Talk:List of Masonic buildings/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Inclusion criteria

In the absence of any further progress around inclusion criteria, can I suggest the following:

• Coverage - my preference would be craft buildings only as it's a more universal approach to Freemasonry. The treatment of the various appendant bodies is very different outside the US. There is also the issue of perhaps buildings with affiliation where no lodge meets, such as the Royal Masonic School, or the Masonic Homes in Dunblane.

• Significance - Open to debate but the fairly bland criteria that seem to apply to this US register don't strike me as particularly useful elsewhere. I'm struggling to see a referencable criterion to be honest. Gut feel says that the Masonic Peace Memorial and perhaps Clerkenwell are significant, but I can't put my finger on why. My preference would be for masonic significance, rather than buildings where masons happen to meet, so that would for example exempt Canonbury Tower for example.

• Ownership - I think this is really weak, but there is potentially an argument for it.

Any other potential criteria?

ALR (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

inaccurate claims being added

Someone keeps editing the lede to make incorrect claims, and then call for citations to prove the incorrect claims. For example that ". Some are architecturally significant and those specific to the United States are listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places for that reason.[citation needed] " NO, as i and others have explained, the NRHP listings are not just for architectural significance. Please read some of the NRHP documents, and browse some examples where the NRHP listing is not because of the architecture. This is moronic! --doncram (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

To use your own words, "not just" also means that "some are", and that's exactly what the lede says. Nothing moronic about that. MSJapan (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, it would help if you would actually cite the NRHP documents we are supposed to read... so that we know which buildings are on the NRHP list because they are architecturally significant, and which are on the list for some other reason. It is hard to read "some of the NRHP documents" when you are not told what these documents are or where to find them. Blueboar (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The sentence as written implies that only some buildings world-wide but all NRHP-listed buildings are listed for their architecture. As I wrote it before, and is covered in language further above, some NRHP-listed ones are listed for their architecture, which is different.

I can't apologize for getting frustrated that no one is consulting any sources on these. But I will acknowledge that I have greater facility than you in figuring out what the NRHP's NRIS database says. You might not be able to look these up easily (although you would come across examples if you did collect NRHP applications as I have given directions to you). For specific example, this NRHP.COM page shows that the NRIS listing for Yell Masonic Lodge Hall is listed for its representation of Social History, first, as well as for Architecture, second. See the "Area of Significance" field, which is NRHP.COM's reporting of what appears in NRIS. This NRHP.CoM page shows that NRIS lists Architecture then Social History for Masonic Temple (Pine Bluff, Arkansas), which is a different emphasis. Also different is the Masonic Temple (Gainesville, Florida) being listed for just Architecture (per this). Here's one without "Architecture" appearing: the Masonic Lodge (Grandin, Missouri) has "Historic Significance: Event", and "Area of Significance: Industry", as given in its NRHP.COM mention, which is based on NRIS. No one has requested or collected the NRHP nomination document for that one which will explain the "Event" of importance. You can get that document by following the instructions i and others have given to you. --doncram (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

For one further example already covered in the list-article, the Hiram Masonic Lodge No. 7 is not listed for its architecture. Its linked NRHP nomination document's Section 8 shows checkoffs "for politics/government" and "social/humanitarian" but not architecture. Not inconsistently with that, NRHP.COM reports from NRIS that it has "Historic Significance: Event" and "Area of Significance: Social History, Native American, Politics/Government". The list-article and the article and the linked NRHP nomination document about the place explain the significant event(s) which occurred there. So for the technically-minded, it has been established that more than one NRHP-listed place is not listed for its architecture, okay? Hope this helps. --doncram (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It helps... but confuses me further for a different reason... First you object to my using the NRHP.COM website (see the discussion thread entitled: "[Talk:List of Masonic buildings#Accessing the NRHP website|Accessing the NRHP website]", above, and this diff)... now you point us to that same website to show why buildings are on the NRHP. So is it reliable or not? Can we use it or not? Blueboar (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've just now further above again explained, that the NRHP.COM webpages are not reliable for some things, so I don't like to point readers to them at all by citing them ever. Like they will show a place is NRHP listed and that it was added on a certain date, when in fact that place is not NRHP-listed and was de-listed on that date. You can't tell which is which. Also their reporting of acreage of each listing is off by a factor of 10. There may be other systematic errors, too. But, I don't know of any systematic error in NRHP.COM's reporting of listing reason codes, for any site that has already be verified to be NRHP-listed by use of Elkman's interface or by other means. If pushed, as above, I would choose to accept the NRHP.COM-reported reason or the NRHP.COM's reported reference number as probably accurate, but in a wikipedia article I would cite NRIS directly, instead. (Again, NRHP docs are the underlying source for NRIS; NRIS is the underlying source for NRHP.COM, which is just a copy with some introduced systematic errors). I have myself downloaded the NRIS database and run some programs to generate some reports, and I could conceivably run reports on the reasons for NRHP listing. But better still for any specific site would be to obtain the NRHP nomination document, which gives both general checkoff codes for reasons and actual text explanations of the reasons why a place is nominated for NRHP-listing. Such as association with a specific historic person, or being the place of a specific event, or whatever. Hope this helps. --doncram (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It clarifies... Not sure if it helps... it means we essentially have to treat the NRHP.COM website as unreliable. And it sounds as if we are back to needing citations to the original NRHP nomination documents (which, because they are primary sources, have their own set of limitations).

Notability is an assumption...

There's no WP guideline or policy that indicates NRHP listing confers notability, so I have started a discussion on it here at the village pump. MSJapan (talk) 06:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there is some justification for saying that NRHP listing confers notability... the problem we have been facing is substantiating NRHP listing. Blueboar (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing part II

Given the title of this list, we have two obvious things to source. 1) that the buildings listed are notable, and 2) that the buildings listed are "masonic".

Since we can cite specific NPS-Focus pages for the buildings that are on the NRHP, I think we have a workable solution to issue of substantiating that the buildings on this list are notable as buildings. We can continue to work on replacing the poor NRIS source with acceptable NRP-Focus pages while we begin the discussion on the second criteria...

We need sources to substantiate that these are indeed "Masonic" buildings.

I still think that to do that we will need to better clarify what we mean by the term "Masonic" building. I am not happy with the current working definition of "any building that has some sort of undefined tie to Freemasonry"... but, even if we accept that definition, we still need to substantiate that these buildings fit that definition. I don't think the fact that the NRHP includes the word "Masonic" in their name for a building is enough. We need sources that directly tie the buildings to Freemasonry, and explain what the tie to Freemasonry is or was. Any ideas? Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As a note, the one in Connecticut you added a ref to went in as a synagogue, not a Masonic Building, but it was apparently one in the past. Also, the search result is still one step removed from the nomination papers, so can that be fixed at all? Additionally the plugin needed to view the pages no longer exists - might be a problem. I could only view the title page although the whole thing was digitized. Going in the right direction, at least. MSJapan (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

One step forward... three steps back... I may have spoken too soon. And editor (not me this time) has questioned the reliability of the NSP-Focus citations in the discussions at WP:RSN... If it isn't acceptable, we may be back to square one... not being able to substantiate anything in this article! This is frustrating! Blueboar (talk) 23:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Unacceptable source removed

I am hereby formally challenging the reliability of www.nr.nps.gov as a citation, and removing it as a citation from the article. While there are multiple reasons for this (discussed above)... I will identify two that are of immediate concern:

• The website is no longer supported and no longer works, it thus fails both WP:RS and WP:V.
• As Doncram noted above... he did not actually get his information from the website cited... but instead got it from an intermediary search tool. The citation therefor fails per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.

