Talk:List of Masonic buildings/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

doncram reported to ANI once again

See here. MSJapan (talk) 06:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And that was archived here. I won't try to summarize it, but I will say it had to do with anger about the creation/existence of articles on Masonic buildings. The initial complaint was accompanied by 4 new attempts to delete related pages, three of which have been rejected and one more which is pending rejection by the community in an AFD. --doncram (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And for the record MSJapan reported me to ANI again again, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive635#Masonic Temple (Lahore)/User:Doncram (updated later to archived version), on 31 August. It relates to this AFD opened by MSJapan: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Temple (Lahore), which seems headed for Keep decision. I hope we are done with prods, AFDs, and ANI reports, but not done with creating articles about notable Masonic buildings. --doncram (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

NRHP proposal

Hi have a proposal for the NRHP people, that might help avoid the problems encountered here. Why not make it a convention within the project to using the naming convention: List of NRHP: Masonic Buidlings, List of NRHP: whatever, etc.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Congrats for typing so well with a baby in one arm! I don't believe that this proposal would resolve any of the issues here. Not only is the list scope broader than the U.S. National Register (there are buildings in Canada, the UK, Hong Kong, Bermuda, and other places, as well as buildings that aren't listed on any heritage register), but the Freemasonry editors appear to object to any use of the term "Masonic building" in any article title, except possibly in a directory-type list of buildings where meetings are currently being held. --Orlady (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a suggestion that has merit, although I'm not sure it's easily extensible as the buildings projects in the main don't appear to break down in that way. What it does do is capture the notability rationale easily in the title and then sub-categorises according to that. In an effort to broaden the on an official list of important buildings notability criterion away from the NRHP list there have been a couple of suggestions above, but there are objections to having that clarity in the article title. If you've got any thoughts on how to capture that nuance in the title that would be useful.

Unfortunately the issues around this article are as much around evidence and indeed what the sub-categorisation is. There is an assumption that Masonic Building is an adequate proxy for four sub-categories; Freemasonry, Appendant bodies that have their own infrastructure but meet in a ritual format, non masonic bodies that have some form of association (however tenuous) and other buildings that a source claims is Masonic.

Personally I think a list of Masonic buildings should only talk about Masonic buildings and if we're going to talk about the other three categories then the article topic and title should reflect that. A fairly simple matter of clarity and accuracy. I can see an argument for conflating the first two categories, particularly if the article was made US specific as that's where the 40 or 50 appendant bodies are consolidated into two overarching administrative structures and have their own infrastructure. The latter two sub-categories are starting to develop a very weak association with Freemasonry.

ALR (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Preference for Neo-Classical?

The lede currently includes the following: Many buildings of both types are now listed on heritage registers. Freemasons' frequent preference for Neoclassical architecture, together with the inclusion of Masonic symbols and other common design elements in buildings used by Masonic bodies or designed by individual Freemasons, has led to some building styles being characterized as "Masonic architecture." (cited to James Stevens Curl (1993), The Art and Architecture of Freemasonry: An Introductory Study. Woodstock, N.Y.: Overlook. 272 pages.) I have to question this... Will Moore's book indicates that there isn't any set preference when it comes to style. Masonic Temples come in many different styles... Gothic revival... Neoclassical... Egyptian Revival... etc. The choice of style has more to do with what was generally popular at the time that the building was built, rather than any discernible preference. So... since there is disagreement on this point, I don't think we can state it as unadorned fact. If we are to mention it, we need to state it as opinion and attribute... and mention contrary views. Blueboar (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Touché! That sentence is not a finished product. My introduction was, to a significant extent, a framework for future content. Much needs to be filled in -- hopefully by people who know (and care) more about architecture than I do. Material I have read (but not noted down, because I had no intention of writing this article) has led me to understand that various observers have linked Freemasonry to architectural revivalism in various forms (ostensibly related to a reverence for great achievements of the past), including use of Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Moorish designs and design elements. The point to be made in this article is not that Masons like neoclassical architecture (or Egyptian Revival, or any other particular style), but that observers have attributed some sort of relationship between Freemasonry and architectural style. I believe that the fact that various experts have claimed to to define "Masonic architecture" is a significant source of notability for this list article.

When I was trying to put together the intro, I read a review Curl's book (I have not seen the book, but it is quoted and discussed in the review at this page) and concluded that it helped to support a statement about the fact that some observers have ascribed various characteristics to "Masonic archicture," and I focused on Curl's claim of an association of Freemasonry with neoclassicism. (Confession: Architectural history isn't my expertise, and when I wrote that I forgot that Egyptian motifs, which are also mentioned in the review of Curl's book, are not included in "neoclassical".)

Consistent with your comment that the association with neoclassicism is due more to the fashions of an era than to Freemasonry, I note that Curl's analysis seems to have been focused on the late 18th century, when neoclassicism was in vogue. Indeed, the review that I read takes issue with Curl's analysis, saying (in part): "Curl concludes by positing a Masonic style, a way of seeing and expressing built upon the fraternity. Its 'stylistic aspects,' he asserts, 'depend on nuance, on hints, on feeling, and on mood as much as anything' (p. 226), and can be seen in Mozart's Symphonies Nos. 39-41, the late eighteenth-century utopian neoclassical architects who stressed geometric purity, and the United States Constitution. 'A Masonic style is an amalgam of many things, but it has a distinctive flavor that is instantly recognizable once the subject has been studied and understood' (p. 229). This argument is difficult to evaluate...."

Upon reflection, that review is a better source for this article than Curl's book, although I think that someone should get hold of Curl's book and cite it, too. --Orlady (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I will respectfully request that you not cite books you have not read. I am going to remove the statement. It is clearly your own OR based on what you hope the source says rather than what it actually says. Blueboar (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

Immediately following the sentence discussed above... we have: As a result, some buildings are regarded as "Masonic" although they might not have been designed, nor ever used, for Masonic purposes. For example, the plan of the city of Washington, D.C., and the designs of many of its principal buildings are often described as Masonic. referenced to Christopher Hodapp's, Solomon's Builders: Freemasons, Founding Fathers and the Secrets of Washington D.C. and an Associated Press report: Exhibit Traces Influence of Freemasonry, copied from the American Architectural Foundation website.

I think both sources are being misrepresented. Given the number of times that Hodapp has ridiculed the notion on his blogs, I seriously doubt that he says the plan of Washington DC or the designs of its principle buildings are "Masonic" in his book. As for AP article... this is apparently included because of the line: "Some of the most famous buildings in Washington, including the White House, are deeply marked by Freemasonry." Saying that a building is "deeply marked by Freemasonry" is not the same as saying that it is Masonic.

I will assume good faith and assume that this misrepresentation was not deliberate. I am removing the statement pending further discussion. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

On reviewing that article, I see that the Washington Monument had its cornerstone laid Masonically, and the White House had several blocks in it that has Masonic marks (presumably the Square and Compasses). Nothing to do with the architecture of the buildings. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Mr. Hodapp's blogs. However, his book indicates that the plan of the city of Washington, D.C., and the designs of many of its principal buildings are often described as Masonic. --Orlady (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are "often described as Masonic"... by conspiracy theorists and the like. Not by reliable sources. I strongly suspect that this is the context in which Hodapp mentions this information (assuming he does). I have to ask the question... have you actually read Hodapps book yourself, or are you going by a blurb/review again? Blueboar (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

What Blue, are you saying that "National Treasure" and Dan Brown aren't reliable sources?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's stick with citing responsible writers who might allude to the existence of Dan Brown's work. Seriously, I've never read Dan Brown nor seen the movie, but Dan Brown's widely-reported fascination with "Masonic architecture" is one of the factors underlying my view that the topic of buildings associated with Freemasonry is a notable one for Wikipedia. Hopefully the list article can be developed and maintained without ever specifically mentioning Dan Brown or his work, much less citing him. --Orlady (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree that we should mention Dan Brown, National Treasure and other works of fiction ... and I agree that we should stick to citing responsible, reliable sources... but let's not cite them in a way that implies they support a crack pot theory when they do not. (as a side note: I have read Dan Brown's novels... and there isn't anything about "Masonic architecture"... I am not sure where you get the idea that he has a "fascination" with it). Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Er my comment about Brown/National Treasure was in jest... I don't think something should be included on this list unless there is a clear Masonic tie... "Looking Masonic" or "Masonic Architecture" isn't enough. I know that the consipracy theorist love to point to Washington landmarks... and lets pretend that the Mason's said, "Yes, the Lincoln Memorial is Masonic." It would take a lot to convince me that was so to a level that it would pass my revisionistic view of things. Claims of such would not cut the mustard.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Oldest in India?

Goshamal Baradari, in Hyderabad, India, ... I think the statement "the oldest building in India used as a Masonic Lodge" is shaky. I know this comes from a source (in fact, I find it repeated in more than one source), but you have to do a bit of gymnastics to make it work... the building is old (built in 1682)... but it was not used to house a Masonic Lodge until 1872. The first building used as a Masonic Lodge was Fort William, Calcutta, where officers of the East Indian Company who were Masons held meetings as early as 1730. The claim for Goshamal Baradari rests purely on when the building itself was built... not the age of its Masonic connection. The claim ignores the fact that there are buildings in India with an older connection to the fraternity.

