Talk:Pythagoras Lodge No. 41, Free and Accepted Masons

Request for photos

I removed the request for photographs, because some have been taken.

• 
• 
• 
• 

--holizz (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but they should be in the article! I am copying the gallery to the article, now.  :) --doncram 20:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC - What is the scope of this article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What is the scope of this article. Is it about the building, the lodge, or both? This relates to a dispute over appropriate categorization. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC) RFC request removed, pending collection of a relevant source. (removal of RFC was cancelled; RFC goes on) --doncram 22:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Building - My opinion is that the article is about the building. The building is notable (listed on the NRHP database)... the lodge is not notable (I can find no sources that discuss it in any detail). Blueboar (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I suggest you collect the NRHP nomination document about the Lodge. Follow instructions at wp:NRHPhelp to email a request for the document. Assuming it is like other NRHP documents, it will itself document the Lodge and some of its activities, and it will also cite other sources which could be consulted. Your failing to find online sources in a quick search is not serious evidence that hardcopy sources do not exist, in plenty. --doncram 21:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me ask... have YOU seen the nomination document? If not, then it is your responsibility to obtain and read it, since you are the one who says it contains enough information on the lodge to establish notability (see: WP:BURDEN). That said, I have read enough other NRHP nominations on other Masonic buildings to know that they often contain only a few sentences on the lodge and its activities... certainly not enough to establish that the lodge is notable. That's enough for me to question you on this one. I am certainly not going to accept your assumption that it might say something about the lodge. I want your assurance that you have actually read it, and can summarize what it says. Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I am putting in a request for the document. I removed the RFC template above, trying to head off the general call for many Wikipedia editors to consider this, given that basic work -- which I think you should have done -- was not completed before calling for attention. Hopefully the RFC can be cancelled / postponed. If you wish to force the RFC in the absence of basic info that could resolve the content question, well, that would seem to be battling for the sake of battling.

Anyhow, I'll return to comment here after I have collected that document. --doncram 22:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It is considered disruptive to delete an RfC tag after the RfC has stared. I have known people to be blocked for stuff like that. I have returned it... Let's hear from others. Blueboar (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Both, obviously. The title of the article is Pythagoras Lodge No. 41, Free and Accepted Masons, which refers to a Masonic lodge chapter/group and which also refers to a historic building. The building's notability is established by it being NRHP-listed. Assuming it is like many other NRHP listings, the building is deemed to be NRHP-notable largely because of its history--it being an artifact of the Lodge and the Lodge's influence in its community. There is no separating the two. It is one article on both. This is just like many thousands of Wikipedia articles about churches which cover both the congregation/group and any building(s) of the same name. There is no need to imply that the Lodge group should have a separate article. The Lodge is clearly notable for the fact that it has a NRHP-listing of its building, commemorating the Lodge and its activities. --doncram 21:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that an article title can refer to two things (a building and an organization) does not mean an article by that title is about both topics. Normally, if both topics are notable, we would have two separate articles, and use disambiguation to distinguish between them. That is not needed in this case since the lodge isn't notable. There are no sources that discuss the lodge beyond a passing reference. Your argument that the lodge should be considered notable because it happens to own a historic building does not hold water... notability is not inherited. Blueboar (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Both - even if the lodge organization itself is not notable enough to have its own article, it can be included here. BB seems to be arguing that the building itself and the organization itself must both be notable enough to have their own articles to be included here, in which case the articles must be separated. Odd Catch 22 there. We do have articles with related stories included that are notable enough to have their own articles, and we also have articles with related stories that are not notable enough for their own articles. Either way there is no Catch 22, and article is allowed to include related stories, period. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Both Articles on buildings should include coverage of and categorisation for the entities that occupied those buildings. Look at churches, for example — they routinely cover the congregation when the building is the primary reason for notability, and they routinely cover the building when the congregation is the primary reason for notability. Having two separate articles in this situation would be absurd: they'd overlap to a massive extent, both making maintenance difficult for editors and making information less accessible for readers. Look at Immaculate Conception Catholic Church (Celina, Ohio), for example; both get mentioned extensively in the article, which is categorised for both, and there's enough coverage to demonstrate notability for both congregation and building, but nobody's called for them to be split because they're so closely related and because the article isn't too long. The same should be done with this Masonic lodge: cover both in the same article (and categorise both ways) until/unless it becomes too long for a single article. Nyttend (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Question... Is every article on a notable building also an article about the people who built and/or lived in it? Is our article on 75 Murray Street in NYC also an article about the glassware makers Francis and John Hopkins (and should it therefore be categorized under Category:Glassblowers)? .... is our article on William Goadby Loew House also an article about the William Goadby Loew (and thus categorized with Category:Stockbrokers)? Obviously they are not... so why not? What is the distinction?