I have attempted on several occasions to substitute other sources that I find acceptable, and each time Doncram has reverted me. It is therefor up to him, per WP:BURDEN, to find a reliable replacement. Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted this ridiculous and stupid set of edits stripping out sourcing from the article. You have launched new discussions elsewhere and, though you get some small sympathy that the source is not everything you wish it would be, you are utterly rejected about basic fact of whether it is a reliable source. It is in fact the source of the info on each NRHP-listed place for which i added the reference. It is accepted as a reference. Is it 40 discussion sections you have opened attacking this article now? Sheesh. --doncram (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No... it is not an acceptable citation. Read the discussions at WP:RSN. Blueboar (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

As discussed at WP:RSN, citing the link pages at NPS Focus seems to be an acceptable replacement. If formatted correctly, they are unambiguous and are one obvious click from the pages we actually want the reader to access (which, for technical reasons with the NPS website, we can not link to directly). To give an example... see this Link to NPS Focus page for Crane Hill Masonic Lodge. I have put this in the article... I realize that replacing all of these citations will be time consuming. If Doncram shows a good faith effort to at least begin the process of adding new citations, I will back away from my hard line stance re WP:BURDEN and help. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

As i have explained patiently enough to you before, the direct way to improve this list-article is to obtain NRHP documents and/or other superior sources and use those to actually develop superior material in the article. As i have explained briefly at the wp:RSN discussion, I don't think that references to the NPS Focus system are better. I would bet a million dollars that if i had proposed those to you, or put those in myself into this list-article, you would be complaining. Because for the most part they promise documents that are in fact not available through that system, and you would be seizing upon that as the newest thing to complain about, blaming me. It seems pretty clear that the efforts of several editors here are not to improve the list-article, but rather to find fault in repeated ways. Again, it is unpleasant to try to contribute here. --doncram (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

In this edit i restored footnotes supporting NRHP information, including one footnote to NPS Focus and otherwise using the only so-far-formed footnotes. Please note i accept Blueboar's perhaps odd preference for the NPS Focus footnote, which does establish NRHP listing, for the Crane Hill one. If Blueboar wishes to form and enter NPS Focus footnotes to substitute for other NRIS footnotes, and if the NPS Focus footnote does actually provide the specific support needed for a given entry, i will not delete such substitutions. But if wholesale deletion of sourcing again occurs, i will be inclined to revert again, perhaps again losing other minor or major edits that might be made, inbetween. It is wasteful as a matter of developing a properly sourced article, to merely delete footnotes, losing track of which information is sourced. I don't know, maybe the editors here have little experience developing sourced articles, or otherwise don't care to keep track of which information is sourced vs. which is just randomly written in by editors writing from their personal knowledge or beliefs. Is that the case? I think i am the only one present who has developed sourced material in this list-article, anyhow. --doncram (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You are now over 3rrr... I have reported you. We understand that you don't think citations to NPS Focus are better... but everyone else does. More to the point, every one else agrees that the NRIS page is flawed and must be replaced. Please stop re-adding it. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, i don't see such a report in your contribution history yet. Maybe you are composing it. Please do point to this discussion in your report. Unfortunately, i have another commitment now and won't be able to respond in some ANI / 3RR discussion. Technically, i don't think i violated 3rr; i simply reverted your edits 3 times, and in my last edit to the article i did something different, accepting your preferred reference for the Crane Hill one, consistent with my comments here, part of ongoing discussion.

But Blueboar, that is just pretty nonsensical, to remove the source that was actually used, in favor of no source, losing track of which info is sourced vs. not. If you want to substitute a source for a specific item, that is different. What happened to your supposed willingness to actually add seriously better references, by obtaining NRHP nomination documents? Have you obtained and read a single one of the NRHP documents, ever? Even from the on-line available ones that I have added direct links to? I see no evidence that you have. It just seems hard to see that you are trying to do anything constructive here. -

It makes perfect sense to remove a source that everyone (except you) agrees is flawed... and to begin the process of replacing it with new acceptable sources. You simply do not want to accept the consensus (both here and at RSN) that the NRIS source is flawed. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my sarcasm, but... I am well aware that heated discussion can inflame tempers and thus cloud otherwise sound minds, and I think that has happened here. I must point out that entries the display like "http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natregadvancedsearch.do?searchType=natregadvanced&selectedCollections=NPS%20Digital%20Library&referenceNumber=86001164&natregadvancedsearch=Search Link to NRHP - NPS Focus page for Masonic Temple in Kingman" are among the ugliest excuses for a reference citation that I've ever seen at Wikipedia. A decent reference citation ought to bear some resemblance to the type of citation one would see in an academic journal or student term paper, and that format most decidedly does not do that. I'd expect to see something more along the lines of "Masonic Temple in Kingman, National Register of Historic Places NPS Focus website, accessed July 19, 2010." --Orlady (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point... and not too difficult to fix (time consuming... but not difficult). I will get on it. Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Just so I can avoid making lots of changes only to have to redo them later... I want to make sure that I am formatting the citation properly ... I have done the Arizona ones along the lines that Orlady suggests... any problems or suggestions before I move on? Blueboar (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

About Orlady's suggestion and 3 revisions to Arizona entries by Blueboar, I note the displayed text is showing a title that does not appear in the source, i.e. shows "Masonic Temple in Kingman" or "Masonic Hall in Wikenburg", when the linked pages show "Masonic Temple" or "Masonic Hall", alone. Those are not accurate references. The NPS Focus links, any way presented so far, look pretty horrible to me, and in some/perhaps many cases on this list-article are inadequate substitutes for NRIS references (because NRIS is the source for info not appearing in the NPS Focus system). --doncram (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Petty... but OK... I have fixed the highlighted text to match the displayed title that is at the source. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

More about NRIS source

Doncram, please stop being disruptive. You have been told by multiple editors, both here and at at WP:RSN (specifically WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#www.nr.nps.gov) that the NRIS page you keep linking to is not acceptable (it does not pass WP:V). You have already been admonished about edit warring over this... and yet you continue to insist on it. I am not going to engage in edit warring by reverting your most recent edit (as I was admonished for that as well) ... but, if you continue, I will raise your disruptive behavior with admins. Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to my adding some info about the Crane Hill Masonic Temple, including that it is "gable fronted", which comes from NRIS, and my adding NRIS as a source, because it is the source. Note the NPS Focus system does not have that information. About the RSN discussion, I don't see any consensus that NRIS is unreliable or that, where it is the source for material in wikipedia articles, it should be removed. By all means, go ahead and try to get a consensus there, that where NRIS is the source for something, and there is no other source, that NRIS should not be stated to be the source! --doncram (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The information may have come from the some document somewhere at NRIS... but it did not come from the webpage www.rn.nps.gov, which is what you are citing. That is the front page to a search engine, and as such is not acceptable.

I think you are confusing the citation with the source itself. No one is saying that the NRIS is unreliable... they are saying that we can not cite www.nr.nps.gov when citing the NRIS. Blueboar (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm, the citation displays "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. 2009-03-13. http://www.nr.nps.gov/.", which is a reference to the National Register Information System, which is a database. A URL is provided to where you can download the database. The 2009-03-13 edition date for the database is given. I think it is pretty clear. But are you saying you wish for a formatting change to the reference, to explain "This is a database, and the exact information cited appears in the database and not at the URL which is where you can download the database" or something less wordy, to that effect? I am not averse to some wording expansion or other improvement in the reference. But, as pointed out in the RSN discussion, it is a valid, reliable source, and is the source for the information here. --doncram (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Tht's not what I got out of that discussion. I got the following: "go get it yourself" is not acceptable in a source, and downloading a DB is not an acceptable means to verify a source. MSJapan (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The March 13, 2009 edition of the NRIS database is a source, like a book, which can be consulted and verified by many people. What Blueboar states above, that "the information may have come from some document somewhere at NRIS" shows misunderstanding of what is my source for the info. The information comes from the NRIS database itself, which i consulted from either the March 13, 2009 edition which i myself downloaded, or from the copy downloaded by User:Elkman. NRIS, the database, is the direct source. Yes NRIS includes info mostly taken from NRHP nomination documents, but also additional information, and it is the direct source for information such as the "gable fronted" snippet of information, which does not appear in NPS Focus, a different system. You have to accept that it is a source, like a book, which you might not be able to use to verify from, if you yourself consult a copy of the book or database. Is there some other wording that would satisfy you, like an explicit statement: "This is a database, which, like an off-line book, is a source which can be used to verify the information reported." That wording would be heavy-handed, of course, but there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding so maybe heavy-handed explanation is needed? --doncram (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

To continue your analogy of the NRIS being like a book... when we cite a book, we have to give page info so that the reader knows where in the book to look. You can not simply cite the book and say... "its somewhere in there... you look for it." More to the point, citing the website www.rn.nps.gov is not like citing a book... it is more like pointing to the library door and saying "there may be a book that covers this in there somewhere". That simply is not acceptable.