Imagine an English lodge formed in 2010 deciding to meet at Stonehenge, they too could claim that their meeting place was "the oldest structure in England used as a Masonic Lodge."

I think this is a very good example of why buildings purchased by (or given to) the Freemasons are problematic. We have to look closely at what makes the building notable... is it the Masonic connection, or is it something else. Blueboar (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a good bit messier than that. The GL India website only attributes Fort William to the first lodge constituted in India, it doesn't refer to the peripatetic meetings that will have taken place up until then under the auspices of Lodges of the British Army in India, or under the Regiments of the Company.

Throughout the Company and Imperial periods there were English, Scottish and Irish lodges in the sub-continent. One would need to rake through some of the regimental histories and many of the traveling lodges are now defunct or predominantly civlianised.

ALR (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

True... which just highlights the issue. We must always look behind claims that something in Freemasonry is the "Oldest" or "first". They are easily twisted. Blueboar (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh... I removed the mention of this iffy claim from the list... and was immediately reverted by Doncram. So... Doncram, given what I have said above, why do you feel that the claim needs to be included? Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

My edit reverting Blueboar's edit was: "restore India mention, which includes a reference that should not be lost (article does not exist, so does not contain it). Leave this work-in-process be. Build the articles first." What i objected to most was the loss of a decent reference. There have been subsequent edits by Orlady and Blueboar both to the mention, which modified and keep the reference in place. This Talk page is not the most efficient place to discuss details of that one place; it would be more efficient, longterm, to have discussion at Talk page of the article, which should be created.

In general i view most of these discussions here, and most edits in the list-article, as a waste of many other editors' time. I don't believe that the negative comments and questioning of everything by one or a few editors, of what they don't immediately understand, is a help. I especially dislike the new discussion sections being opened to re-discuss the same stuff already discussed. I think the pattern of participation amounts to negative contribution, because it costs many other editors a lot of time to review and sometimes to respond. A few editors obviously think differently. Sorry if that is harsh; that is my honest opinion. --doncram (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can now identify another area where we disagree... I think questioning things is a help. I think questioning is good. It makes for a better article. I don't see questioning things as a waste of time.

In any case, I have no problem with the source... my problem was with the inclusion of the iffy statement... so, let's keep the source but remove the statement. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I make the observation that what might be a very simple issue for you does, in fact, lead to a whole host of questions for someone who does actually appreciate the wide range of issues that any of these entries raise. That's particularly pertinent where the source used is a trivial treatment in one sentence at the end of an article about something else. I appreciate that you just want to throw informaiton into the article, but when it comes to amplifying, illustrating and putting some context to that information there are a number of questions to ask.

In this example the assertion is that it's the oldest building in use. By asking the question what do we mean by that we've elicited that it was donated by the Nizam, who was himself a member of the craft. It's been in use formally for Freemasonry for less than half it's life, but I would ask whether it had been in use as a meeting place for Lodges before the Nizam donated it. So we start to unpick it and perhaps illustrate that it has been in use longer 140 years. I would also ask who else meets there. the infrastructure in support of the various appendant bodies is a peculiarity of the US, and India in particular reflects a Masonic heritage of English, Scottish, Irish, Portugese and French Masonry. Given the French influence there are potentially meeting places older than this one. You and Orlady have become a little confused over my concerns around indiscriminate inclusion, and this is one example of where that's an issue. It may be the oldest building used by the Grand Lodge of India, but there are other Masonic orders in India that don't recognise the authority of the GL of India, some of those are feminine and some allow mixed masonry. All we actually know is that it's the oldest building used by what I would term a regular craft lodge.

All these points raise questions that may perhaps allow some development of an article.

In the interest of accuracy and clarity these are valuable questions to ask. It's unfortunate you feel that accuracy and clarity aren't important in an encyclopedia.

ALR (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

In response to this discussion, ALR removed the reference again from this list-article. Thanks for the personal attacks, too, which you decry elsewhere, and which you attribute to me. Real mature. Anyhow, I started the article to hold the reference under question and to allow further discussion to take place at its Talk page. I suppose because i am suggesting that, that discussion will continue here, instead. I probably won't comment further. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually you'll note that I reinstated it. the Grand Lodge of India website that I added a reference to doesn't have the detail about when the building was built.

I'm sorry that you feel that observations on your focus on buildings, rather than Masonry, are an attack. That wasn't the intent in trying to illustrate the issues underlying the editorial process.

ALR (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The source that indicates that this is "the oldest building in India used as a Masonic Lodge", is the British Library. ALR removed that source, saying it is "iffy." What do you have against the British Library? --Orlady (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to have anything against a source to think another source is better. As it turns out, he changed his mind. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he restored the source (to a different part of the list entry) between the time that I reviewed the page history and the source and the time I submitted that comment (after sorting out the edit conflicts on this page). However, I still want to know what it is that ALR has against the British Library. The page cited says says "Masonic activity in India began as far back as 1728, with the first Lodge being established in Calcutta. A Lodge was founded in Secunderabad in 1822. There are about 277 lodges in India, and the oldest building in India used as a Masonic Lodge is in Hyderabad: the Goshamal Baradari built in 1682." It certainly appears that they know what they are talking about when they say "oldest building in India used as a Masonic Lodge." Am I to understand that the you believe that the normal rules regarding verifiability and reliable sources don't apply whenever the topic has anything to do with Freemasonry? --Orlady (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I figured that going to the GL of India would be more appropriate, but they don't give the detail. My concern about the British Library source is that this building isn't the subject of that article, it's one sentence in a longer article about an image. From a professional information quality perspective it's generally more appropriate to consider how authoritative a source is. To be honest the Wikipedia verifiability policy is extremely simplistic, really quite dumbed down and doesn't trust editors to assess source quality.

Essentially if the GL of India stated the information we're after then it would be a more authoritative source than an incidental mention on the British Library article about a different topic. However the GL of India page doesn't contain the information we're after.

To be honest I made a mistake, I was playing in Wikipedia at the same time as writing an information management and source analysis policy for a client and wasn't given WP much attention. I don't think that the BL page is a particularly good source for what we're saying, but it's the best we have for the moment.

ALR (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I was playing in Wikipedia at the same time as writing an information management and source analysis policy for a client and wasn't given WP much attention. Ah, that explains everything. We've all "been there done that". --Orlady (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion may or may not be continued here... but, if it is continued, the reason is not because you suggested it move elsewhere. The reason would be because it is appropriate to continue discussion here. It is appropriate to discuss the inclusion of material and sources on the talk page of a list article in which that material or source appears. Since the statement and source in question appears in this list article... it is appropriate to discuss it on this talk page. That is what this talk page is for. Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Massachusetts

Orlady's latest entry concerning places where Masons met in Boston, Massachusetts is problematic. First, it is written in an inappropriate style for a list article. It should be broken up into a building by building layout, like the rest of the list. Second, the mini-section opens by stating that these buildings are significant. Unfortunately that is not supported by the sources (which do not discuss the significance of the buildings). In fact, I have to question whether the buildings are even notable by Wikipedia's standards... Yes, Ralph Waldo Emerson gave lectures in the 1832-1859 building, but I remind everyone that Notability is not inherited, so these lectures do not make the building notable. There is no indication that the 1859-1864 building (Winthrop House) is notable in any way. The 1867 building might be notable because of its architect, but again notability is not inherited. What is needed here are sources that indicate that the buildings are/were notable. Blueboar (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I restored the material to the article, which Blueboar had deleted. This is too much disruption and game-playing, not enough actual development of Wikipedia. --doncram (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No... conforming an article to Wikipeida's policies and guidelines is "actual development of Wikipedia". You seem to think that the only way to develop an article is to add material... this is not the case. Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't care to engage in a conversation with you about my general views along those lines. About your "leadership" in this list-article and in related articles, where you seem to be trying to contribute by challenging each iota of any positive development, I do think your efforts have been wholly unproductive. Every major issue you tried to make on this list-article, out of too many, has been rejected by the community of Wikipedia editors. I don't believe in your judgment in this topic area, which has proven many times over to be simply wrong. --doncram (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I added the information about those Masonic Temple buildings in Boston after I ran across the article about Temple School, Boston (1830s) (a famous school that was located in one of them) and discovered that Commons had entire categories of images for several different Boston Masonic Temples (yes, these buildings were and are called "Masonic Temples", in spite of the lectures against that term that we have received here). I have yet to add information about the fire that destroyed the 1867 building, nor about the most recent Masonic Temple at the corner of Tremont and Boylston. The fact that these buildings were the subject of numerous published engravings and 19th-century photographs, plus the contemporary coverage that the buildings received in the New York Times (particularly the extensive coverage of the 1867 dedication ceremony, which was attended by the President of the United States, among others) are be a strong indication that they are notable by Wikipedia guidelines.

As for Blueboar's theory that Wikipedia list articles must be expunged of meaningful text content, I can only suggest that you spend some time looking around Wikipedia to see how good lists are developed. In particular, take a look at featured lists like List of storms in the 2003 Atlantic hurricane season. --Orlady (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I would generally agree with you it's clear the the buildings projects have a pretty lax standard of evidence, in terms of source diversity, quality and treatment. I would say there is a case for arguing for higher standards in Wikipedia, but it's clear that there is a majority opinion that clarity, accuracy and utility are of low importance in this particular area.