• Both - a building has a history and one or more functions, so a reasonably complete article should include information on the physical structure of the building as well as its uses and occupants over the years. See for example two Featured Articles on houses on the NRHP: Joseph Priestley House (a NHL) and Clemuel Ricketts Mansion (NRHP). The Priestley House has some material on Joseph Priestley when he lived there, but there is much more in the FA Joseph Priestley (and I now see some recent additions to the house article that will need to be pruned back). The Ricketts Mansion has material on its inhabitants over the years, and one of them, R. Bruce Ricketts is notable enough to have his own article. Neither house has any categories that apply to their former inhabitants. Thanks for a good question, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Important CLARIFICATION... I think people are misunderstanding the issue here. Of course it is appropriate for an article about a building to spend some time discuss the building's history, and to mention the people/organizations that occupied it. But we still keep a distinction between the people and the house. We present the discussion of on the people in context. Our article on Joseph Priestley House discusses Priestly, but the topic of the article is still the house and not the scientist. It isn't an article about Priestly... it's an article about a house. We would not include the Joseph Priestley House article in Category:18th-century scientists... because the house was not a scientist. Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, the RFC topic is an article that is ambiguously named, that is the name of a group and of its historic building. Like churches are ambiguously named. It is more obvious in these cases that the article should be about both, and that categories of both types should be used. For article pairings like the Priestley House and the Joseph Priestley article, it seems obvious that the separate categories should be used just in the separate articles. Where there is one combined article but it is named for just one type, I'd say it is not obvious what categories should be used (but that would be a different RFC). The explicit subject of this RFC, and all of the other Masonic Lodge articles whose categories were recently edited by BB, are all of the ambiguously named type. Every commenter besides BB above is clear that the article should be about both, and it is obvious that both types of categories should be used for all of these articles named "X Masonic Lodge" and similarly. Nobody has misunderstood anything. Hope this helps. --doncram 17:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this does stem from ambiguity over the word "lodge"... so perhaps some disambiguation would help. What if we moved the article title to one of the alternative names that the article mentions: Pythagoras Masonic Temple or Decator Masonic Temple? Then we would no longer have confusion between topics. Blueboar (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I am sorry I used the term "ambiguous", because you are taking that to mean a mistake has been made which should be solved by disambiguation. I do not agree. Perhaps I should have used "dual" or another term. These are articles on dual topics that generally should not be split. The building is likely notable because of its historic importance as location of a community-important organization; the organization was likely important in part due to its effectiveness and prominence from having a named building. The building is testament to the financial and other success/effectiveness of the organization. There is no value in splitting the dual topic. I suppose one could cut them apart and kill them separately, but, better would be to develop both parts in one article.

Likewise, you could suggest splitting every church article of type "Y Church" into "Y Church building" and "Y Church (congregation)" and then advocate deleting both at AFDs or at least stripping each down to be a meaningless, artificially limited treatment. Why do that???? This would be taking development of wikipedia backward. --doncram 00:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You are assuming facts not in evidence, Doncram... without actually seeing the NRHP nomination docs, you have no idea whether the building is notable "because of its historic importance as a location of a community-important organization". It's notability could well rest mostly on being a stunning example of Beaux-Arts architecture... or because it was designed by a particular architect... or because of a specific event that happened there. You assume the lodge is "important"... but you can not present any hard evidence to support that assumption. If the lodge is actually as important as you think, surely it would be discussed in some depth by local history books and other reliable sources. I have yet to see a single one. There are sources that discuss the building... but there are no sources that discuss the Lodge. I don't mind mentioning the lodge in the article, but to place it on equal footing with the notable building gives the lodge UNDUE weight. Blueboar (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