Look, what I am saying is very simple... while discussions are ongoing at RSN as to what we should link to when citing the NRIS and NRHP... the one thing that is clear is that we should not link to the webpage www.nr.nps.gov to do so. There are multiple reasons for this, reasons that have already been noted here and at RSN. You have been involved in these discussions so you should be aware of these reasons. Please, accept what you are being told in multiple venues... and stop linking to this webpage. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm, no, you misunderstand and/or misconstrue what is being said elsewhere. And what you wish for -- no sources!? -- is no way to develop an article while keeping track of which sources support which facts. There is no consensus anywhere that NRIS references should be removed willy-nilly. If there is some improvement of wording for the NRIS reference, to clarify for you and certain others that this is a reference to a database which is like a book, then that improvement can be implemented sometime in the future. It would be horribly disruptive of anyone to simply remove the NRIS reference which is the source for the given information, especially where there is no other source which can be substituted. --doncram (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the NRIS reference that Blueboar complains about could be fixed by revising it to say: "National Register Information System. National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. 2009-03-13. Retrieved from National Register Information System Download Center on [DATE]." The date would, of course, need to be inserted (this would be either the date that Elkman downloaded the data or the date that the user downloaded it). Also, the download center link is currently not functioning; it was working earlier this morning, so I don't know if the National Park Service has taken it down or if this is just another one of their chronic website problems. --Orlady (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Orlady. Actually i think it is appropriate to give the March 13, 2009 date as the edition date of the NRIS data. That is the date it was copied from the live NRIS database into a downlaodable file, which Elkman subsequently downloaded. The actual date that Elkman or I or anyone else downloaded the March 13 edtiion could be noted, too, i guess, but is secondary. The only way i know to refer to the specific edition of NRIS, is to use the March 13 date. So some further refinement, building on Orlady's draft and clarifying the edition of NRIS, is needed. --doncram (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

My notion is that the citation should include both the version date of the database and the date that a Wikipedian retrieved it. The second date may seem extraneous, but (because electronic sources can be modified without the modification being detectable) it is often deemed necessary to include the retrieval date for full traceability of the source. --Orlady (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the website is down, i assume temporarily. Sorry, maybe i wasn't really noticing your version did include the March 13 date. But i think identifying that date more clearly as the edition date would be helpful. While regular NRHP editors understand it as the edition date, sometimes new editors change it to the current date of when they are adding an Elkman NRHP infobox or otherwise editing an article. So, assuming the URL http://www.nr.nps.gov/nrdown1.htm is correct (while it is not working right at this moment), then I think the following should suffice, and would be a small improvement on the usual NRIS reference: "National Register Information System, edition of 2009-03-13. National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. Retrieved from National Register Information System Download Center on [DATE]." --doncram (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again... you engage in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please get a clue.

While discussions as to what we should cite continue at RSN... yes, I would prefer to (temporarily) leave the entry with no source than reinstate a source that is considered flawed. Barring that, I would prefer to cite the NPS Focus page (which, by the way, is a more appropriate reference to the NRIS - as it gets you more directly to NRIS information). Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You suffer extremely from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. NPS Focus is a different system. It does not contain or provide certain information which is provided by NRIS, such as the factoid that the Crane Hill site is "gable fronted". This is absurd to have to keep explaining to you. Your refusal or inability to understand simple concepts is, cumulatively, exasperating. --doncram (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but I did not use NPS Focus to cite the factoid that Crane Hill was "gable fronted"... I cited it to support the statement that the Masonic Lodge in Crane Hill was NRHP-listed... and only that statement. Since the NPS Focus page does support this specific statement, it is a proper citation. You, on the other hand, wish to add the factoid about the gable fronts.... However, there is a problem with your citation for this factoid... www.rn.nps.gov does not say that Crane Hill is "gable fronted". In fact that web page does not mention Crane Hill or gables at all. When you cite to a webpage, that webpage must contain the information being cited. Thus, you must come up with a citation that directly supports your factoid. Blueboar (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The source is NRIS of the 3/13/2009 edition, which is a specific version of a database that has about 85,000 records. I notice, B, in your statement further below, that you dismiss use of a database as a reference because you note that it is searchable and you view it like the results of a Google search. I gather you have seen in Wikipedia RS policy somewhere that Google-type search results are not citable sources. But this database is not like a Google search, because the contents of the internet covered by a Google search are both infinite and ever-changing, and not reliable. This copy of the database, instead, has just its 85000 records and is unchanging. It will always be available, like a book or a fixed spreadsheet, to verify that any specific record contains whatever is asserted about it. It is not an open-ended search, really, to find what is said in the database about a given place like the Crane Hill site. There's no uncertainty as to what will be found. It is, instead, a 100% reliable, certain lookup of exactly what is there, on the rows having title "Crane Hill Masonic Lodge" or equivalently on the rows having database reference number 01001294. Also by the way Crane Hill is in Alabama. If you want to refer to a "page number" in the database, you can best do that by giving the unique name "Crane Hill Masonic Lodge" or equivalently the reference number. Does this help? --doncram (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, my objection isn't to using the NRIS as a source... my objection is to the use of www.rn.nps.gov as a citation. These are different things completely. Citing www.rn.nps.gov is akin to citing "card catalog" for information that is found in a specific book in a library with 85,000 books ... and that simply isn't acceptable. As you say, there are some 85,000 records in the NRIS... it is our job to tell the reader which one discusses the Crane Hill building. WP:V makes it very clear that a source must support the information directly (the bolding comes from WP:V). So we need to format a citation accordingly. To go back to my card catalog/library analogy... it is our job to hand the reader the exact book that contains the information and say... "The information is in chapter 5 of this book." Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's on the page labelled "Crane Hill Masonic Hall". Would it help you to think of this like a big spreadsheet? It's on the row with title "Crane Hill Masonic Hall", which you can scroll down and find. There's nothing more helpful to say; it doesn't help you to know that is row 3,542 of the spreadsheet. It's the entry for this place in the database. That's all i can say. --doncram (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you were staring at a spread sheet with 85,000 rows, it would help to know that the information you wanted was at row 3,542. But my point stands... you say: "It's on the page labeled 'Crane Hill Masonic Hall'"... fine... then cite the page labeled "Crane Hill Masonic Hall". But don't cite www.rn.nps.gov instead of that page... www.rn.nps.gov isn't the page labeled "Crane Hill Masonic Hall". Blueboar (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

NRIS cite

Perhaps a solution to the NRIS cite which seems to be in a state of transition to "focus" would be the private site National Register of Historic Places, which accessible by state , county, parish, etc. and a direct cite can be made to the page where the building in question is actually listed. I know some will object that it is not an official site, but at least it gives you more than a cite to a search page, which may or may not be working.clariosophic (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC) For example the New Masonic Building and Oriental Theater will be found on it at [1] clariosophic (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The possibility of citing that site has been discussed at some length at WP:RSN, on this page, and I think also at the NRHP Wikiproject talk page. Unfortunately, that site does not parse some of the NRIS data correctly. Some time back we discovered that the acreage values given on that site are off by a factor of 10, and Doncram reports that its listing dates do not distinguish between different kinds of listing events (most importantly, it does not distinguish listings from delistings). It's not a reliable source. --Orlady (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Another possible interim solution would be to use the Historic Places Database, which generates a unique URL for each NRHP listing. It does have the factor of 10 error in acreage but all the NRIS data is there. That website is also editable by registered users. --Polaron | Talk 16:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No... the Historic Places Database does not meet our requirements for reliability. The fact that it is editable by users disqualifies it as a reliable source. There is no check on a user claiming that a building is NRHP listed, when in fact it is not. Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Historic Places Database is kinda interesting, as it appears to have public domain NRIS information plus additional text copied either from Wikipedia articles or copied from NRHP nomination documents, possibly in violation of copyrights. But I don't expect it serves as an independent source, and reference to the more primary NRIS or NRHP nomination document sources would be better. If it copies from Wikipedia, it is unacceptable to cite it at all. I doubt it gets any significant amount of contributions from users. --doncram (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Solution time

This situation has gone on long enough, and it will be resolved one way or the other. As fingerpointing isn't solving anything, the simple fact is that there is a lack of communication or understanding somehow, and that lack is being mitigated by page reversion. I have asked for full edit protection for the article to avoid some of the nonsense going on. Whether it goes through or not, we are going to work this out without anybody editing the page. Since neither of your ways seem to be working, it's going to be done my way, with no complaints. I'm not going to take sides in this, but I am going to make everybody put their money where their mouth is.

Doncram and Blueboar will take a new subsection below, and explain clearly and succinctly what source they want to use, why they want to use it, and how it meets WP:RS. I will then ask for third opinions on the validity of those statements so that none of us here are actually making the decision. If that does not solve the problem, then we're going to have to go to Stage 2, which is why we shouldn't use a particular source. To avoid any unnecessary fooling about, note the following:

There is to be no editing of the article by either party until the situation is resolved. Lack of assent by either party will invalidate that party's position. Editing by either party will likely lead to a block of some duration for disruptive editing. So think about what you want to do, keep your hands to yourselves, and get to work. MSJapan (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I will agree... with the notation that I just made an edit to the article before seeing this proposal... If MSJ feels that this edit goes against the spirit of my subsequent agreement, he may revert it. Blueboar (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm, I don't understand what MSJapan is saying in some details (i literally don't understand some of your sentences), although i get the gist of what you mean. However, there is #More about NRIS source above, and the discussion open at wp:RSN. I don't think a new discussion starting from scratch is needed. Blueboar, can you please comment in #More about NRIS source above, about the specific suggestion proposed by Orlady and revised slightly by me? Then that can be used everywhere that i used the previous NRIS reference, where i had used NRIS as the source for info in this list-article. And we are all done then. If Blueboard disagrees, then he needs to convince other editors at the wp:RSN discussion and/or above and elsewhere. The NRIS reference has long been accepted and is in use in thousands of wikipedia articles; Blueboar's protestations or a brand new discussion section here cannot overturn that. MSJapan, if you want to have a brand new discussion from scratch, please first consider the wp:RSN discussion and propose closing that discussion first, and explain why. Offhand, I don't think a new discussion to put new demands on all NRHP editors is needed. --doncram (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Question to MSJapan... Are we allowed to comment on each other's statements in rebuttal? Blueboar (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope that MSJapan's assertion this is "Solution time" means NO to that. We're past the point where anything we say will convince each other of anything. There are open discussions above and elsewhere, anyhow. If MSJapan wants nonetheless to allow further comments by us, I hope/request that you and i will be only allowed to do so within our own separate statements, as done in arbitration. --doncram (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I was not thinking of convincing you (I agree that we are beyond convincing each other)... but you made some statements that I would like to comment on in a separate sub-section, for the benefit of those other (neutral) editors that MSJ will call in to help resolve our debate. If he says no... that is fine. He is setting the rules for this mediation and I have agreed to that. If he says yes, I assume he will allow you a similar chance to comment. Blueboar (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to see if we can resolve the situation purely on the basis of fulfilling RS, because that is as objective a solution as possible. Counterarguments are a step away from objectivity, and possibly counterproductive, so let's see what we can do with step one first. Let me know when your statements are complete. MSJapan (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