I suspect that any time you take this elsewhere the majority of votes are going to be hostile to your position.

ALR (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Should your reference to "[[WP:ILIKEIT| votes]]" be understood to indicate that your opposition to this article is a pure expression of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? --Orlady (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really. I generally have a low level of confidence in pseudo-democratic processes for making decisions about information quality. Just a quick trawl through most of the voting tools in WP you'll see the vast majority of opinions expressed don't refer to policy, speculate on compliance with policy without presenting evidence or asserting that something must comply, again without presenting evidence. Many admin closing rationales, for rename, deletion and other discussions refer to numbers of opinions, not arguments presented.

Personally I think there are fairly clear policy arguments in the case of this article, but the majority of votes were to keep it, so we need to make the best of that. Personally I think the Boston analysis that Blueboar took issue with was very weak.

I will acknowledge that I tend to be quite exclusionist, where article quality, rather than volume, is the more important concern. Knowledge Management is the field I work in, I charge clients quite a lot of money to apply pretty rigorous standards to their use and exploitation of knowledge. I do recognise that many WP editors don't wish to apply the same standards to their contributions.

ALR (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOT#INHERITED as applied to the topic?

Now that I think about it further, this entire list may fail WP:NOT... the inclusion criteria rests on the idea that these buildings are all (in some way) associated with Freemasonry. However, notability is not inherited. While Freemasonry is notable, not everything associated with Freemasonry is notable. So, for us to say that "Masonic buildings" is a notable topic, we need to establish that the topic of "Masonic buildings" is notable. This returns us to the same point I have been making for the last two months... we need sources that discuss the concept of a "Masonic building" to establish that the topic is notable. Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please consider the responses to your repetitive assertions in AFDs and in Talk page sections above and in related articles, and the ANI reports and RSN noticeboard reports and in many other places where you have commented in the same way. This is costly of electrons and of other editors' time. You talk too much, IMHO. --doncram (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a very simple way to get me to shut up... stop ignoring the concerns I have raised, and address them. It really is that simple. Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, I think this is a red herring really. It's a list - so notability consensus is a lot broader. Generally speaking we don't establish that "Masonic buildings" is a generally notable topic (which it is anyway in all probablity) but we look at whether this is a notable topic within WP and whether it would benefit the Wiki to have such a list. To which the answer, in my mind, is yes. If you have concerns over notability of the list in these contexts I recommend an AFD which will sort it out once and for all. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

[EC] So it's deja vu all over again? As I believe has been said at least a dozen times in different ways, few of the buildings on this list are notable exclusively because of their association with Freemasonry. They pass they general notability guideline because they have been the subject of substantial independent coverage. The reasons for that coverage differ. Various of these buildings are notable because of their architecture, as local landmarks, as the sites of important events, because of the non-Masonic purposes they have been used for (concert halls, theatres, courthouses, etc.), and yes, at least sometimes because of their association with Freemasonry.

As stated many places, the topic of this list is not the word pair "Masonic buildings", but rather is defined by the introduction to the article. I (and others) have at various times provided references to indicate that the overall topics of "Masonic architecture" and of buildings owned, built and used by Freemasons are notable topics. It's a bit of a challenge to find those references here -- because discussions of this list are scattered all over Wikipedia, and because you and ALR have seen fit to remove some of those references from the article. Regardless, here's a partial list:

• William D. Moore (2006), Masonic temples: Freemasonry, Ritual Architecture, and Masculine Archetypes, University of Tennessee Press. ISBN 1572334967, ISBN 9781572334960. -- This book has been discussed fairly extensively on this page.
• Henry Leonard Stillson and William James Hughan, editors (1906), History of the Ancient and Honorable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons. Boston and New York: The Fraternity Publishing Company. -- Some sections of this book contain a substantial amount of discussion of the buildings that Freemasons have used for meetings.
• Christopher Hodapp (2005), Freemasons for Dummies, ISBN 0764597965, ISBN 9780764597961. -- This contains an actual list of Masonic buildings; see "Ten Cool Masonic Places", pages 309-312.
• James Stevens Curl (1993), The Art and Architecture of Freemasonry: An Introductory Study. Woodstock, N.Y.: Overlook. 272 pages. ISBN 0879514949, ISBN 978-0879514945.
• This Texas guide has a list of Masonic buildings and calls them (along with Odd Fellows buildings and others) "anchors of small town architecture."

--Orlady (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

OK... lets examine these sources and a) see if they actually support the idea that the topic of Masonic Buildings is notable... and b) if they do, figure out how to use them.

• Will Moore's Masonic Temples... This book is probably the closest we come to a book that discusses "Masonic buildings"... but it does not actually support the idea that the concept of a "Masonic building" is all that notable... Throughout most of the book, Moore consistently uses the term "Temple" to refer to lodge rooms, not buildings. His main focus is on how the masonic ritual influenced the decoration of these rooms. That said, he does talk about buildings in his last chapter. But the one thing the reader comes away with is that there are no similarities between these buildings. Each is unique. In other words, the source may support the idea that a "Masonic Temple" (ie lodge room) is notable... and I would say that would support the notability of the specific buildings he discusses... but it is fairly clear that he does not consider Masonic buildings as a group all that notable.
• Stillson & Hughan's History - Sorry but no... this is a history of the fraternity, not of the buildings. It merely mentions a few specific buildings in passing. The source does not discuss the concept of "Masonic buildings" or support the idea that "Masonic buildings" are a notable topic.
• Hodapp's Freemasons for Dummies. A short list in the appendix of a book about the fraternity. Again... passing reference to individual buildings, not a discussion of the concept of Masonic buildings as a group. The title of this two page list says it all... the buildings are listed because they are "cool", not because they are notable. Does not support the idea that the topic of Masonic buildings as a group is notable. (I will also note that Hodapp includes the Temple in London and Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland... which are only "Masonic" if you accept the highly controversial theory that the Masons are descended from Medieval Knights Templars ...and, in the case of Roslyn, also accepting that the Sinclair family were associated with the Knights Templers... very tenuous "associations").
• Curl's, The Art and Architecture of Freemasonry - This is a book that you admit you have not read. I have not read it (yet) either. But that means we can not use it to support the idea that the topic is notable. Until we read it, we don't know what it says.
• The Texas travel guide. - We are really scraping the bottom of the barrel if we must rely on this... An anonymous on line travel guide is NOT a reliable source.

So... Of these sources, only Moore's book contains more that a passing reference to individual buildings. And Moore's book does more to support the idea that Masonic temples are not that notable rather than the idea that they are. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I am getting really tired of repeating myself, but here we go again. Last week, on this page, I wrote:

Here at Wikipedia, "notability" is defined (at Wikipedia:Notability) differently than it might be defined in your real life. As that page states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity." The general notability guideline establishes a presumption that a topic is "notable" (and thus potentially eligible for treatment in its own article) if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Blueboar's remark about whether the books support the idea that the concept of "Masonic building" is "all that notable" continue to suggest an emphasis on "fame, importance, or popularity" rather than the simple test of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." As for "significant coverage," that provision does not mean that the topic must be the sole or primary focus of the entire work. The guideline says:

""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." (emphasis added)

Your rejection of History of the Ancient and Honorable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons as a valid source -- because you say that buildings are not the main subject of the book and are only "mentioned in passing" -- strongly illustrates that you are completely misinterpreting this element of the guideline. That book is 904 pages long -- in a book of that length, even "passing mention" can add up to substantial treatment (as it does in this book). The "passing mentions" in this book include numerous lists of the buildings where various Masonic groups met, descriptions of the physical features of a number of individual buildings, and many full-page illustrations of specific buildings. --Orlady (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no... my argument hinges directly on that part of the guideline... my argument is that, with the possible exception of Moore's book, none of these sources do give significant coverage to the subject of Masonic buildings. A whole bunch of passing references don't add up to significant coverage as it is meant in the guideline.

You are making the common error of equating the notability of the individual items listed with the notability of the list topic. They are not the same thing. It is possible to create a list that is made up entirely of notable items, and still have a non-notable topic (for example: List of US Presidents who have more than eight letters in their names... an obviously non-notable topic... even though every person listed is notable individually).