If there were a better developed article here, it might be easier to decide what categories to include the article in (instead of debating what categories other articles could be included in). If the final article is mostly on the building with a small amount of material on the Masons who use(d?) it, then I have no trouble with only building categories. If the article is roughly half and half on the structure and the Masons, then it might make more sense to include categories on the Masons as well. If the article winds up being mostly on the Masons, then the title and cats might focus mostly on the people, with a little coverage of the structure. As it is, debating this stub without the NRHP form is mostly a waste of time. It may be that the scope of the article is determined ultimately by the sources available - if the sources are mostly on the building the article will look much different than if the sources are mostly about the Masons themselves. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I did a search on NPS Focus. This property was listed under Criteria A and C (Event and Architecture) The subtopic for Event is "Social History" and the subtopic for Architecture is "Beaux Arts". Social History is defined as: The history of efforts to promote the welfare of society; the history of society and the lifeways of its social groups (source is National Register Bulletin 16A). IMO, then, the history of the Masons in Decatur and how they contributed to the local welfare. Of course, this would have been easier with the nomination documents. Einbierbitte (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Call for closure of the RFC. I tried to close/cancel this RFC once (because I thought that it was premature, that getting an available source would help, but was over-ruled. Thank you to those who commented, this does seem to be helpful after all. But, as seemingly acknowledged in next discussion section, the outcome of the RFC is now clear. --doncram 21:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Building Only for reasons which should be obvious and need no repeating by me. RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 23:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Based on sources, this article should be about nothing. All we know about the building is that it's on the NRHP. That's it. We also know it's not commonly called the "Pythagoras Lodge No. 41" building, so it and its Lodge are separate items. We additionally know nothing about the lodge. So what have we got for an article? A reference to NRHP that the article creator hasn't even read by his own admission? This is why I have a problem with hard and fast notability guidelines - why even bother having a stub that no one can source any information on just because the name appears in a registry? Google doesn't return a thing of use; even their website is dead. MSJapan (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the building is commonly called... but according to the cornerstone on the actual building (see: here) the official name is "Pythagoras Masonic Temple" (note a metal sign at the back of the building (seen here) seems to support this usage, calling it the "Pythagoras Masonic Temple Building" (with the word "Building" included). Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Both: A complete article on the subject should cover both building and lodge; even the title and lead sentence suggest so. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC followup question

While the RFC above is not over, it does look like consensus is heading towards saying that the article should be about both the building and the local chapter of the Masons that meet in it ... so let me ask a (perhaps premature) follow up question... if consensus is indeed that the topic of the article should be both, how much WEIGHT should the article give to each? Blueboar (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

What do the sources look like? I imagine that the scope of the article will be determined ultimately by the sources available - if the sources are mostly on the building the article will look much different than if the sources are mostly about the Masons themselves. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ruhrfisch. Yes, it depends on the sources, and honestly to some extent on the interest of the editor working from sources. It is not helpful to keep discussing a minimal article in the absence of sources. In the article, i just now reverted a BB edit that was trying an effective split of the article, i.e. by dividing it into sections. There is not enough material to divide into sections. If you are interested in developing the article, please earn that right by getting a darn source and working from that. Then, to some extent, you should be deferred to, in terms of your following your own interests, if you are doing the work. It does not help to keep posing questions for lots of other Wikipedia editors to consider, when there is really nothing much to discuss, hardly any content available. I do appreciate your good intentions, though.

About the RFC, if you accept the apparent consensus I think you could close the RFC, and that would be an assistance to the Wikipedia community. I don't think more input is needed. --doncram 21:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I would get the NRHP nomination form (which can be obtained at no cost via mail even if it is not online yet). I would also try to see if I could get access to the 1969 history of the lodge which Google books lists and WorldCat says that UGA in Atlanta has a copy of - see here. I would also see if there are histories of Decatur, GA and of Freemasonry in Georgia / the South that mention this lodge and its building. Access to the local newspaper would be great and my guess is that the lodge itself may have some of these sources. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Although, to be fair, it should be about editor interest, too. I've written plenty of articles about churches and lodges that include information on both the building and the organization. However, I've structured them to be primarily about the building, with organizational history added as context - mostly because I'm not all that interested in the organization. Other people might have other interests. Compare for example, the current state of Central United Methodist Church (Detroit, Michigan) with my original 2008 artice. Different weights, but neither is inappropriate. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes... it does depend on what the sources say. That's the problem with this article in a nutshell... so far, we don't have one single source that says one single word about the lodge. Without a source, what justification do we have in giving any weight to the lodge? Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

None. RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 21:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps move the title?

As noted above... the official name of the building as carved on the corner of the building is "Pythagoras Masonic Temple" (see the left most picture in the gallery posted in the article). I am tempted to file a Move Request to this title... but I suspect that this would be seen as being disruptive without some preliminary discussion. So let's discuss. Blueboar (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