OK... in that case... I think I am done. Blueboar (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar's Statement

As I have stated in the discussions above, there are two things we need to establish (through citations) for each entry in this article... 1) why the building is notable, and 2) why the building is considered a "Masonic building". The present disagreement focuses on properly establishing the first of these two things. I believe that there is a consensus that being listed on the NRHP confers notability on a building (I don't completely agree with that consensus, but I will abide by that consensus). Thus, we can establish notability for entries in the US by establishing that the building is on the NRHP. The debate we are attempting to resolve center on how best to do this. I am going to combine MSJapan's steps into one comment... because for me, the debate is less about what sources are acceptable as it is what source is not acceptable.

There are actually several ways we could cite the fact that a building is on the NRHP... we could cite a book that mentions this fact, or a magazine article that mentions this fact. If there is an offical website for the building, it might mention this fact, and I would consider that reliable... And, yes, we could cite the NRHP directly for that fact. (Note however, that we don't actually have to cite the NRHP directly, even if we all agree that doing so is an obvious choice).

Of the various choices for citing the NRHP directly, it is my belief that citations to NSP-Focus (such as this one for Crane Hill Masonic Lodge in Arizona are the best choice. These webpages contains the logo of the NRHP, and the name of the specific building (and link directly to another page that contains more info about the building). The example I just gave directly supports the fact that Crane Hill Masonic Lodge is listed on the NRHP. It may be limited as to other information, but I believe it passes WP:RS and WP:V for the simple statement that the building is NRHP-listed.

The same, however, is not true for www.rn.nps.gov, the citation I object to. Doncram seems to think this is an acceptable citation to the NRIS database... it isn't. This web page contains no information on any buildings. Perhaps at one point in the past we could use it to eventually get to a web page that supported the statement... but the page itself does not and never did directly support the information. And WP:V calls for sources to directly support the information in our articles. Thus, this web page does not, and never did pass WP:V. Even when the search function worked, a reader wishing to verify that a building was listed would have had to use an attached search function to confirm the statement. It has long been held that search engine results are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. For example, if I am trying to cite information about the Detroit Masonic Temple... I am not allowed to cite this Google search result... I can use that Google search result to find a reliable source about the building, and I can cite that reliable source, but I am not allowed to cite the Google search result itself and leave it at that. However, with www.rn.nps.gov we are not even citing a search result - instead we are citing the front end of the search engine. Citing www.rn.nps.gov is the same as citing www.google.com. I am convinced that citing www.rn.nps.gov is totally unacceptable, and was unacceptable even when the search function worked. The search page is not the NRIS database itself, any more than the table of contents of a book is the book itself. or, perhaps a better analogy would be that pointing to a card cataloge as a valid citation for information found in a specific book in a library.

Doncram makes a very solid case in his statement in favor of using the NRIS as a source. What he does not do is make the case for using www.rn.nps.gov as a proper citation to that source. The sad thing is that he is correct in noting that lots and lots of pages cite this webpage... and I suspect this is the underlying reason why Doncram is so desperate to keep the citation. If we determine that www.rn.nps.gov is unacceptable here, it will probably mean that it is unacceptable in all those other articles as well. Which will mean that the NRHP WikiProject will be faced with the daunting task of correcting all these flawed citations. They have my sympathy... In an ideal world, someone would have realized that the citation was flawed before it was replicated throughout almost every article written by a very prolific WikiProject. But... we don't live in an ideal world, the problem wasn't caught early on... and now does have to be fixed. At minimum, we can fix the problem here, at this article. Blueboar (talk) 05:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Doncram's statement

Background (My characterization)
There have been multiple previous issues raised and/or highly promoted by Blueboar, such as AFD for this list-article (resolved as Keep), AFDs for related disambiguation pages (all resolved as Keep), and attacks on red-links (mostly resolved as Keep for now, at least where wikipedia-notability is established by documentation of NRHP listing by references to NRIS), which have all been resolved, eventually, uniformly against Blueboar's strongly held opinions. This has involved multiple calls to Disambiguation-focused editors, NRHP-focused editors, ANI/3rr, Reliable Sources Noticeboard, in a total of discussion sections that must be over 50 now, and hundreds of edits by many editors. This is a pretty big consumption of community attention, all generally applied to dealing with one or a few Freemasonry-focused editors acting out their personal assertions, in the absence of their having knowledge about NRHP sources and general Wikipedia policies about disambiguation and other matters. Maybe that is good education of them going on, but it seems unduly contentious and inefficient. In general there's been total dismissal of advice that i and others with knowledge about various matters, including some Freemasonry-focused others, have given patiently. I firmly believe that the current issue is being seized upon by Blueboar as important personally for him to win one, finally. Unfortunately he has been misled a little bit by some others' comments (in particular from an NRHP-focused editor who has recently had other disagreements with me, and who has been gamely trying to come up with an acceptable alternative avoiding use of NRIS), and Blueboar has seized upon an ill-considered solution. Overall i don't think he has done that badly in coming to his current proposal, but unfortunately he is completely unfamiliar with the NRIS database, with NRHP nomination documents, and everything else most directly relevant here, so he is completely vulnerable to misunderstandings, especially when biased now towards opposing anything i suggest. If I had been advocating his currently proposed solution, I firmly believe that he would have been very happily joining a chorus of opposition pointing out the deficiencies. You can take or leave this assessment of background by me.

Current issues
The issues now are simply a) how information which is from NRIS should be shown in a reference (which all must agree should be given in a reference, at least when NRIS is in fact the only source for certain info), b) whether NRIS is a valid source for information generally such as NRHP listing status, date and more info, and c) is there value to adding references to NPS Focus. My answers are as follows:

a) A probably acceptable revised NRIS footnote is:

This version could be used immediately in this list-article, and if NRHP editors concur, applied in other articles. Or some variation agreed upon by NRHP editors could be rolled out and replace this version here, too. Please note, where the NRIS database is a source and the only source for infromation, it is only honest to show NRIS as the source in a reference. It is absurd to suggest that NRIS as a source, when it is the source, should be disallowed. The usual reference, implemented in over 2,000 list-articles and probably 20,000 or more individual NRHP articles has been like this:

Older references show an earlier date than the latest 2009-03-13 edition date, referring to earlier editions of the NRIS database that were previously available and were used. This usual reference is somewhat vague about what the 3-13-2009 date signifies. The change to the revised version is small but actually a substantial concession/advance, actually. Blueboar should be proud of having provoked it; it is no small matter to get consensus to change the standard form of a reference used in many thousands of articles.

b) NRIS simply is a valid, reliable source. This is widely accepted by hundreds of editors, and the weight of precedent in more than 22,000 articles should not be lightly dismissed. While Dudemanfellabra has recently proposed a NPS Focus-based reference as an alternative in some cases, and has revised one NRHP list-article to include multiple links to NPS Focus instead or in addition to NRIS, there is no consensus among NRHP editors that such is generally (or ever) appropriate. In fact I believe that NRHP editors would strongly reject any requirement to jettison NRIS, the actual source for vast amounts of information in NRHP list-articles, in favor of multiple poor NPS Focus references cluttering up articles and directing readers towards unsatisfactory experiences. Paraphrasing what Orlady helpfully pointed out in Talk above and/or at wp:RSN, it would be a falsehood and unethical to state in articles that NPS Focus or the NRHP nomination documents were the source for info, when NRIS was the source. It is easy to show examples where NPS Focus lacks info that is in NRIS (such as "gable front" factoid for the Crane Hill one, and coordinates information, and probably many fields like alternative names, architectural style info, and more) and that NRHP nomination documents also lack info that is in NRIS (such as NRHP listing date, usually, and any later updates such as delistings to NRHP listing status).