A second flaw is that you are equating the concept of "places where the Masons have met" with the concept of "Masonic buildings"... you may even be correct... but without a source that tells us that this is how we should define the term "Masonic building" that equation is merely your own Original research. Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

To the contrary, I believe you are committing the error of assuming that the scope and topic of a list article is fully defined by the article's title. (I believe that fallacy is a principal topic at a couple of the other multitudinous active discussions focused on this one article: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists, Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists, and/or several active threads at Wikipedia talk:Notability.) --Orlady (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Funny... all those multitudinous discussions seem to end up all supporting my take on this, and not your's. Blueboar (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how all of those discussions are going. Most of us don't have time to keep up with all of those discussions, much less contribute lengthy essays to every one of them. Furthermore, I don't actually expect those convoluted discussions to result in any substantial changes in policy or guidelines. However, I had the impression that discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists supported the position that the "notability burden" does NOT fall on the list title, but is more broadly related to the topic, as described by the article lead section and inclusion criteria in the lead. --Orlady (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct... but it also clearly supported the fact that the topic is distinct from the items listed, and that the notability of such items does not mean the topic is notable. And it supported the fact that when we have a stand alone list, like this one, we need to clearly establish what it is that makes the topic notable. In fact, this list has been used by several editors (yes, more than just me) as an example of an SAL where notability of the topic is not properly established. Blueboar (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

flc

i asked my flc reviewer friend to take a look at this article, here is his response---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for posting that Balloonman... it's what I have been saying for the last two months, but no one at this article seems to want to accept it from me. Perhaps they will when it comes from a neutral third party. Blueboar (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I used to be active in featured list reviews (my activity level dropped off a long time ago), and I can assure you that this list is a long, long way from qualifying there. --Orlady (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely, I just wanted to get his input ito this list as he works heavily with lists. I do see this list have the potential of becoming a FL, but that would require that people resolve their issues and define what counts for inclusion---which in my opinion would help determine how to lay out the tables.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The sticking point is finding a source upon which to base our definition of what counts for inclusion. Without that, I doubt we will ever agree. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion

Why don't make this a list of buildings that have or have had "Masonic" in the name signifying their association with the fraternity. With that description as inclusion criteria I can't see why that wouldn't make everyone happy. PeRshGo (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Might work... I note that there is a precedence for it (see the transformation of "List of massacres" to "List of events named massacres"). We would still need to properly establish that naming a building with "Masonic" is notable. Blueboar (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Would not work. That is a sure-fire recipe for a trivial intersection -- not an appropriate basis for a Wikipedia category, much less a list.

The conversion of "List of massacres" to "List of events named massacres" is a special situation -- related to the geopolitical and ethnic sensitivities that are involved in designating an event as a "massacre." Similar sensitivities exist for terms such as "terrorist". No sensible person would suggest that the term "Masonic" is subject to anything close to that level of concern. --Orlady (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Before you get too far into the motivations behind the conversion of the "massacres" article... you should be aware that I was intimately involved in that decision. Yes, that article involved issues that were far more "sensitive" than this one... but the Wikipedia policy concerns that we focused on to resolve and get beyond those sensitive issues are actually very similar to the policy concerns here. In both cases there was/is the need for clear and unambiguous criteria for inclusion... criteria based solidly on Verifiability and a Neutral point of view.

At the massacres article, we recognized that there is distinction between describing an event as being a massacre and using that word as part of a name for an event. The first usage is a matter of non-neutral opinion... the second usage is a matter neutral fact. We have a similar situation in this article. There is a difference between buildings that can be described as being "masonic" (a matter of non-neutral opinion)... and buildings that have the word "Masonic" in their name (a matter of verifiable and non-neutral fact).

This isn't to say that I am completely supporting PeRshGo's idea... but I do think it is worth exploring further. We certainly should not dismiss it because the issue isn't as "sensitive" as that at some other article. Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I would support the suggested criterion as one of several. Certainly a place named Masonic Temple has masonic association. But also places named DeWint House or Scottish Rite Cathedral do too. --doncram (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Having "Masonic" (or any other word) in the name of a building is trivia. This list article must be based on some real relationship, not merely a name. Back when it appeared that this article was being built solely on the basis of having "masonic" in a building's name, this article went to WP:AfD and I argued for its deletion because there was no encyclopedic basis for the list. I proposed the new inclusion criteria that I documented in the article lead section because I believe that they define a notable shared characteristic. I can think of only reason for suggesting that those concepts be replaced by inclusion criteria that are based solely on similarity of names -- and that would be to ensure that this largely pointless discussion continues forever. --Orlady (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"This list article must be based on some real relationship". OK... but the problem is that, at the moment, we are including buildings based on a presumed relationship. At least having "Masonic" in the name is verifiable and bluntly neutral. Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone, but I have not knowingly added anything to this list without some indication that it was built by Freemasons for Masonic purposes and/or used for Masonic purposes (broadly defined to include appendant bodies and Shriners) -- or that a reliable source had described an association with Freemasonry. The list is very much "in development," and if items have been included that turn out (based on additional research) not to fit the criteria in the lead section, they should be removed. I think it's reasonable to expect that almost everything on the list will turn out to fit, however. --Orlady (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you need to caviat your statement with "broadly defined to include..." says a lot... defined by who? Do you have a source for this definition? I don't mean to rehash old arguments again in this thread... you already know that the definition you choose to use is one of the things we disagree on. The definition of "Masonic" you use is not the same as the definition of "Masonic" that I use (and our definitions both are different than those used by Doncram or ALR). What a "Masonic building" is seems to be a matter of opinion and POV. At least PeRishGo's suggestion is something that takes our personal opinions out of the equation. The fact that sources use the word "Masonic" when naming a building is something that anyone can verify. Blueboar (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As Orlady points out well enough, the use of the word "Masonic" in article name would be trivial. I agree it would be trivial, noting however that the use of the word Masonic is a pretty good indicator of Masonic association, but obviously lack of that word in the article name for a place does not prove non-association. Nice try, i believe Pershgo was well-intentioned in hoping for an end to the repeated discussions here, but it is a non-starter. There's no substitute for editors actually doing work of learning about the places that are obvious candidates (e.g. places named Masonic Temple) and finding out what the nature of their notability and their Masonic association are. But, even if all the facts were established, i get the idea that there would be no satisfying one or a few tendentious editors here (go ahead with obvious statements if you like). Perhaps looking for a consensus of all-but-one or all-but-one-or-two here would make sense. Otherwise more discussion here is just wasted electrons. --doncram (talk) 05:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Then if you don't like it scratch it. How about requiring the building to be built or significantly renovated by a Masonic Lodge, or appendant body? Because this "strong association" stuff is a joke. I can point out 50+ churches and bars that have a "strong association" with Freemasonry. Then after all that is settled, we can start making this article look like something other complete garbage. PeRshGo (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed it. Tell me what you think. PeRshGo (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so what don't you like. PeRshGo (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

PeRshGo, I "think" that if you were a newbie, that edit would caused a vandalism warning template to be slapped on your user talk page: something in the series that starts at Template:uw-delete1. You deleted almost all of the material that was provided to explain the scope of the list and document the notability of the topic (that is, what Blueboar had not already deleted) and you removed the citation to a reliable source (since it was one that was used later in the article, your deletion resulted in an error message). If you weren't an experienced editor, that would have garnered you a vandalism warning.

As for the new lead section you wrote:

This is a list of buildings around the world built or significantly renovated for use by the Masonic fraternity or one of its many appednant bodies.

"Significantly renovated" is a term that I have not previously seen discussed in the megabytes of discussion about this list. How many weeks did you want to spend arguing on its definition? Amount of renovation at time of property transfer to the Masons is not something that is typically well-documented in sources, and its not at all clear that it's important. If (for example) Freemasons have owned and used a former church for several decades, why would the encyclopedia care how much renovation was needed for Masonic use?

Their inclusion in this list is determined by each building’s historical merit, or its importance to the respective organization.

No. As has been discussed for weeks, if not months, "merit" (historical or otherwise) is not the same thing as WP:Notability, which must be one of the primary criteria for inclusion. (The lead section can and should discuss the attributes that make these buildings notable, but there is no benefit in creating a notability criterion that is separate -- and different -- from WP:N.) Furthermore, it has been made abundantly clear that buildings are unimportant to Masonic bodies, so "importance to the respective organization" has no potential relevance to this list. --Orlady (talk) 12:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The distinction is that some individual buildings probably are of interest, but nobody can really place why, whereas buildings as a class aren't of any real interest except as a place to house a temple.

ALR (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Orlady on "significant renovations". If we accept the definition that a "Masonic building" is one used by the Masons for their meetings.... then the amount of renovation needed to turn a purchased building into a "Masonic building" isn't really important. It may be as simple as installing appropriate furniture... or, it may require knocking down walls and other structural changes. One reason why the Masons find purchasing former churches so appealing is that very little renovation is required. All the lodge has to do is move the pews around so they face inward, set up a few chairs for the officers, plop an altar in middle, and hang a G over the Master's chair. Instant lodge room! Get a few younger members with strong backs to meet after work, and what was a former church on Monday becomes a functioning "Masonic Building" by Tuesday. Of course the same can be said going the other way, when the lodge sells the building... what was a Masonic Building one day can easily become be something else entirely the next day... simply by removing the furniture. Blueboar (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay so here's the problem and why I made the changes I made. The intro is garbage. As I said before based on the current definition I could add 50 different churches and bars that now serve as home to Masonic bodies that also just happen to be listed with the NRHP. Not to mention it’s an overly verbose mess that clearly resulted from a series of half hearted compromises even to someone who’s never seen the talk page. It’s full of misuses of terminology, unreliable references, and MOST importantly if I were to come to this list wondering what the hell it's about I would not leave with a solid answer.

If we are to have an article, and an inclusion criteria it needs to be simple and straight forward without the use of the term “strong association.”

Now here’s what I wrote. This is a list of buildings around the world built or significantly renovated for use by the Masonic fraternity or one of its many appednant bodies. Their inclusion in this list is determined by each building’s historical merit, or its importance to the respective organization.