No preliminary discussion? Then can I assume no one minds if I go forward and actually file the request? Blueboar (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I do object. You went ahead and opened a Requested Move section below already. But there is an open RFC calling for attention of the Wikipedia community, and the sense of that RFC is for the article to continue to be about both the historic lodge group and about its historic building. A requested move, to be just about the building, is contradicted by the RFC. You have already asked for community input. It is not good for Wikipedia for the community to be consulted again and again and again and again on the same issue. Even the RFC was premature: as I and others have suggested, it would have been better to get the stupid documents available, first. Give it up, really, please! --doncram 15:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I did wait more than a full week between asking and filing the RM... you could have objected earlier. Oh, well... too late now. Blueboar (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. When we combine the opinions expressed in the above RfC with those in this move discussion, we don't see a clear decision. According the apparent result of the RfC, the article should be about *both* the organization and the building. If this move goes ahead, the article will be about the building. This decision might be revisited if anyone can obtain the nomination form from the NRHP and see if it bears on notability. If there is a new move proposal a more specific title might be considered, at least mentioning Georgia. There are several Pythagoras Masonic Temples in the world although this is the only one for which we currently have an article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Pythagoras Lodge No. 41, Free and Accepted Masons → Pythagoras Masonic Temple – The current title is the name of the local chapter of the Freemasons who meet in the building. The proposed title is the actual name of the building itself, as it appears on the cornerstone (see: this picture)... and on more modern signage (seen partially here). The building is owned and managed by the Pythagoras Masonic Temple Association. Relisted. BDD (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, for reasons discussed in RFC and for common sense. Note:

1. . The article is about the Masonic Lodge group and about the building both having the same name, per RFC opened by Blueboar above, and it would be wrong to split the article and move just material about the building alone. Is this a proposal to split the article or to delete the information about the group? The National Register nomination document--which is available for free and BB was advised to obtain--makes it clear that the listing is for the social history / community involvement of the Masonic lodge group, which is covered in the article already and can be developed more, as well as being for the architecture of the building. Even the architecture of the building is bound up in it being a product of, and home of, the Masonic lodge. Eliminating the lodge group from the article or splitting the article into two would be unreasonable.
2. . A name carved into a building is not the only name the building can be called; a name carved is suggestive, yes, but does not establish that it is the common name now or the common name in the long sweep of history of a historic building.
3. . The name of the building used for listing on the National Register is "Pythagoras Lodge No. 41, Free and Accepted Masons". Any different name carved into the building was considered and rejected as an alternative, by professionals writing and reviewing and approving the NRHP nomination. The name of the building according to one of Blueboar's links here is the same, quoting: "The Pythagoras Lodge No. 41, Free and Accepted Masons, is otherwise known as the Decatur Masonic Temple and Pythagoras Masonic Temple. This building was built in 1982 and acted as a clubhouse for members....". The National Register listing is why we know the building is notable, why there is a Wikipedia article. We can use that name, and I believe it is best.

This requested move is inappropriate, given the open RFC and previous discussion. BB did ask for input about opening this RM in a discussion section above, and received no support. I didn't comment there myself, not wanting to state the obvious more times than necessary. BB, please stop with opening discussion section after discussion section. It has already been discussed enough. --doncram 15:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

To be clear... Doncram is noting that this website includes text that (at first glance) seems to support the current title... until you realize that the text is simply a mirror of the the text of this Wikipedia Article (compare with this version of the article). (note... I linked that website because it contained a picture of the signage... It would not be a reliable source for it's text... I was simply showing that the building's management calls their building "Pythagoras Masonic Temple").

As for the argument that the NRHP in some way "rejected" the name... perhaps... but we are free to "reject" the NRHP's decision if we want. I would argue that the NRHP's name for the building is inaccurate, and would be less recognizable than the name carved into the side of the building. Blueboar (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the photos you point to, one is modern signage, cut off for all-caps "PYTHAG MASO TEMP BUILD", which seems not convincing, and not part of the building itself. And the other photo documents that there is a plaque on the building labelling it as "Pythagoras Lodge No. 41, F&A M" (with other stuff below, i guess including your prefered name). The photos are relevant, sure, but they do document that "Pythagoras Lodge No. 41, Free & Accepted Masons", as in the NRHP name, is a valid name for the building itself, and it remains a good name for the combined article about the lodge and the building. I'll try not to respond much further. --doncram 23:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Support Blueboar is perfectly correct. The lodge and the building should not be synonymous. The article states that the building contains the Pythagoras group, whatever that is - probably the appendant bodies associated with the blue lodge. The building is strictly a masonic temple, which may in the future be sold, or shared with other lodges. The association with a single lodge is simply wrong. If Pythagoras disappears or shares, the building will always be the Pythagoras temple. If Pythagoras move, they will still be lodge 41, but somewhere else. Logically, we should prefer the less specific form. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe some of what i wrote in the article is not phrased perfectly for Masons among us. But, the association is documented, and it is the name of the building and it is the name of the group....less specific to be prefered why? Whatever. --doncram 01:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Support proposed move. The article topic is the building (the lodge does not seem to be independently notable, so the lodge should not be treated as the topic of the article) and it's well-established that "Pythagoras Masonic Temple" is the name of the building. --Orlady (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.