad to help such a person, and until then i guess i may continue to revert occasional attempts to strip or delete this list-article, which is pretty surely a valid wikipedia topic. Hope this helps! :) --doncram (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Is the underlying TOPIC notable?

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

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

OK, Please explain why you think the concept of a "Masonic building" is notable. Blueboar (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Red links

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

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

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

I have done so. Feel free to add the link back once an article is written on the building. Blueboar (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I restored the redlinks. I believe they all are NRHP-listed, notable places. The correct treatment in this case is to create articles for them, and/or to provide additional descriptive information in this list article clarifying their notability (i.e. that each on is NRHP-listed). Blueboar, you have repeatedly stated you are not interested in developing this list-article and not interested in developing articles for the redlinks. That's fine. But, then, I think you should refrain from deleting the useful structure/content of this list-article. It is ripping the guts out to delete mention of all the NRHP-listed places that are clearly wikipedia-notable. --doncram (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do see Wikipedia:Red link guideline on redlinks. In general the ones here are clearly in the "good" type covered in that guideline. Good redlinks help grow the wikipedia, etc. --doncram (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

First, WP:Notability relates to articles, not content within articles. You say these are notable buildings that should be on the list... OK... WP:PROVEIT ... please provide an inline citation for each and every one of them (individually), per WP:V. We can not simply take your (or any other editor's) word for it that all these red-linked buildings are listed on the NRHP.

Second, I don't think simply being listed by the NRHP as a historic building qualify a building to be on this list. I think this list needs something more. I think you need to establish what makes the building "Masonic". Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have "proven" well enough that the NRHP-listed items are NRHP listed on the disambiguation pages, where i put in supporting blue-links to the NRHP county list-articles which show the items. The NRHP list-articles are based on reports out of the National Register. You have access to these disambiguation pages. You can verify that they are NRHP-listed also by looking them up yourself. I don't promise every redlink on the page is NRHP-listed, but the majority/possibly all are. This is not a list-article that has attracted a lot of random additions; it is still mostly the NRHP-listed ones that were added early on. Your deleting them all seems wp:POINTY, i.e. disrupting wikipedia to make a point that you don't like the somewhat poor state of the list article. The most relevant suggestion is wp:SOFIXIT. If you don't like the red-links, please develop short articles on them, and/or add pictures, develop material here. The productive task for development of wikipedia is to develop the wikipedia-notable topics, not to argue endlessly about how to index/list the topics. The efficient thing to do is to develop the articles, then the notability will be clear, and one or two exceptions may come to light and then be eliminated. --doncram (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not disruptive... it is enforcing Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy. Please read WP:BURDEN... I have issued a legitimate challenge... it is now up to you (as the person who wishes to keep the information in the article) to provide inline citations to prove that these buildings are on the NRHP, and are thus (potentially) notable enough to be included on this list. Otherwise the information may be removed. Simply pointing to another article is not enough. That is core policy. I will give you a reasonable amount of time to comply, but will not wait forever. Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What i see you doing is seeming to chip away negatively at something you don't like. You've added little negative tags to the list-article; you call for reinforcements about some supposed conflict here; you open multiple repetitive discussion sections. I get that you can't and/or don't want to develop this list article. You have not made a legitimate challenge to the facts. You are not serious. You know that most / perhaps all of the redlinks are NRHP-listed. You can look them up yourself, either in the corresponding disambiguation pages as i have described or by access to the National Register database via [1] or one of Elkman's NRIS data access tools or going directly to the National Register's webpages. Basically they have been looked up already. --doncram (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I am very serious... this page has some fundamental problems that need to be resolved... 1) establishing that the topic of "Masonic buildings" is notable in the first place... 2) Establishing a clear and coherent criteria for inclusion ... 3) the ridiculous number of red-links ... 4) the duplication between this list and several other pages... All of these are somewhat open for discussion... but the one thing that is not open for discussion is the requirement that this list comply with WP:V.

You yourself said you are not sure if all of the redlinks are actually on the NRHP list... so... since you are the one who wants them to remain in the list, it is up to YOU to supply citations for the information, per WP:BURDEN. If you do not do so, I will start to remove them. Blueboar (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't be a jerk. I have been conversing with you, grumbling along the way but basically being civil and being responsive to your questions. I have given you suggestions and useful information. I have given you informed judgements based on my experience which is, well, more informed than yours in this area. You are reciprocating by ratcheting up threats to delete stuff which has already been explained to you has merit. You are right, i am not guaranteeing every item is NRHP-listed because i have not checked that. You could easily check that. You don't have to choose to engage with me or other editors by making threats and trying to make others do what you could/should easily do. You are the one who is owning some uncomfortableness about the inclusion of some items about which you know little. You could jolly well lift a little finger and look up all of the items you don't know about. If you did some such work, and came back with an informed judgement that one or two seem not to be NRHP-listed, I would then be happy to check further and verify that, drawing upon my not-terribly-clever-but-still-somewhat-better-than-yours knowledge of some of the NRHP sources. You could ask me to do that. You are insulting me, otherwise, in your implicitly denying that all of them are not NRHP-listed, by your attempting to delete them all, which i reverted. I don't think of you as being a jerk in any permanent way, but your behavior with these threats seems pretty jerkish. Please don't choose to be that way. --doncram (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If adhering to Wikipedia's policy and guidelines is "being a jerk".... then I am proud to accept the name "jerk". A legitimate challenge has been issued... the ball is now in your court. Blueboar (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's see how this flies...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, I propose the following guidelines:

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you... at last someone has proposed a clear definition of what makes a building "Masonic" and a clear criteria for inclusion. I think MSJapan's guidelines work well... He provides a clear rational for why buildings are included or are not included on the list that is easy to follow. I especially like the idea of breaking this into "current" and "historical" subsections. (note: we still need to address the issue of duplication between this list and the category... but lets save that for after). Blueboar (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Given that several the premises of the proposal are incorrect in my view, I don't really agree with all of the proposal. I don't see much impact of items 1, 2, 4 in the proposal so i don't particularly oppose them (but maybe i would if i understood impact differently). But in particular i disagree with guideline 3. It is perfectly within Wikipedia guidelines, in particular about red-links, for redlink items to be included. All the NRHP-listed ones are legitimate wikipedia topics; that does not need to be revisited really. There is no issue as far as i see about potential entries arriving and cloggign up this list. If you don't want to create articles about the places or develop this list-article to summarize about them, that is fine. The project should be left to someone else who is interested and has time. It would be unhelpful for non-interested parties to hack away at a list of notable Masonic buildings simply to make it harder for other future-arriving editors to learn what are already known to be notable buildings that could be photographed and researched and described by them. There was other input in a section far above here about what buildings are sensible to include, too, from another editor or two.

Here's my counter-proposal: editors interested in this article should pick several of the Masonic buildings listed and do articles for them. That would include getting NRHP application documents for them and looking for available photographs. And develop the articles. That would be a direct contribution to wikipedia and it would bring you up to speed about articles about buildings. --doncram (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You say all the NRHP-listed ones (and I note you don't even know for sure which are NRHP-listed!) are legitimate wikipedia topics. So what? The Empire State Building is a legitimate wikipedia topic... it does not belong on this list.

The title of this article is "List of Masonic buildings"... I don't think it is unreasonable to say that, given this title, any building included on the list has to notable because it is a Masonic building... the fact that a building is notable for some other reason (for example because it is on the NRHP) is nice, but is ultimately irrelevant for this specific list. If it does not meet that primary criteria, it does not belong. It must be notable because it is a Masonic building.

Here's my counter-counter-proposal why don't you and the rest of the NRHP project write those articles... you are the one on the NRHP project after all. From the POV of the Freemasonry Project these buildings are not notable, so it is unrealistic to expect any of us to work on them. Gee.... Think how many stub articles you could have created just in the time you spent arguing with me. Blueboar (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, i just get down to this further comment from you after i already replied in several other places. Blueboar, it doesn't help for you to open repetitive conversations. I substantially replied elsewhere to most of what you say, if you would read what i said elsewhere. But, simply, it is not appropriate for you to decide; you don't get to decide what is the definition here in some arbitrary/bureaucratic fashion. You are not in charge; you do not own this; i would much rather defer to someone actually developing material. You are not informed to make any such decision; you have repeatedly stated you are not interested in the buildings or developing the articles. I also don't get why you want to encourage a narrow "POV" of the Freemasonry Project. Why do you assert they would not be interested, when you don't know anything about most of these places? You could be right in the end, but right now you don't know enough to make such judgements. --doncram (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

True, I am not in charge... neither are you. Things on Wikipedia are done by consensus Unfortunately, we do not seem to have a consensus on several fundamental questions relating to this list... One of those questions is: What do we mean by a "Masonic Building"? As a long time member of the Freemasonry Project (not to mention a long time Freemason) it is absolutely appropriate for me to state my opinion on that question. Does that mean my views must be accepted... no. But it certainly is appropriate for me to share my views and give the reasons why I hold them.

So far, the only reason you have given for including all the NRHP buildings is that they are listed by the NRHP... you have not laid out why being listed should qualify them for inclusion. Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And the problem grows

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

• List of Masonic buildings
• Masonic Temple
• Masonic Temple (disambiguation)
• Category:Masonic buildings (without the redlinks)

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

Actually, I see that his idea is a Merger of this list into Masonic Temple. I can live with that (at least the number of duplications has not grown)... but it simply moves the problem to a new article. We still need to form consensus on what should and should not be on the list.

I will complete the merger and move this talk page to the archives of Talk:Masonic Temple. Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)