If you want to axe, significantly renovated then do it, but then it’s foolish to entertain the idea of adding buildings that Masons just have happened to bought. As for the idea of “historical merit”, that statement is just a nice way of saying “listed on the NRHP” which has been decided makes the building notable by Wikipedia standards. The other criteria is “its importance to the respective organization” because that allows us to place buildings like Zetland Hall which clearly is a notable Masonic structure but is listed in a country which doesn’t have benefit of the NRHP.

So based on the complaints I've heared here's my corrections.

This is a list of buildings around the world built by the Masonic fraternity or one of its many appednant bodies. Their inclusion in this list is determined by each building’s historical merit, and its importance to the respective organization.

Read it and tell me what's wrong now. PeRshGo (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this bad faith?

Orlady, would you please explain the bolded parenthetical to your statement (Directed at PeRshGo) that: "you deleted almost all of the material that was provided to explain the scope of the list and document the notability of the topic (that is, what Blueboar had not already deleted)"... I think you are showing unjustified bad faith, because I certainly don't remember deleting any material along those lines. Perhaps you would be willing to give a diff or two to explain what edits and removals you are referring to? Otherwise, I would appreciate an apology. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the above comment making accusation of bad faith once, with edit summary pointing toward behavior discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry and Blueboar restored it here. The comment has now been quoted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry#behavior issues and I provided diffs of some of Blueboar's deletions there. This seems off-topic here. --doncram (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It is off-topic... which is why I put it in a sub section. But I would still like Orlady to explain his/her remark. Blueboar (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for conceding this is off-topic here. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry#behavior issues for explanation of the remark, and otherwise. --doncram (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I will let Orlady explain his/her own remarks. Blueboar (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the diff that I was mainly referring to. I never would have labeled it vandalism because Blueboar did give a reason for the deletion. The point of my comment was an observation that, as a result of your edits and PeRshGo's combined, the entire discussion (including references) had been deleted. --Orlady (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Shrine as an appendant body

Just Google, appendant body, and look at what comes up. Nearly every single Grand Lodge, or individual Lodge website lists them as an appendant body. And if I can't prove it to you by sourcing let me prove it to you with logic. Appendant, meaning a subordinate person or thing applies to the Shrine because the Shrine requires their members to be Masons. Therefore a Shriner has to obey any rule that would apply to a Mason, making the organization by definition subordinate. If a Grand Lodge for example were to ban all Masons in their jurisdiction from being Shriners the Shriners in that area would in effect immediately lose 100% of their membership. Calling it appendant is absolutely appropriate. Refering to it as a “Masonic body” however may be another matter entirely. PeRshGo (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Three points.

• Shriners are a USian phenomenon, so many Grand Lodges don't list them at all.
• The inclusion criteria is essentially personal opinion based so any personal survey doesn't really matter.
• As you point out the Shrine is not a masonic body albeit using a fairly lax definition of masonic.

ALR (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"If a Grand Lodge for example were to ban all Masons in their jurisdiction from being Shriners the Shriners in that area would in effect immediately lose 100% of their membership."... actually, no. While the Shriners require membership in the Masons as a prerequisite for joining the Shrine, I do not believe they require continued membership in the Masons to remain a Shriner (I know this is a problem in some areas in NY, where men want to join the local lodge in order to qualify for the Shrine... and then, once they are in the Shrine, demit from the lodge). If a Grand Lodge banned membership in the Shrine, it would not mean an instant loss of membership in the Shrine.

I suppose such a ban would mean that many Masons who also belonged to the Shrine would feel that they have to choose which organization they wished to continue with... although I also suppose that many would continue to quietly belong to both organizations, and take the risk of being expelled from the local lodge if their membership in the Shrine was discovered. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Either way the initial fact still stands. Most Grand Lodges which have the Shrine in their jurisdiction, list them as an appendant body. Not everyone has to like the Shrine. I'm not a member myself, nor would I consider them Masonic. But you're simply going to find many more sources that put them under the category of an appendant body. PeRshGo (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(as an aside)... it would be interesting to see which Grand Lodges do consider the Shrine an appendant body, and which do not. I know the Grand Lodge of New York does not (an interesting stance given that the Shrine started in that state)... while we do consider the various York and Scottish Rite bodies to be so. Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] There's 5 with just a very quick look. And though it's a strange source, both my Masonic and my PHP bible list them as appendant. PeRshGo (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... GL BC&Y is an interesting case ... you are correct that they list the Shrine as an appendant body on this page... but on this one they make a point of not listing it as such (and instead, listing it under "Masonic Club"). Curious. Blueboar (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

But the heading is still Appendant and concordant bodies implying that the body is listed is either appendant or concordant. PeRshGo (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well... there is a difference between the term Concordant and the term Appendant. When Freemasons talk about Freemasonry they are referring to the Blue Lodge (or Craft Lodge). The York and Scottish Rites are referred to as "Concordant bodies"... a term that implies a very close relationship (ie these bodies that are in concord with Freemasonry). The Eastern Star, DeMolay, Job's Daughters, Rainbow Girls, etc. are considered "Appendant bodies"... a term that implies a looser connection (these bodies "append" or hang from Freemasonry, but are not in concord with it). The Shriners (and the Grotto) seem to be a half step beyond these... sometimes listed as "appendant" and sometimes not listed as such, depending on who you talk to. These levels of distinction are why preference is to include Scottish and York Rite buildings, but not the Shrine buildings. The connection is closer to Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the Shrine is not concordant, but that's why we have a term like appendant for organizations like The Eastern Star, Rainbow, DeMolay, and The Shrine. They don't follow Freemasonry in any ritual form but as they require Masonic membership, or Masonic relation to join they append from Freemasonry. PeRshGo (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Mostly correct... several of the Appendant bodies have relaxed their membership rules to allow Masonic sponsorship as opposed to Masonic relationship (ie you don't have to be related to a Mason to join, you simply need to be sponsored by one). I don't think it changes your point... and I am not saying that there is no connection between these bodies and Freemasonry... my quibble is where to draw the line when looking at the connection. The Shrine is (in my opinion) too far removed to be included in this list... In my opinion, the York and Scottish rites are not.

From his comments, it seems that ALR takes a narrower view than I do, saying that we should not even include the Concordant bodies, much less the Appendant ones. He feels that this list should be limited to purely Craft Lodge buildings. This reflects his English background. UGLE draws a very sharp line between "Masonry" and "not-Masonry" England does not have the concept of "Concordant" or "Appendant" bodies... and the Grand Lodge officially frowns on these bodies, considering them non-Masonic (although they do officially consider the Holy Royal Arch degree to be cannon). This is something we do need to be aware of... at the moment, this list is currently very US centric in its inclusion scope.

This is what I am talking about when I say that we are basing inclusion on our own POVs and upon OR. It is not surprising that we are having difficulty agreeing on what should and should not be included... because our POVs on the matter are being influenced by where we come from. The simple fact is that something may be considered fully "Masonic" in one place, and absolutely not "Masonic" somewhere else. In a text article we can account for these differences... but when it comes to inclusion in a list we can not (we can not both include and exclude something from a list). Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Cornerstones

A while back, someone suggested that having a Square and Compass on the cornerstone would be an indication that a building was "masonic"... the idea did not gain acceptance, but we did not have a good example to hand to demonstrate why the idea was not valid... now we do... see this. Masonic ceremony at the cornerstone laying... S&C on the cornerstone... but the building itself has nothing to do with Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Claimed as "Masonic"

This is definitely taking the list too far... If we start getting get into "claims" then we will end up including the Skull and Bones building at Yale (since conspiracy fans claim that S&B is "Masonic") and Dan Brown type claims about the Washington Monument and the US Capital building. In the case of the Knox College building that is currently listed in the section, we have already discussed the fact that Dr. Factor does not know what he is talking about (look in the archives)... but to rest my objection upon policy... mentioning Dr. Factor's theory gives undue weight to one author's Fringe opinion as to what constitutes Masonic architecture. Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

All that talk in the publisher's catalog about "alchemical architecture" doesn't really inspire confidence here. I'd love to look at the book for a more detailed view, but they don't carry it in any of the state libraries I have access to. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again with the "principle" that all information in any way related to Masonry must be vetted by an actual Freemason, regardless of the source. Some of the sourced content that I earlier tried to insert in the lead section of the article, but that was expunged, was about the fact that various observers (I'm being vague here because I don't want to dig up sources and names right now) have identified various architectural elements and styles as "Masonic architecture." The fact that Freemasons says there's no such thing as Masonic architecture does not change the fact that both conspiracy theorists and dispassionate observers, claim that there si such as thing. Moreover, I continue to believe that the existence (and prevalence) of this view is one of the several reasons why there is value in a list of Masonic buildings.

I thoroughly agree that conspiracy-theorist views do not belong in this article. However, this content about "Old Main" at Knox College is not from some conspiracy-theorist website or one of Dan Brown's books, but is from the work of a qualified academic whose book was published by a university press. Moreover, I tried to make it clear that the information about the Masonic architecture of the building ("signs of Freemasonry") is not Revealed Truth, but rather is one author's interpretation (an interpretation that has been repeated in numerous media stories and interviews). Admittedly, I may not have worded the description as well as I might have (since this is a list and not an article about the building, I was trying to be brief) -- perhaps someone else has a good idea for alternative wording.