c) The current version of NPS Focus is in terribly poor shape, and references proposed that point to it are pretty horrible, IMO. The NPS Focus reference proposed by Blueboar for the Crane Hill site, to establish its NRHP-listed status, does not establish that. The first page linked shows little more than "Crane Hill Masonic Lodge". Clicking on that brings one to a page displaying:

URL: http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/01001294.pdf
Link will open in a new browser window 
URL: http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Photos/01001294.pdf
Link will open in a new browser window 
Publisher: National Park Service 
Published: 11/29/2001 
Access: Public access 
Restrictions: All Rights Reserved 
Format/Size: Physical document with text, photos and map 
Language: eng: English 
Note: 14538 Cty. Rd. 222 
Item No.: 01001294  NRIS (National Register Information System) 
Subject: EVENT 
Subject: SOCIAL HISTORY 
Subject: BUILDING 
Subject: 1950-1974 
Subject: 1925-1949 
Subject: 1900-1924 
Keywords: Cooper,Philip Aquilla;Boone,Robert;1904 
Place: ALABAMA -- Cullman County -- Crane Hill 

Record Number: 348318 
Record Owner: National Register of Historic Places 

Note, it is nowhere actually stated that the place is NRHP-listed, or when it was listed. Conceivably it could be a page showing info for a proposed NRHP listing, or one that had been delisted, or any of various other possibilities. The two URLs it suggests don't work: they only bring you to a PDF file saying the NRHP nomination documents have not been digitized (which is certainly unhelpful, and quite possibly false, too, though the system will not let you get to them). There are "Keywords" which don't identify those names refer to architects or builders. There is a "Published: 11/29/2001" date, which one might assume means that the NRHP nomination text and photo documents that should be linked, were published on that date. It actually seems that assumption isn't correct, but rather the date "Published" field is occupied by the NRHP listing date, for NRHP-listed items. For example, for the Alabama State Capitol and other NRHPs which were designated National Historic Landmarks before 1966, the published field is the NRHP listing date of October 15, 1966 for all of those, while the linked NRHP nomination-type documents weren't written until much later (not until 1979 in the Alabama State Capitol's case). It may be the case, but is not actually known or asserted anywhere that i know of, that the subset of NRHP-nominated places which are displayed in NPS Focus are just the ones that were in fact NRHP-listed and which also remain NRHP-listed up to some unspecified date. With some extra information, we could well conclude that, but then the reference still does not actually assert the NRHP listing. I actually suspect Blueboar would be crying foul if i were the one advocating this reference, due to the poor experience it gives to readers and editors, if i was using it to assert NRHP listing and/or date of NRHP listing or anything else.

NRIS, on the other hand, is a database that contains whatever substance is given in that NPS Focus output, with better identification of what the fields actually are, and significantly more information, such as for the Crane Hill site:

Architecture: Free standing gable front
Other names: (none given in this case)
Historic function: social; education; domestic; commerce/trade
Historic subfunction: meeting hall; school; multiple dwelling; department store
Building is not listed for architecture
Number of acres: 1.7
Number of contributing buildings: 1

(This info copy-pasted from Elkman interface output. There are additional NRIS fields available which apply to other properties, or which Elkman's interface does not happen to display, too.) For sites that once were NRHP-listed, but which have been demolished and delisted, or for sites that have been proposed for NRHP listing but denied, and for other status conditions, the NRIS database has comparable information, with information current as of the closing edition date of the NRIS database. It currently appears to me that NPS Focus does not contain any of that other information.

Bottomline: If the NRHP application is found to be online by searching NPS Focus, it should be used as a reference directly. Whether or not the NRHP application is found there, a reference to NPS Focus currently gives a bad experience and should be avoided. It's better to use a reference to the comprehensive NRIS database, which is well-understood by numerous NRHP editors, instead, for anything that might be somewhat supported by an NPS Focus reference. So, for this list-article, i would add NRHP nomination document references wherever NRHP nomination documents are readily available, delete all the recently constructed separate NPS Focus references, and revise and keep all the NRIS references where not replaced by NRHP application references (and note the NRIS references would all be the same, so really there is just one reference applied multiple times, saving considerable clutter). --doncram (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others

Comment by Orlady

In order to address this question, I am setting aside for the moment the fact that I still don't perceive that this list-article has a valid purpose and list scope -- and, therefore, I don't have a clear idea what the reference citations in this list are supposed to be sources for.

I agree with essentially everything that Doncram says after the heading "Current issues." --Orlady (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar says "Doncram makes a very solid case in his statement in favor of using the NRIS as a source. What he does not do is make the case for using www.nr.nps.gov as a proper citation to that source." To the contrary, it appears to me that Doncram has accepted the idea the NRHP wikiproject needs to find a better way to cite NRIS. (I have plenty of experience with Doncram being intransigent, but I no longer see intransigence on this particular point.)

MSJapan asked me to come here and elaborate upon my comment that said I agree with Doncram's statement under "Current issues." I'm afraid I don't have much to add. I've already discussed this topic at some length on the reliable sources noticeboard, and Doncram has written a long piece above, and I don't think there's a whole lot more to say. I'm happy that Doncram and I are in agreement (something that doesn't happen real often) and I think that the ideas discussed here and at WP:RSN have the potential to lead to long-term improvements in how NRHP-related articles are sourced.

I do realize that there's a perceived need to figure out how entries in this particular list-article should be sourced. I actually don't care. However, I am rather horrified to think that users are painstakingly looking up the NRHP entries for each of these "Masonic buildings" in order to give each entry its own citation. As I understand it, all that is needed for a building to be added to this list is evidence that it (1) exists (or formerly existed), (2) has some sort of connection with Freemasonry, and (3) meets Wikipedia criteria for notability. If (as in many instances) all three of those criteria are going to be satisfied on the basis of an entry in NRIS, I would think that a citation to the NRIS database (not to www.nr.nps.gov, but rather to the database) ought be sufficient. Since a reader could go to the database (if the database can't be downloaded, this can be done using NPS Focus or a third-party interface such as Elkman's tool) to verify the existence of an NRHP-listed property matching the entry, that ought to suffice for the purposes of this particular list-article. (But, then again, I don't think that this particular list-article has value...) --Orlady (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by ALR

Given that the majority of the votes in the AfD were to keep this article we have to make the best of that. The rationale remains in question and I would suggest that implies a need for a high degree of rigour and clarity around sourcing. with that in mind I agree with Blueboar that there are two aspects to establishing a valid listing; building notability and clarity around the relationship with Freemasonry.

I'm prepared to accept the assertion that NRHP listing implies notability of the building with respect to US buildings. There is not yet agreement on comparable automagic assertions of notability for other buildings. I would prefer to see a reference to a specific record that establishes the existence of the entry. that need not be online but the reference pointer should be to a unique record, not just a general pointer to a database. I don't really think that any method of pointing to the database proxies meet the needs for rigorous referencing.

It appears that the NRHP listings do not act as an assertion for Masonic association and I would prefer to see something explicit. In particular I would like to see a definition of what constitutes Masonic significance, but there has been no discussion of that.

ALR (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by David Underdown

I've just come here from RSN, having belatedly seen the discussion. I've faced somehwat similar issues with other databases where I can't find any way to link directly to the information that's relevant to a particular article. However, I can describe a process that makes the result I obtained entirely reproducible (and thus to my mind verifiable). This I think is a key distinction between merely attempting to "cite" a Google search search result, and looking at the results returned from a specific database. Google searches are not (in my experience), reproducible, runnning the same search seconds apart is not guaranteed to return you the same set of results (the top few hits will probably be the same, but once you get down in the long tail, there can be all sorts of variances).

If rather than merely linking to the search page (which I agree is not sufficient), full details of waht terms ned to be entered in which boxes are given - the result returned can be verified, and if necessary, challenged. David Underdown (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to David Underdown: This isn't a search engine-type database search -- not even vaguely close to that. This is a matter of finding a specific record (or group of records) in a formatted set of data. When I say that I have used Microsoft software to work with the database, I was referring to Microsoft Office Access. --Orlady (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I quite agree, it is Blueboar and others on the RSN page who seem to be equating the two types of search. David Underdown (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I know I am supposed to keep my comments to one area... but I need to reply to this because we are experiencing a lack of communication as to what this debate is about. I think Doncam and Orlady are conflating two questions ... the first is whether we can use the NRIS database to obtain information ... the other is how to cite the NRIS Database. My concerns and objections have been centered purely on the latter question. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, if I have slightly misunderstood your concerns. It seemed to me from the discussion, that potentially there was a wider question as to how to cite information to databases or similar when it's not possible to cite to a static url. In particular, is the approach I've taken in St Lawrence Church, Ipswich in relation to ref 6 ("Database of historically important bells and bell frames") acceptable in your view? David Underdown (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Underdown, given the tensions here... I don't think we should get sidetracked into an issue that relates to some other article. This simply isn't the right venue. The right venue is WP:RSN. Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies if I've contributed to confusion, but it has been my impression that Blueboar, Jayjg (at WP:RSN) and others have been saying that the NRIS database is not a suitable source for any content in Wikipedia (including this article) because the NRIS web interface will not produce a clean-looking URL link that points to a nicely formatted webpage about a specific listed property. Blueboar, are you now saying that you understand that NRIS is a stable and accessible information source, and therefore it would be acceptable to cite NRIS as a source? --Orlady (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I brought the other database up, if my approach is accepted as being verifiable, is there an equivalent route that can be used here? David Underdown (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