Blueboar's edit summary on removing that section of the article says "removed entry and section as it gives undue weight to a fringe theory." To the contrary, it seems to me that refusing to mention an idea in Wikipedia because Freemasons disagree with it gives undue weight to the opinions of Freemasons. --Orlady (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

AGF, please. As Stephen Colbert once said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias". Just because we disagree with an opinion doesn't necessarily make it wrong. :-) I'm willing to consider that there might be elements in the architecture drawn from Freemasonry, but the alchemical elements mentioned in the publisher's description ain't them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Sarek. I'm afraid I was responding not so much to the comments in this current thread/section as to the weeks of acrimonious discussion that have preceded it, both on this talk page (note that the 4 archives for this page are almost completely filled with less than 4 months of discussions) and on various other talk pages and noticeboards. --Orlady (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't require a vetting by Freemasons... I would accept a vetting by other academic scholars who are knowledgeable on the subject (ie a peer review of some sort). Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

And you appear to contend that only a knowledgable Freemason can evaluate the credentials of scholars to determine whether they are sufficiently knowledgable to be mentioned or cited in Wikipedia articles that relate to Masonic topics? That kind of vetting of sources is not consistent with the principles of Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't contend that at all... there are any number of recognized academic experts on Freemasonry. People who have earned a high reputation and academic credentials studying the fraternity. Have any of them commented on Dr. Factor's theory? Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not aware of the Wikipedia policy that says it is necessary to examine the credentials of a book's author -- or to find favorable reviews of the work in peer-reviewed journals -- before mentioning the book in Wikipedia. Can you direct me to that policy? Regardless, you may be interested in this additional article about the book and its author (from the Peoria, Illinois, newspaper, April 2010: [6] --Orlady (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Factor discovered formulas in the design of Old Main such as the Golden Ratio and the Masonic cubit" -- the Golden ratio has nothing particular to do with Freemasonry, and there's no such thing as a "Masonic cubit", except as defined in the Old Testament. "The octagonal shape of the tower's base is one piece of evidence Factor discovered" -- octagons, again, have nothing to do with Freemasonry. I don't mean that there's some secret I can't tell you about, I mean it ain't there. This is Dan Brown territory.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources for connection to Freemasonry

One of the problems with this article is that we are providing sources for the wrong information. In most (not all) cases, the sources provided for each building show that the building is notable... but that isn't what we need to verify. The notability of the individual buildings is established at the articles on the individual buildings. What we need on this list is something different. What is needed is a source for each building that verifies a) that the building is connected to Freemasonry and b) how it is connected.

To illustrate what I am talking about with another article... take a look at List of Freemasons. At that article, while we do limit the article to notable people, we do not provide sources to show that the people listed are notable (we leave that to the individuals' bio articles)... what we require are sources that verify that the person is/was a Freemason (ie that the notable person belongs on the list). We need the same type of source here. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Enough, Blueboar. If the name of a building is "Masonic Temple", and that's properly sourced, no further sourcing is needed for a connection to Freemasonry. That takes care of about 95% of the list right there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that Sarek. To say that a building is connected to Freemasonry because it has a the word "Masonic" in its name is pure OR. Anyone can build a building and name it "Masonic Temple". Even if it is true that the building is connected to Freemasonry, we still need verification for that fact (WP:V makes it clear... inclusion is based on "Verifiability, not truth").

I am not trying to argue that these buildings are not connected to the Fraternity (in fact, with one or two exceptions, I totally agree that these buildings are connected to the Fraternity and do belong on this list)... All I am saying is that we need reliable sources to verify that connection. That is what WP:V and WP:NOR are all about. I am not "attacking the list"... I am pointing out a flaw with the way the list is currently sourced, in the hope that we can fix the problem and improve the list. Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

East Liverpool, Ohio

Wondering about a recent edit...

• Masonic Temple (East Liverpool, Ohio), built 1916 in Colonial Revival style, NRHP-listed as Godwin-Knowles House

Given that the NRHP lists the building as "Godwin-Knowles House" , I think we should also list it as "Godwin-Knowles House" (and I think the article on the building should be renamed as well). It seems clear that this is the name of the building. I understand that the nomination documents on the entire business district contain references to the "Masonic Temple" and the "Masonic Lodge"... but I think these references are more in the line of descriptions of the building... as opposed being to the name of the building. We should use the name.

As a separate request... does anyone have access to a copy of the documents for the Goodwin-Knowles House itself (as opposed to the documents on the entire business district)... I would like to read them. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no particular knowledge of this building (or of anything else in East Liverpool, Ohio), but I note that the National Register Multi-Property Submission consistently calls it the "Masonic Temple" and never mentions the "Godwin-Knowles" name. However, it does say "The Masonic Lodge was established in the Goodwin residence." --Orlady (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC) User:Nyttend changed the name of the article to "Godwin-Knowles"; maybe he can shed some light on his action. --Orlady (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah... I didn't realize that the article had already been moved to Godwin-Knowles House. That means we were pointing to a redirect. I have amended the entry.

A look at the NRHP nomination docs on the house itself (as opposed to ones focused more broadly on the business district) would probably help clear up the confusion, but until someone can come up with those, I agree that we should ask Nyttend to see what he/she has to say. Blueboar (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I'm a "he" :-) Look at the MPS form, end of page 7 and intro to page 8: the Masons moved in 1910 into the "Goodwin house" (now Godwin-Knowles); this agrees with my print source, which has a section dedicated to the house. As well, the National Register database gives "Godwin-Knowles" as the primary name and "Masonic Temple" as an alternate. You'll find the same thing if you look at the house's Ohio Historical Society profile. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I agree with Blueboar's statement about descriptions: the place isn't generally known as the "Masonic Temple" — you might find references to the "Masonic temple", but the capitalisation is significant; "Masonic Temple" is a building name, while "Masonic temple" is the temple used by the Masons. Other than the MPS form, "Godwin-Knowles" is always either the sole name or the primary name used by all sources that I've seen. Finally, as the only one (presumably) here who's been there, I assure you that "Masonic Temple" isn't visible anywhere; it's not like the one in Bellefontaine, Ohio (sorry, but no picture) or the Scottish Rite Cathedral in New Castle, Pennsylvania (picture), both of which have prominent inscriptions. You can tell from a little paper sign on the front door (dimly visible in my picture) that it's the Masonic temple, but it's significantly more subdued. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nyttend. Blueboar (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

show Masonic names of buildings or not

Blueboar has focused upon fact that several notable Masonic buildings listed here have alternate names, and has edited at least a couple items to show a current Wikipedia article name where that differs from the name that highlights Masonic association. B's view is expressed at my own Talk page i think, and one of B's edit summaries is "Ah... the article is at "Goodwin-Knowels"... so this should be the primary link (and not a redirect).... no problem mentioning that it is also know as the Masonic Temple) ". I don't agree that the current article title needs to dictate what we display as name of place in this list-article. I think that, for this list-article about Masonic buildings, displaying the alternative name such as "Masonic Temple" that highlights the Masonic association is best.

FYI, the National Register's naming guidelines for NRHP-listed places (available within guidebook linked from National Register of Historic Places article) are that nominators should use a descriptive name that is NOT meant necessarily to be the most current name of a building. Instead it is often chosen to be one of the alternative names of a place that is most descriptive, historically. For example, a place known for 100 years as "Masonic Temple" would get that name, even though in a new usage the building might be occupied by some museum now. But, there is no way to discern from just NRIS database information alone, which often provides multiple alternative names, which is which type of name. When multiple alternate names are available, they could be equally suitable. Note Wikipedia article naming policy generally agrees that most common usage is best for article titles; for article titles we do not need to be slaves to whatever is the most recent announcement of a new name by a new owner. I think that is good practice for us to follow the most descriptive name choice here in this list-article too, or to select the alternate name that highlights Masonic association.

This relates (so far) to:

• Masonic Temple (Franklin, Indiana) vs. Johnson County Museum of History
• Masonic Temple (East Liverpool, Ohio) vs. Godwin-Knowles House

Blueboar, could you please pause with making such changes in the list-article? And, please allow a month or two for others to comment and for a consensus to emerge; there should be no urgency with making such changes in the list-article. Further edits that way would seem to me to be just causing unnecessary churning of this list-article.

Brief comments on whether it is better to show might be helpful. I hope there is not going to be endless discussion, but i'd rather for there to be discussion here than churning in the mainspace article. My view is that I would prefer to return the list-article to show the Masonic associated names. --doncram (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I will certainly give people a chance to respond... but I see no justification to slow down (changing two entries over the course of one month is hardly overwhelming other editors). Waiting "a month or two" is extreme. Seriously, would you be willing to wait "a month or two" between each of your edits to this article? Would you think it reasonable for me to request that you limit your editing to adding one building every few months, to ensure that there is a consensus for the addition? If you are going to ask it of me, then I will hold you to the same standard.

As to the issue at hand. I respect that you come to this article from the NRHP project, and so are focused on that aspect of each entry... but I think you are giving too much weight to the "NRHP name". Several Wikipeida policies talk about deferring to the "most commonly used name" for things (as demonstrated in English language sources). Thus, Wikipedia policy indicates that where a building is more commonly called by some other name, we should use that other name in our articles. Very often, the only source to use the "NRHP name" is the NRHP itself (and, as you point out, that "name" is more a description than a "name"). I have no problem using that name when no other name is indicated, but I think we should follow policy when another name is indicated.

From a non-policy view point, I think it is actually helpful to a reader to see the "common name". In most cases these are buildings that either 1) were originally built as non-masonic buildings and renovated by the freemasons for their use, or 2) have subsequently been renovated for other uses (and occasionally both at the same time) Using the more common name highlights this for the reader in a very clear way.

That said, I agree that when we use a more common name, we should then explain to the reader why we have added the building to our list, and I think that a notation that the building is "Listed by the NRHP under Masonic Temple" (or some similar wording) does this. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

A notability question

The Masonic centre in Lewes, Sussex is pretty nondescript but it serves as a meeting place for both UGLE Craft, SGRAC Royal Arch Chapters, other orders and the Sussex Lodge of the Honourable Fraternity of ancient Freemasons, a feminine order.

Any thoughts?

ALR (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Several buildings in masonic shapes in Bath

I'm not sure if this is the place to ask, but can any of the experts here prove or disprove claims about John Wood, the Elder and his design for several streets and buildings in Bath, Somerset? The claims include: "When viewed from the air, the Circus, along with Queens Square and the adjoining Gay Street, form a key shape, which is a masonic symbol similar to those that adorn many of Wood's buildings." on The Circus (Bath). The fullest description and only reference is on Wood's article.— Rod ^talk 10:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Its likely just coincidence. You can, if you use your imagination, find "symbols" in the street plans of most major cities... that does not mean they were put there on purpose. Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Church of St Edmund

I really think we are over the line of reasonableness here... its a Church for goodness sakes... not a "Masonic building". Blueboar (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest doing some research before making that call, Blueboar. http://www.philipcoppens.com/stedmunds.html --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This is why I raise it on the talk page instead of challenging it in article space. Thanks for finding that link... I still have a problem calling it a "masonic building" but I better understand why others might do so. Blueboar (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Another link I found said that it was upgraded from Grade II to Grade I because it was unusual to have Masonic architecture on a church. http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/47497/grade-one-listing-for-rochdale-church --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I added that church to the list after seeing a hook suggestion on Template talk:DYK (and reading the newly created article about it). The suggested hook is "...that the Church of St Edmund in Rochdale is unique among English churches for its overt Masonic symbolism?". Being well aware of the sensitivities that some editors have regarding these topics, I looked at the article and concluded that there are solid reasons for calling this a Masonic building. Namely, a devoted Freemason commissioned a church building that is deliberately and overtly designed to incorporate Masonic symbolism.

As an aside: The Freemasons among us have been consistent about removing citations to sources that assert the existence of "Masonic architecture" or that suggest that certain buildings were built according to the principles of Masonic architecture or incorporated Masonic symbolism in their design, but the existence of (and thorough documentation of) buildings such as this one does suggest that "Masonic architecture" is a legitimate topic, regardless of whether it is part of the accepted canon of Freemasonry. --Orlady (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Buildings like this, that incorporate obvious Masonic symbols like the Square and Compasses, I'm less likely to quibble with. Buildings like the hall in front of which Lincoln spoke, which use other symbols, for which the claim to "Masonic architecture" rests primarily with a single author ala Dan Brown, I'm going to keep questioning. :-) Even with this one -- there's an assertion that it's built on the plan of a cube in one of the articles, which I find less-than-convincing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me, and I don't wanna participate in a long discussion, but Rosslyn Chapel should be listed in the Scotland section. IMO, that is, with properly worded characterization of Masonic association that is at least "romantically" perceived. This is probably the building that more readers would know of as having some Masonic association, than any other. Mention of it could possibly be set off in a separate small paragraph in the Scotland section or in the lede of the article. --doncram (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'm not keen on including it, but there is plenty of other questionable material in the list. I'd prefer to see something significantly more authoritative and reliable attributing an association, particularly as much of the decoration discussed isn't uniquely masonic. There is also an issue inasmuch as most of the underlying article is a copyvio.

Similarly Rosslyn, whilst it has plenty of decoration, some of which is masonic, there is nothing authoritative that attributes it.

I guess we could caveat the descriptions to say that someone claims....

ALR (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering that Wikipedia's criterion for acceptability of content is verifiability and not something like "acceptance by recognized experts", I contend that this list should include buildings that credible reliable sources have identified or characterized as being Masonic in their design. I would not include Dan Brown, anti-Masonic conspiracy theorists, or their ilk as "credible reliable sources." Accordingly, I don't believe that Rosslyn Chapel belongs on the list. However, when "Masonic design" is attributed and documented by sane and sober folks such as historians of art or architecture, historic preservation specialists, museum curators, or a retired professor of philosophy whose findings are in a book published by a reputable academic publishing house, I contend that Wikipedia should report that information. Obviously, Wikipedia should not describe someone's hypothesis as if it were Factual Truth, but should describe it as what it is. However, the types of sources I described also should not be dismissed pejoratively as "claims." --Orlady (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Merely my view, but I recognise that I have a different standard for what constitutes credible, what I'm describing as authoritative, and reliable than others. Where an author doesn't have clearly attributable domain expertise I'd also expect some corroboration of what they're saying.

I'd disagree that saying that someone claims is pejorative when someones claims aren't corroborated. It's an individual view, and should be represented as such.

ALR (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You might want to be careful using "claims" around Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch)#Synonyms for said. That guideline page has some wise advice about choice of words in this type of context:

To write that someone noted, observed, insisted, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable. To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence.

--Orlady (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed wise advice... however there are situations where words like "claim" are accurate and appropriate. Note that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch)#Synonyms for said does not ban the use such words... it merely says we should used extra care when using them. I do think ALR has a point here. When it comes to Roslyn, a lot of what has been written is based on speculation and conjecture. Blueboar (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If you will re-read my comment, I am in no way suggesting that Rosslyn should be treated as anything more than speculation and conjecture. --Orlady (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Understood... I am just agreeing with ALR in that some of the speculation and conjecture about Roslyn merits the use of the pejorative word "claims"... that's all. It depends on which speculations and conjectures we are talking about (it's an application of WP:Due weight... we don't treat all views with the same weight, and we call fringe ideas "fringe", etc.). Obviously, since I don't know what you would want to include, I can not say what term is best to use for the specific material you are thinking about. Blueboar (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion

First... this is not "yet another rant complaining about the list"... It is intended to be a good faith suggestion on how to improve it. Please assume good faith...

A while back, it was suggested (I don't remember who suggested it... it wasn't me) that we restructure the list to a chart format, instead of a bullet pointed format. This suggestion got lost in other disputes. I would like us to re-visit that suggestion. I think it is a good idea, especially as it could resolve one of my issues with the list. Our inclusion criteria is based on there being some sort of association between the building and Freemasonry. However, currently, none of the entries mention what that association is. In a chart format, this could be done... we could include a column where we briefly state what that association is. For those buildings that were purpose built for masonic use, we could note this... buildings purchased and converted to lodge use could be noted as such... buildings that had a historical association could be noted as such. And, for buildings that have some other association with Freemasonry (such as Roslyn Chapel), we would have a place to go into some detail as to what that association is. Your thoughts on this would be appreciated. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Already discussed, including specific table format having been composed and suggested by editor User:Balloonman on 27 August 2010, archived at Talk:List of Masonic buildings/Archive 4#Notice of discussion at WT:N. Blueboar fundamentally opposed at that time, choosing then to continue to dispute notability of the list-article overall. Same idea also discussed within Talk:List of Masonic buildings/Archive 4#Rename?, within which discussion Blueboar then suggested a merged table involving notable buildings of Odd Fellows and other social fraternities as well. Blueboar is further aware of multiple separate table-ized list-articles at List of Odd Fellows buildings and others linked in "See also" of this Masonic buildings list-article, that i have developed recently (with significant contributions by other editors of photos and otherwise). A while back i estimated there were more than 600 buildings to be covered in such list-articles, and the development of the separate other list-articles makes it clear, I think, that a single combo table is not feasible.

That was background. I don't see any particular need to discuss anything. Productive editors might or choose to develop a table here, at any time; it is an obvious possibility. Blueboar's indication or not of Blueboar's intent to discuss and possibly dispute every aspect of such development could conceivably be a factor in their choosing to proceed, I concede. I myself, if I wanted to develop a table here, would just proceed and do it; I would not want to participate in extended discussion. --doncram (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That mischaracterizes my comments ... I did not "fundamentally oppose at that time". In fact I said it was a nicer format (but did not address the issue that we were discussing at that time)... but even if it were an accurate summary of my views, people are allowed to change their minds... But that is past history. It is time to focus on the future. I don't think it would be a good idea for me to simply go ahead and change the format... I would like to get input from others before I make significant changes to the article. Blueboar (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

To give people a very preliminary idea of what I am suggesting, I have created a mock up in my user space... please see: User:Blueboar/drafts. Please swing by and comment. Blueboar (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe we can move from here to commenting on the proposal as it currently stands, regardless of what anyone perceives as anyone else's previous opinions on the matter? Probably more constructive that way. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 03:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, given the lack of reply for or against, I will hold off on this for a while (I will continue to work on it in my user space... please swing by and comment). We can revisit the proposal later. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Why wait? Creating a table a la the Odd Fellows list is a good idea. clariosophic (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Blueboar's proposed chart is also good, but I would suggest limiting to the US which would free up space for street addresses and coordinates. Notes in the Association with Freemasonry column could be edited to be more succinct. The rest of the world could be be a separate chart or charts. I am commenting here rather than on his talk page. clariosophic (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A la the Odd Fellows list would be one thing, which is organized differently and includes/calls for different information. The columns suggested for the draft would seem to me to elevate the importance of non-encyclopedic info that has already been discussed many times over here. Also they seem to suggest an obsession with issues of notability, that has cost >500,000 bytes of Talk here and 1,000,000 or more in associated discussions, which is not IMO appropriate to reflect in an actual mainspace article for readers. I can imagine lots of conflict coming up.