In reply to Orlady's question... To be honest, I keep going back and forth on the "whether we can use the NRIS Database as a source" issue, depending on who I talk to (when I talk to Jay, he convinces me that the NRIS database should not be used... when I talk to you or Doncram, you convince me it should). So I have set that issue to one side as it relates to this article, and have been focusing on the issue of how to cite the NRIS Database (regardless of whether we should). What I have been objecting to is the use of www.rn.nps.gov as a citation to the NRIS Database. Pure and simple. I have preferences as to what should replace this citation... but I am quite open to alternatives that don't use www.rn.nps.gov Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, David Underdown, for bringing up that similar fixed/stable database example and your footnote to refer to it. That footnote is:

"Database of historically important bells and bell frames". Church Building Council (Church of England). 29 October 2007. enter "Ipswich St Lawrence" in the "Parish or Location" text box and click "Search the database" for details of the bells

I like the descriptive title given, "Database of historically important bells and bell frames". For the NRIS reference being discussed here, perhaps following that by using "National Register Information System (a database)" or "National Register Information System database of 3/13/2009" or something like that, would better identify it for some readers. I and other NRHP editors have meant the database itself when using the term "National Register Information System", but on further thought maybe that term is not specific enough, or should be understood to refer to the current live version that the National Register is updating every day (but to which we do not have access).

About the additional instructions in your example, offhand that seems a little unfortunate to have to include, but at least it is reasonably succinct and obviously meets your needs in dealing with other editors at that page, i guess. Here, with NRIS, there is no longer a National Register-supported interface, so there's no such instructions that could be provided. What do you think of the wording of the suggested NRIS reference in my Statement above? Thanks for sharing! --doncram (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Taking no stand on whether databases such as this are reliable or not (I honestly don't know)... I would find a citation along the lines of:

• Crane Hill Masonic Hall - National Register Information System database as of 1/13/09"

acceptable (we might have to tweak the exact wording, but I think the current dispute would be over)... The only hesitation would be factoring in WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT... have any of those who want to use the NRIS database as a source actually seen a downloaded copy of it? If not... then the citation would probably have to read something more along the lines of:

• Crane Hill Masonic Hall - National Register Information System database as of 1/13/09 - accessed through http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php"

or something like that. Blueboar (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved?

We are getting somewhat off-track above, but it has come to my attention that all the statements are complete. In the process, it seems we may have come to some sort of agreement without the need for outside help. If we have indeed come to an agreement that , and we have an agreeable way to cite it, I think we have addressed both aspects of our initial problem, and we can move on to the next step. If not, I will request further input. So, the simple question to BB and don is, have you come to a happy medium? MSJapan (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think so... but with two stipulations. First, I will not commit to saying that we can use the NRIS database as a source (I am still undecided on that)... but I will agree to saying that we can use it for now... pending further discussion, elsewhere, on that issue. The second concerns WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. I feel that if you are going to cite the NRIS database, you have to have actually downloaded and seen the entire database (or at least the entire database entry for the property listed here). If you got your information from Elkman's tool, then you need to acknowledge that fact in the citation. If others are willing to accept these stipulations, then I think we can move forward. Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I agree that Blueboar doesn't have to agree that NRIS is a reliable source, as long as he agrees not to act on his disbelief by removing references or otherwise acting on that in mainspace. There is a vast consensus of hundreds of editors that NRIS is a reliable source.

About the specific form of reference to NRIS to appear in this page, I am inclined to agree to any format as long as Blueboar agrees it is for just this page, and that he will not make changes to the usual NRIS reference on any other page. Revision of the usual NRIS reference is necessitated by recent and apparently incomplete, continuing changes at the National Register, and will be handled by consensus decisions elsewhere, and then a big coordinated editing campaign, or a single bot run, will implement the change everywhere. I don't want to waste time on temporary small changes that would only cause more work, later. I made a specific suggestion in my statement above that would have sufficed. I don't want to quibble, but Blueboar's latest suggestion above is inadequate because it names a source that does not exist (the source we're talking about is the National Register Information System, not a source named "Crane Hill Masonic Lodge"). To keep this short, Blueboar and MSJpapan, could you agree that we each should make one more exact, complete, final proposal for the exact form of a reference to appear in this list article (until a new general NRIS reference is rolled out), and then let MSJapan pick one? --doncram (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I will not agree to never discuss this issue again (which is what you are asking me to do), especially as it relates to Wikipedia as a whole. I will agree to use a set citation format in this article, and not change it until further discussion of the issue have been concluded in a more appropriate forum. I also agree to let MSJapan pick what that citation format shall be, and to abide by his choice. As to what I think that citation should be:

• My first preference is to cite the NPS Focus pages for each property (so for example, the one for Crane Hill Masonic Lodge would read: "Crane Hill Masonic Lodge, National Register of Historic Places - NPS Focus website, accessed July 19, 2010.")
• If that is not acceptable, I propose, as a second choice, to cite the NRIS database entry for each property directly, noting if elkman's tool was used... (in this case, the entry for Crane Hill Masonic Lodge would be cited: Crane Hill Masonic Lodge - National Register Information System database as of 1/13/09 - accessed through http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php")

I await your preferences... Blueboar (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not ask Blueboar to never discuss this. By asking he avoid "mainspace" changes, i meant to prevent him from expressing his opinion indirectly by deleting or changing NRIS references in actual articles of the Wikipedia. I meant that he should be free to express his opinion in Talk pages and wp:RSN and wt:NRHP forums where consensus for a revised footnote to NRIS will be formed. Blueboar can participate in those discussions which will lead to an editing campaign or bot replacement of the usual NRIS reference. I do ask Blueboar not to go off on editing campaiigns to change other articles' NRIS references, outside of a new wide consensus, which would add no value and cause more work and confusion. If Blueboar has some valuable input to make in the general discussion, he should make it there.

Again, Blueboar's proposals posit the existence of a source named "Crane Hill Masonic Lodge", which does not exist. We're talking about a database named the "National Register Information System"! And, there is no support garnered by B's specific proposal here, and I firmly believe it would not be accepted if proposed in the central discussions about a future reference, though he is free to make the proposal. His concern towards showing a non-existent "page number" or otherwise pointing to a more specific place within the database is not shared by me and at least some others, and there is currently no good option that meets that. Pointers to NPS Focus pages are currently useless, effectively, as I explained above.

I'll say my first preference, mainly as an accomodation to B, here would be this reference:

National Register Information System, database edition of 2009-03-13. National Register of Historic Places. U.S. National Park Service. Database retrieved from the National Register on 2009-03-15. Information accessible through Elkman.net.

That is a further adaptation of reference i proposed above, dropping the download center's URL as it is apparently permanently offline. The source is off-line. (Note a future revision to the standard NRIS reference could include a link to a full copy of the database. Per discussion at wt:NRHP, a full copy of this NRIS database version can be placed in a publicly available internet archive, as the database is in the public domain.) In a bow to Blueboar, this includes a pointer to Elkman.net's copy of the database, although Elkman has not consented and it may not be possible to include such a pointer in future versions. Anyhow, this version could be used immediately in this list-article for now, until NRHP editors and others come up with a new version to be rolled out everywhere.

My second preference would be the usual NRIS reference:

"National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. 2009-03-13.

The advantage of that is that it simply uses the standard reference and will lead to the least future work. Note there is no special reason why this list-article should have a non-standard reference, vs. >22,000 instances of the usual one.

I would accept MSJapan's choice among these alternatives. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Since MSJ has not chosen (yet)... I think we should continue our discussion... perhaps we can narrow down the choices. You have stated: Blueboar's proposals posit the existence of a source named "Crane Hill Masonic Lodge", which does not exist... I think we are miscommunicating again... I am not citing a separate source ... I am citing the entry within the NRIS database for that specific building. (I would assume that the entry in the NRIS database on Crane Hill Masonic Lodge is entitled "Crane Hill Masonic Lodge". If not, how do you know what building the entry is talking about?) I understand that you would prefer one single citation that you can be cut and pasted, and used for all the buildings on this list... but I think that is wrong. For a proper citation, we need to give the entry name in the Database, as that is the equivalent of including chapter and page numbers. Blueboar (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that the NRIS entries are not anything like pages in a book. Think in terms of a row in a spreadsheet (notwithstanding the fact that NRIS is not organized as a spreadsheet -- it's still not much more complex than a spreadsheet). Furthermore, although the individual entries have names, those names may not be unique (for example, there are lots of "Masonic Hall"s and "Old Jail"s); the only unique identifier for a property is the identification number (aside: some properties actually have more than one ID number because each "boundary expansion" gets a separate number, but that's not important here). --Orlady (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The reference should be able to point to a unique record that supports the assertion. In the case of a spreadsheet then there has to be some descriptor that identifies the row.