Also, a table here should be a summary of info in the articles. Given vast contention here, if a table were to be developed here, I would ask for ground rules here that no info should be added to a table here, that is not already reflected in corresponding articles. That way, the likely back-and-forth bitter arguing about specific facts of places, and whether info is encyclopedic or directory-like, etc. would be kept with the individual articles, informing future editors and avoiding duplicative overhead costs of our attention here.

I personally would prefer not to see the vast contention here expanded, so would prefer to leave any table development until some time later, when pics and sources will have gradually accumulated at the individual articles. Or at least I would prefer to see any table development led by editor(s) not highly involved in past contention. --doncram (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Doncram. (Freemasonry editors may not recognize how momentous an occasion it is when Doncram and I agree.)

It would appear, on its face, that the only issue here is whether or not to reformat the list as a table. However, because creation of a table can make subsequent reorganizations and rearrangements far more difficult, it is not something to be undertaken in haste. As long as there are significant differences of opinion regarding what kind of information this list should include (which still seems to be the case here), I think that creation of a table is premature.

Additionally, I disagree with the idea of "Notability" and "Association with Freemasonry" being column headings for the table. Those column headings would have the effect of memorializing some of the long and contentious discussions that have occurred regarding this list -- by documenting the factors that certain editors consider important determinants of whether the list belongs in Wikipedia, while effectively excluding some of the types of descriptive information that an encyclopedic list ought to include. --Orlady (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, do you have a better suggestion on how to verify for the reader that the buildings were "constructed by Masonic bodies for Masonic purposes or [has] some other strong association with Freemasonry" as the first sentence indicates? I figured a column was the best way to achieve that, but I am open to suggestions. Blueboar (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I appreciate that you meant to be constructive by this discussion about your idea, and that you allude to what readers want in your comment here. But, your idea seems to at least two editors to be more suited to serving your own personal need/wish for continued debate about inclusion criteria for this list-article and whether items meet it, rather than serving readers. You are free to develop a table in your userspace devoted to addressing your personal need for closure on the inclusion issues, where you can record encyclopedic and non-encyclopedic factoids for your own consideration, and even to ask others to help you there (though few would be likely to). Or to further debate on inclusion here (which i think few / no one wants to pursue currently / I definitely do not), you could develop that table in a subpage of this Talk page. But, that's not appropriate for mainspace. Also, you are free to do research about individual Masonic buildings and to develop their articles, where mention of whether a Masonic lodge meets there can sometimes be appropriate. --doncram (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Some ideas. Notability should have been already determined when an individual article was created. Let's stop trying to do it here. The right hand column should simply be called Notes or Description and list such things as style of architecture. If the Masonic connection is not evident from the name, as in Johnson County Museum of History, the Notes section should say that it was built as a Masonic temple and served as such until 1987. Why wait for pictures? Do the table and the pictures will come. Let's work together for a better list and stop all this contention and nonsense.clariosophic (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Clariosophic. I think it will be less disruptive to this page if we work on the chart at my user page (you are welcome to edit it) and then substitute it for the current format when we are done.... that way Doncram and others can continue to improve the article while we work on the chart. Blueboar (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It should be done in the main article with input from all interested parties. Otherwise it won't fly. The US needs to be separate so it is sortable by states, with a column for addresses and coordinates. The other countries can be together in a separate list, or lists depending on the volume of entries. The notes should be broader but less detailed. The details should be for the article itself. Best wishes. clariosophic (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

OK... following Clariosphic's suggestions, I have worked up a chart version for the buildings outside the US and added it to the page so we can all work on it. What I would suggest is that we iron out any concerns and tinker with what information is presented using this smaller sample set... and then move on to transitioning the US buildings when we are all happy with the format. Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the new chart format, and my initial reaction is "Yuck!" First off, the division between "outside the United States" and "United States" is not exactly a sound basis for the organization of information. Secondly, I can't figure out how the table is sorted. It appears to be by "country," except that England and Scotland apparently are sorted according to "United Kingdom", which name does not appear in the table. Thirdly, there may be some legitimate contention as to whether Bermuda, England and Scotland deserve to be identified in the table as "countries" and whether Hong Kong should be identified as a city in China. Fourthly, I would not expect to find entries like "London", "Karachi," "Sunderland", "Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Canary Islands," and "Montreal, Quebec" under the heading "Town, State". Most of these are cities (not towns), most of the entries identify only a city and not also a "state," and none of the entities listed as "states" actually are called "state."

It does look nice, but it's back to the drawingboard with this, please. (I will revert the edit after posting this comment, unless things have changed signficantly since I started writing.) --Orlady (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem with the revert... I put the change on the page in response to Clariosophic's comments that we should work on it at the main article, and not at my user draft page. I did not intend the change to be even close to a finished product... merely a beginning... something for everyone to work on. But if people would prefer to work on it (and get it at least closer to a finished product) at my user page, however, I am amenable.

I agree that we need to make the list sortable (I think that is a simple fix, but I am not sure how to do it)... and I am very open to ideas on how best to organize the town/city, state, country stuff (I was thinking in terms of the US when I titled the columns... and agree that it does not quite translate to other countries). Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

About two requirements: 1) No iota of information added to this list-article that is not supported by an inline citation survives, and at this point given the contention about everything here, I agree, none should. Your putting into table format does not allow you to get around that. If you add the table again and there is one iota in it not supported by an inline citation, I will expect to revert the table as a whole, if someone else doesn't first. You can easily choose to add the inline citations in your work area, to avoid contention about that here. If you don't have a source for a descriptive comment, you should delete the comment yourself, and not foist the issue upon the list-article editors here. 2) Also, I believe that every point about a specific place in this list-article should be developed first in its corresponding article, often in more depth. The list-article should mostly be a summary, somewhat selective, about material in individual articles. Could you please develop the table and/or the corresponding articles to avoid bringing in new information into the list-article alone. I believe you've stated that you believe information should be in both, so you should be able to see your way to meeting that requirement, on your own, without forcing additional contention here on this point. On this point, I do recognize my view is a subjective judgment about what is best, based on my experience with many list-articles. If you want to battle about this subjective judgment, about whether it is a reasonable requirement, by all means say so. I will argue that past contention hugely justifies it as a requirement, and non-mention of such points in individual articles is a pretty good indicator of non-encyclopedic nature of an assertion. If your goal is to develop a table and not to battle about this subjective judgment, you can just make the corresponding articles and the list-table comply with the requirement. If your goal is contention, go ahead as you usually have in the past. --doncram (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think that the appearance and usability of the list is much better using this type of presentation. The addition of a notes section allows us to be clear about why an inclusion has been made, informing the reader about the editors rationale, and allowing an explanation for the inevitable WTF moments that an informed reader will experience. I do share some concerns about organisation. Part of that is driven by the inevitable US-centricity that's present in Wikipedia as a whole and very clear in this article.

The US entries are broadly listed by GL jurisdiction, inasmuch as GLs have a state-wide span of responsibility even where there are both original and Prince Hall GLs, and when irregular and unrecognised organisations are present. It's probably a little less clear where there are organisations that aren't Masonic being listed but there aren't many of them and not enough to justify coming up with an alternative approach for them.

Moving to the rest of the world a GL approach could work, but there would be some oddities. As an example the two buildings in Pakistan would be listed under UGLE, as they were used by English lodges. The other aspect would be buildings used by lodges from multiple jurisdictions. That would predominantly apply to former colonies where English, Irish, Scottish, Portugese, Dutch and French lodges potentially shared, or share, a building. The building in Valetta in Malta is a good example, used by Scottish and English, similarly some of the buildings in India were used by English, Irish, Scottish and Portugese lodges. One already in the list is Zetland Hall, in Hong Kong.

There are different ways to cut it up, each have benefits and disbenefits around supporting the reader. My preference would be by country, although clearly that means that the US would need embedded in order, rather than being treated as a special case. It would, however, dominate the list.

And a point of detail for Orlady. England and Scotland are different countries, personally I'm a Scot, living in England. HMQEII is monarch of England and Scotland simultaneously.

ALR (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think most people coming to the page would expect it to be organized primarily by geography. I was thinking that we might "hard sort" by continent (ie create a separate section/sub-list for each continent, which would allow for growth as more entires are added), and then have a sortable columns for "country", "state/province/other regional entity" and "city/town" within each sub-list. I will tinker some more at my user page (feel free to swing by and assist). Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I would opt for hard sorting by continent. My suggestion for doing the table in the main article assumed it would be done on the talk page first, then transferred to the main page. I personally do not care to edit in an another editor's sandbox. Again let's try to work together. clariosophic (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)