I really don't see what the issue is with finding some way to agree what that descriptor is, and include it in the citation.

ALR (talk) 06:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear; regardless of what the discussion here concludes, a webpage that simply leads to a database search page (whether working or not) does not, and will never, satisfy WP:V. No amount of dispute resolution between two or three individuals here will ever change that. <ref name="nris">{{cite web|url=http://www.nr.nps.gov/|title=National Register Information System|date=2009-03-13|work=National Register of Historic Places|publisher=National Park Service}}</ref> is not a valid citation. Nor is "<ref name="nris_temp2">''National Register Information System'', database edition of 2009-03-13. National Register of Historic Places. U.S. National Park Service. Database retrieved from the National Register on 2009-03-15. Information accessible through [http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php Elkman.net].</ref> WP:V demands that sources be reliable and publicly available, and private databases, or an individual's personal download of a database on a certain date, does not comply. If you want to change WP:V, this is not the place for it. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well that is an extreme view at this time, ignoring a whole host of previous discussion. It sounds like Jayjg would not allow any use of the NRIS database at all, or, by the same reasoning, would not allow any citation of any book that is not online-available in some perfect format. To repeat, there is a huge consensus explicitly and by practice of use, that the NRIS database is a reliable source. It is reliable: Orlady or me or others can reliably get the same info out of it. It seems to me like the appropriate decision for MSJ now is to settle this by choosing the usual NRIS reference, and to direct parties like Blueboar and Jayjg to participate in broader discussion about a preferred version for that reference, at other more general forums (Jayjg has commented at wp:RSN but also there is productive discussion at wt:NRHP, and there is no general agreement at all with Jayjg's extreme view). Jayjg is coming back late here, without having commented for a long time, and Jayjg's extreme view should not be allowed to derail a sensible solution for this one wikipedia article, which is only needed to last until a better NRIS reference is selected by interested editors. --doncram (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Books have to be publicly available; that means, available in a library etc. I'm not a "party" to anything here, nor am I "coming back". I'm telling you what the decision at WP:RS/N was, and what WP:V demands. We don't accept sources that fail WP:RS and WP:V simply because we cannot find any better. You can't get around that by any amount of "dispute resolution" between three individuals here. If you want to change WP:V and WP:RS, it won't be happening here. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, one possibility discussed at wt:NRHP that Jayjg might like is that the NRIS database could be improved in terms of making it reliably-findable-like-a-library-book, by our stashing a copy of it in the WayBackMachine or another permanent, trusted internet archive. Discussion of how to improve the NRIS reference with a link to such an archive should continue elsewhere. I saw fit to return to wp:RSN to point out Jayjg's discussion-ending comment there was, as i said there "horse do-do". It was entirely ignoring patient, informed discussion by many editors; Jayjg once was apparently, but no longer is, an arbcom arbitrator, and emphatic statements outside that role don't convince me or others. I reiterate: the most sensible solution now is to re-implement the original, standard NRIS reference here, and to direct Jayjg to participate in discussion on improving the NRIS reference (perhaps with archive-stashing) elsewhere. At this point J and I have disagreed several times, so further back-and-forth is not likely to be productive, so J, if you comment again, I likely may not. --doncram (talk) 07:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK folks... It looks like we are back to square one... so let's take this up a notch in the dispute resolution process. I propose that we run an RfC and obtain opinions from the wider community. I can identify three issues that need to be resolved:

1. Can this article cite the NRIS database, or is it precluded under WP:V and WP:RS?
2. If we can, how should we cite it?
3. If not, what can we use?

Are their any other issues? Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, we are not back to square one. You and I agreed to abide by MSJ's choice to settle this for this article, and we are waiting for that. And, there is a wp:RSN discussion open and productive discussion at wt:NRHP, where editors are waiting for new info from the National Register on its changes. There is no need for an RFC or yet another discussion calling for editors' attention. You have MSJ's attention as a mediator here, that is all that is needed to settle the format of NRIS reference to be used in this list-article's sourcing. I feel i must say, Blueboar, I find your inclination to open dozens of new discussion sections (whenever you feel older discussion sections are flagging or whatever is your impetus) on essentially the very same topic to be seriously detrimental. It divides and confuses the issues, and causes editor attention fatigue. Your questions here are exactly the questions addressed by our statements and this mediation, in this section, here. --doncram (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you and I agreed... but obviously Jay has not. So we are back to square one. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

break

Well, the idea was not to leave it up to me, and I'd prefer not to make a unilateral decision. Also, as discussion seems to be morphing and ongoing, we aren't at a point where a stable position has been reached (though we have made progress). A few comments need to be made, though.

1. Jayjg is right, and he has directly pointed out what I was trying to get at by having Don and BB use policy to support their positions. We cannot cite anything if the citation doesn't meet policy. Please note the issue is not with the source itself, but the ability to utilize the source from the citation given.

2. I have to disagree with Orlady. A database has unique entry information - every record has its own number. If it didn't, a database would not be able to work, period. I think what Orlady misconstrues (and she may correct me) is that records can be cross-referenced in a search, returning multiple instances, and multiple identical or similar records can exist for the same item. Nevertheless, there is a unique identifier somewhere in every record that identifies that particular record. In short, I can have 37 records that are identical, but if I want to get #19 in particular, I can do it. With an online DB, there's no difference - each record should have a direct and unique URL. This has been shown to be the case with NPS, which no one seems to like as a source.

3. The Elkman's Tool citation as presented by Don doesn't really help, because it does not generate a specific record URL as presented. This is seriously like going "Daily News 07/27/10" at CNN.com and expecting that to be usable or helpful for a reader; it simply is not. Therefore, I think we need to find a way to generate direct URLs to satisfy policy. I personally don't care if it's clunky - the link won't be visible as such to the reader as long as we give it a tag. I have a problem with requiring a third-party interface, but it may be unavoidable.

4. To address the source contentions, if we have multiple sources, we can and should use them. We have a serious issue with the claimed RS not easily allowing direct citation, so the RS violates policy (and thus is not RS). However, as it is a heavily-used source, I think we need to make it compliant and figure out how to get it to return what we need it to do. I would note that WP:NPOV can be interpreted here to allow for citation of conflicting sources without claiming veracity for any of them. Therefore, I see no issue with citing multiple sources, indicating the differing info, and moving on.

In short, we need to meet RS and V before worrying about anything else. To do that, we need to generate usable links. To do that, we may need to use NRIS, NPS, Elkman, or whatever else we find, because no source is accurate on its own. Can we do this? MSJapan (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to item 2: Yes, indeed, every record in NRIS has a unique identification number. For example, the number 75001727 is uniquely associated with the entry for the Norris historic district in Tennessee, which was listed on the National Register in 1975. The NRHP infoboxes in some Wikipedia articles include those ID numbers, and the ID number can be used to retrieve the unique record. Because every NRHP listing action generates a separate record, some properties on the National Register are associated with more than one identification number (because the same property is the subject of multiple listing actions). For example, 70000118 and 79003730 are both related to the Eureka Springs Historic District in Arkansas, which was listed in 1970 and expanded in 1979; the fact that the property has two numbers does not mean that those numbers are not uniquely associated with the property. The fact that the National Park Service has not implemented an Internet user interface that assigns a unique and neat-appearing URL to each record in the database should not be misconstrued as indicating that there is something wrong with the database or with the information in it. (The NPS has dysfunctional web programming, but the underlying information is solid. Don't confuse the quality of the online interface with the quality of the content.)

Given an identification number and a software interface to the NRIS database, anybody should be able to verify that a particular property is listed on the database (or was listed there at one time -- a single identification number may not pull up all results for a property, so you may not be able to see that the property was later delisted). There are many frustrating features of the National Park Services new NRIS interface on the new NPS Focus website, including the fact that the main search page does not allow records to be searched by NRIS identification number. However, the advanced search page (this link) does allow records to be searched by "reference number", which is the unique identification number in NRIS, and the NRIS identification numbers are included in the filenames for the NRHP nomination forms. This and other interfaces also allow the database to be searched by property name, location, and other attributes, so a person with access to a functioning database interface should be able to verify that a particular property is listed. Verifiability does not depend on having a unique URL.

In addition to clunky programming, one chronic problem with the various NPS websites has been slow and unreliable servers -- in my experience, the Elkman interface has been vastly more dependable. However, last time I looked, WP:V and WP:RS did not list server speed and up-time as attributes of verifiability or reliability of sources. --Orlady (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Orlady has answered well. In further response to item 1, I don't think a blanket endorsement of anything and everything Jayjg has said is helpful. I believe Jayjg above disputed the Reliability/wp:RS of NRIS, but has, at wp:RSN clarified he no longer disputes that. I don't see anything specific in wp:V or wp:RS or wp:SPS that applies. To the mediator: you appointed yourself, and I think you need to identify an acceptable solution to the dispute at this article. The dispute would be settled by your picking a specific footnote reference to use where information is from NRIS, pending an improved reference being constructed elsewhere for general rollout (to replace the widespread NRIS reference which links to a now-offline NPS webpage). This would be a temporary reference for use in this article alone. You have been given several specific options. Please choose one, and/or take action to get more/better proposals on the table, such as by directing Jayjg to come up with a specific option that would be acceptable to him. --doncram (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In further response to item 4, here is a complete copy of wp:SOURCEACCESS within wp:V (emphasis added): "Verifiability in this context means that anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source, as required by this policy and by No original research. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining material that is not easily accessible." --doncram (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

But is Elkman.net a reliable source?

There is another issue to consider here (one which probably needs to be hammered out at RSN and not here, but I raise it anyway)... is the Elkman interface a reliable source by Wikipeida's rules. I am not sure. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it is a program written by a Wikipedian and hosted on his/her personal webpage. Does elkman.net have a reputation for accuracy? I know personal websites are not normally considered reliable, so why should this be an exception? If elkman.net is not reliable, then a citation to the NRIS database that uses it is not allowable. Blueboar (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have raised this issue at RSN. Blueboar (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Duplicative discussion section count now around 60. --doncram (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of problematic citation is now around 500. Seriously, when you cut and paste the same flawed citation into hundreds of articles, you should not be surprised when others question it. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What 500? I am not aware of any mainspace links to Elkman's website. --doncram (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I was not talking about Elkman... the flawed citation I refer to is: " <ref name="nris">{{cite web|url=http://www.nr.nps.gov/|title=National Register Information System|date=2009-03-13|work=National Register of Historic Places|publisher=National Park Service}}</ref>"

(which appears as: "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. 2009-03-13.")

I was talking about the citation you have been using for the majority of the articles on NRHP buildings. The flaw with that citation is threefold: 1) the website no longer exists 2) when the website did exist, the webpage the citation pointed to did not actually contain the information being cited, and 3) the webpage you cited was not actually the webpage where you found the information (you got the information from Elkman's webpage). Blueboar (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Stick to the topic of this discussion section, whether Elkman's webpage is a reliable source. It is not cited in any Wikipedia mainspace articles, you now agree, thank you. It was proposed, effectively by you or for you (to meet some of your scattered concerns), to be included in a new standard footnote to update the standard NRIS footnote. You seem to oppose including mention of the Elkman's website from mainstream articles. All indications from history are that now-infrequent-editor Elkman did/does not want his website cited in thousands of references from mainspace articles. The standard NRIS footnote will be updated wikipedia-wide, to drop the URL which seems no longer to work, perhaps to include a different URL if the National Park Service posts the NRIS database for downloading somewhere new (which correspondence indicates it may). Linking to Elkman's website didn't happen in any mainspace articles, and it isn't going to happen. This seems to be settled and/or moot. Thank you for your input. --doncram (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Shenanigans. Don, you have been claiming Elkman's as how you got your information, and now you turn around and claim it's not reliable and somebody else said it was OK to use? I don't think so. I think it's time to resolve the problem once and for all. MSJapan (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

WTF! To start, are you disbelieving my statements that i did use the Elkman interface to the NRIS database to look up certain information? Second, when/where did i ever say Elkman's interface is not reliable? Where did i mention a "somebody else"? I was stating that Blueboar's discussion section here is manufacturing a concern about a potential problem that does not exist in Wikipedia. AFAIK there are no links from mainspace to Elkman's site. Adding links to Elkman's site was considered here, for Blueboar, and he is clearly rejecting that. I am losing respect for MSJ's ability to mediate anything here, from this statement and others. --doncram (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Decision

Since we're going in circles, it's time to come to a resolution. 1. Policy is clear that is not appropriate to use a front page citation or a search result as a citation, so the generic DB citation is no good. 2. Elkman's tool is not appropriate to use as a citation because it's a WP user-created tool, and apparently Elkman doesn't want it used either. 3. NPS and NRIS each have issues for different reasons.

Now this leaves us with two choices: delete the whole thing as unsourced, or give all the necessary info from NRIS and NPS, because we have nothing else to use. I choose the latter. We will figure out how to derive a URL from the records, which was described on RSN, and we will simply give all information in the event of a conflict either within or between the two, and leave the reader to make a judgment. If in future the refs improve, or this supposedly new functional DB ever comes online, then we can revisit this. MSJapan (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Q: If policy prohibits so clearly prohibits Wikipedia from citing United States government electronic information by simply citing the name of the source, why is it that many thousands of articles cite US Census data using {{GR|2}}?? That template returns a footnote ({{GR|2}}) that points to the following:

.

A: Policy does not actually forbid that kind of citation. --Orlady (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

A(2): The editors at the US Cenus WikiProject do not know how to properly cite their information. (note: Pointing out that Other stuff exists has never been an excepted argument on Wikipedia.) Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No. The fact of the matter is that, much like the situation with NRIS, the online interface for the US Census is not structured to allow creation of stable URL links to individual records. That has not caused Wikipedians to rush to various noticeboards shouting that US Census data cannot be trusted; instead Wikipedia has simply cited the factfinder website, where anybody can verify the Census data included in articles. That site is actually an exceptionally good resource -- and it is far superior technically to the NRIS websites -- presumably because the dissemination of Census data is a far higher government priority than the dissemination of National Register of Historic Places information. As it happens, some time since 1-31-2008, factfinder has made it possible to create links to some specific factfinder output (for example, http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=Oliver+Springs&_cityTown=Oliver+Springs&_state=04000US47&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&show_2003_tab=&redirect=Y ), but that kind of link may not work forever, and it's easy enough to get the info by starting from the factfinder home page.

And there is no "US Census WikiProject". Census data from factfinder is included in every geographic article about every administrative subdivision of the U.S. Articles like United States and articles about individual states typically point to static URLs for Census information, but most articles about counties, cities, towns, villages, etc., use citations in the form I identified above. There is nothing intellectually corrupt about citing U.S. Census Bureau data products as the source of census information, and there is nothing intellectually corrupt about citing National Park Service data products as the source of information on properties listed on the NPS's National Register of Historic Places.

Verifiability does not require single-click online access to the precise place where a particular piece of information came from. Please note the following excerpts from that Wikipedia policy:

• All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.

The NRIS information that is being challenged so vigorously in this discussion is not direct quotations, nor information about living persons, nor other information that is likely to be challenged (except possibly by a bored Wikipedian trying to create wikidrama). Instead, we are talking about information on utterly uncontroversial subjects. In this article, it is information of the general nature of "The Masonic Building at 123 Main St. in Anywhere, Iowa, was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on May 2, 1999". I submit that the mere existence of this article is controversial (I don't think that there is an encyclopedic purpose to a list of "Masonic buildings" that are deemed notable for some reason), but I don't see anything controversial or subject to challenge about these types of simple facts. A single citation to NRIS ought to suffice to tell users where Wikipedians got the information that these particular buildings are listed on the National Register.

• The appropriateness of any source depends on the context.

See above. In the context of this list -- and the uncontroversial nature of the National Register, the "bar" shouldn't need to be set very high.

• Verifiability... means that anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source, as required by this policy and by No original research. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining material that is not easily accessible.

As some of us have stated ad infinitum, anyone can check to determine that the information that is referenced to NRIS truly was published by the NPS in NRIS. It may not be possible to verify this with a single click on the internet, but "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources." Numerous different ways of obtaining NRIS information for verification have been described. Interestingly, access to the database via Elkman's interface is very consistent with the use of Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange as a verification resource. --Orlady (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the "decision" as a resolution. The "decision" amounts to MSJ saying he would prefer for an NPS-based reference with some URL to be created that would support the information in the article, magically. There is no way currently to form a reference using the NPS Focus system that would support information that comes from the NRIS source and which does not appear in the NPS Focus system. There is no solution in this pronouncement of "decision". --doncram (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

In other words... Doncram only accepts decisions that favor his views. Is it time to take this to the next level of dispute resolution? Blueboar (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we're about done here. There is no "decision" that settles anything here, there's just a wish that some magical solution were available that would meet everyones' wishes. There is a "placeholder" reference in place. I don't think this Talk page is going to be where anything more productive is going to get worked out. It is possible/likely that a replacement NRIS reference for wide usage will get worked out elsewhere, in conjunction with new info/new web changes at the National Regisert that may emerge. I will likely start replying less here. There hasn't been anything new to say here for a while, and it seems pointless to keep rehashing the same questions and pointing to the answers already given. --doncram (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)