Talk:List of Masonic buildings: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →

Active Banana (talk | contribs)

2 user groups
34,487 edits
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 282: Line 282:
::As far as [[Masonic Temple]] is concerned... it isn't so cut and dried as Doncram makes out... there were actually two almost simultanious AdD discussions on that article... [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Temple|this one]] that resulted in a "Delete" decision... and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Temple (2nd nomination)|this one]] that was a Keep. It seems that someone convinced the closer of the first AfD that I must not have been telling the truth when I said that I had actually looked for sources and could not find any, and that I lied when I had actually read the sources suggested for that topic and found that they did not support the article. I note that no one !voting keep on either of those AfDs has edited that article to include one single sentence that is supported by a citation from those suggested sources since the AfD.
::As far as [[Masonic Temple]] is concerned... it isn't so cut and dried as Doncram makes out... there were actually two almost simultanious AdD discussions on that article... [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Temple|this one]] that resulted in a "Delete" decision... and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Temple (2nd nomination)|this one]] that was a Keep. It seems that someone convinced the closer of the first AfD that I must not have been telling the truth when I said that I had actually looked for sources and could not find any, and that I lied when I had actually read the sources suggested for that topic and found that they did not support the article. I note that no one !voting keep on either of those AfDs has edited that article to include one single sentence that is supported by a citation from those suggested sources since the AfD.
::As for Delaware building... "...appears to be the most important Masonic-associated building in the state"... No... it is one of the most important Arts related buildings in the state and happens to have a not so important former association with Freemasonry. The building is important, yes... but you ignore the issue of ''why'' it is important. It is important because of its connection to the performing arts, not its connection to Freemasonry.... The nomination documents devote several paragraphs to its importance to the performing arts... and toss in the Masonic connection in one sentence at the end. In other words... the Masonic connection isn't why the building is considered notable. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 21:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
::As for Delaware building... "...appears to be the most important Masonic-associated building in the state"... No... it is one of the most important Arts related buildings in the state and happens to have a not so important former association with Freemasonry. The building is important, yes... but you ignore the issue of ''why'' it is important. It is important because of its connection to the performing arts, not its connection to Freemasonry.... The nomination documents devote several paragraphs to its importance to the performing arts... and toss in the Masonic connection in one sentence at the end. In other words... the Masonic connection isn't why the building is considered notable. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 21:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
This article clearly fails [[WP:LIST]] "If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list.
"


== Orders that should not be included ==
== Orders that should not be included ==

Revision as of 23:03, 23 August 2010

WikiProject iconNational Register of Historic Places
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFreemasonry
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freemasonry articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to join us in our labors, please join the discussion and add your name to the list of participants. The "Top of the Trestleboard" section below can offer some ideas on where to start and what to do.FreemasonryWikipedia:WikiProject FreemasonryTemplate:WikiProject FreemasonryFreemasonry
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
◆  WikiProject Freemasonry's "Top of the Trestleboard":


more to add

I note that there are a few Masonic buildings that are NRHP-listed so wikipedia-notable that are not currently included here. There are some among this list taken from NRHP-listed and having "shrine" in name (not all confirmed though):

I expect a couple of the above need to be excluded, as they will turn out to be other types of shrines, but many/most are Masonic/Shriner-related. I'm using NRIS as my source.

I've noted comments by Pershgo and Orlady to the effect that the list-article definintion would seem to include all notable Masonic buildings, including these, and not limiting listing to only surviving buildings or only buildings currently used for Masonic lodge meetings. I don't happen to know whether there are current meetings at these buildings, by the way. Let's find out more about these ones and add the relevant ones to this list-article. --doncram (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: There are several notable Shrine mosques listed at Moorish Revival architecture#Shriners temples, also to be added. The moorish revival Shrine mosques are important examples of the moorish revival architectural style, and hence are appropriately listed there. I think it is also appropriate to list them here along with any Shriner buildings that are not Moorish Revival in style. --doncram (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder... the Shrine is not part of Freemasonry. I have raised this point previously... Although some shine buildings do contain lodge rooms that local lodges can rent, please do not assume true of all shrine buildings. Please double check. I would object to calling a shrine building that does not have at least one lodge room a "Masonic building". Blueboar (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For example... I can find no indication that the Tripoli Shrine Temple, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin contains any lodge rooms, nor can I find any indication that Masons ever met there (certainly none of the lodges currently meeting in Milwaukee do so). I do not think this building can be called a "Masonic building".
On the other hand... a former shrine building, the New York City Center, did contain lodge rooms, and lodges did meet there... so there is at least some justification for including it in the list.
Does anyone know if there are lodge rooms in the Shrine Auditorium in LA (probably the most noteable of Shrine buildings)? Blueboar (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK... after some further research:
Thanks for trying to get some info to shed light on the issue. No offense, but i don't trust your research where you can't find evidence as establishing anything. On the last one the NRIS database records that the building had "Historic subfunction" of "meeting hall" among other uses, and it is named "Shrine Building". Who do you think met there? About hospitals and Shriners both, I haven't done an exact count but I believe I have seen more commentators in favor of including these in the many discussion sections (now archived) about this, than i have seen !voting the other way. --doncram (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Doncram is right -- there's not much basis for concluding much of anything about some of these buildings. I picked one of these at random to see what I could find regarding its history: India Temple Shrine Building. The Wikipedia article was a minimal-content-stub-that-never-should-have-been-created that gives "no indication" of much of anything, but the information I found online (particularly the NHRP nom form) makes it clear that this was built by Masonic lodges and used as a Masonic building. Oddly enough, what I haven't found is any indication that the Shriners ever used it. --Orlady (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... this illustrates why it is so important to look at the actual nomination forms, and not assume things. Yes, the India Temple Shrine Building was originally constructed by the Masons. I was confused because the website of the local shrine chapter does not mention any of this. Now I know the reason why... the Shrine does not meet there any more. Nor do any Masonic Lodges. If you look at the nomination documents, you will discover that the building was sold in 1945, and has been extensively remodeled several times since then. I note that the nomination form explicitly says that the Masonic ornamentation was removed in the first renovation. In other words... it is NO LONGER a Masonic building. I have a real problem with listing a building that has had no connection to Freemasonry (not even decoration) for over 60 years. Blueboar (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of including Shrine buildings was briefly discussed before (see: Talk:List of Masonic buildings/Archive 1#Shrine or not Shrine?... Perishgo indicated week support for inclusion, ALR and I strongly objected. There was no !Vote. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly object to an assumption that Shrine buildings per se should be included. The Shrine is not Masonry. Where a Shrine building can be positively demonstrated to act as a meeting place then it can be up for discussion. If it can't be positively demonstrated to be in use of Masonic purposes then it should be included.
ALR (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, another set of buildings to add are the ones with "Scottish Rite" in their name, including the following NRHP-listed ones:

I guess i should add any of these ones above that are not already included, as they are all wikipedia-notable. --doncram (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that you've already tried to start a list article for AASR buildings I would suggest that is a tacit recognition that these probably don't belong in here. AASR is an appendant body to Freemasonry, and as such inclusion here should only be if there is verifiable evidence of Masonic significance, at the very least evidence of use as a Masonic meeting place.
ALR (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

non-U.S. ones

I've noticed editors who i think are U.S. editors (as i am) removing non-U.S. entries , e.g

from the England section.

Especially as there are relatively few non-U.S. entries, and the U.S. editors are likely less familiar with the available sources for non-U.S. items, I would like to suggest that either we refrain from removing them from the list-article OR that they be noted here in a list on the Talk page, to call attention to future editors getting around to supporting them more fully. This is just a suggestion, towards being courteous to non-U.S. editors in the future who will visit and wonder why the non-U.S. sections are so sparse. --doncram (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that ALR is from England.
But where we are from should not impact editing. WP:BURDEN makes it clear that unsourced material may be removed. Now... as a matter of politeness as opposed to policy, I agree that (most of the time) we should at least tag an unsourced entry, so people know that a citation is needed and have a chance to search for one. However, tagging is a warning... not an end result... If there seems to be no effort to find a citation, I believe the unsourced material should be removed. In the case of the Masonic Hall in Nottingham... the entry has been tagged for several weeks... there has been more than enough time to find a citation. I see nothing wrong with removing it. Remember, removal is not necessarily permanent... it can always be returned with a proper citation. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're back into the situation where the burden of evidence lies with the individual wishing to include an entry, that is after all what the policies require.
That particular entry didn't even have a Wikipedia entry, so in the absence of any evidence of notability either as a building or in Masonic use it can go. I'm unconvinced that the Letchworth entry is particularly notable from a Masonic perspective, although Grand Lodge probably makes the cut.
ALR (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement that the Letchworth entry is not "particularly notable from a Masonic perspective" suggests to me that you are assuming that this list has inclusion criteria that require some sort of significance within the worldwide history of Freemasonry. I have not seen any indication that such inclusion criteria exist. On the other hand, it does seem to be a WP:notable building, and the article clearly states that it's used by Masons ("About sixty Masonic lodges and 'side degrees' meet at The Cloisters..." etc.). --Orlady (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lets face it, we have no real inclusion criteria, never mind anything about association with Masonry. Despite the majority opinion thius article is still worthless.
ALR (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To ignore the issue of a building's significance in the world of Freemasonry is ridiculous in an article entitled List of Masonic buildings ... It's like ignoring the fact that a building is located in New York and arguing that it be added to National Register of Historic Places listings in Missouri. Blueboar (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I remain unconvinced that the number of lodges and other orders meeting in a centre denostes significance. Being a district masonic centre is predominantly a business decision and even smaller centres in the UK will have a dozen or so meetings taking place there.
In this case the building is merely a meeting place, the provincial offices aren't even located there. It's not a listed building by virtue of its masonic use.
ALR (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Former" Masonic buildings

The addition of India Temple Shrine Building in Oklahoma city revives an issue that we let slide... Should we list buildings that were originally built by the Masons but then sold off and remodeled for other uses? If so, I suggest that we place them in a separate section. Blueboar (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the geographic ordering, currently, makes sense. There is still very little known about most of these buildings. It would seem inappropriate and directory-like, to have a hyper focus on which buildings are currently the site of a Masonic meeting. The extreme version of that would be to edit this list hourly, to show which buildings have a meeting going on right at the current moment! :) --doncram (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying we should do away with the geographic ordering for the bulk of the buildings listed ... only that we should separate the ones that we know are no longer tied to Freemasonry. I think that would probably be no more than 10 or so (if it is more than that, we have a larger issue that needs to be discussed). I am trying to compromise here... my other option is to challenge whether they qualify as "Masonic buildings" and delete them from the list. Blueboar (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you don't know which of these buildings is a current meetingplace and which is not. So it seems silly to discuss organizing the article on that basis. We do know where they are located though. :) Why not try to actually add sources and develop articles, instead? :)
By the way, Orlady did a nice job developing the Oklahoma City one's article. It challenged me to try to develop the other two Oklahoma ones, following her example of finding the NRHP nomination document at an Oklahoma Historical Society website. Those are now under construction, with links to their NRHP nom docs in place now, and also links to their photos. One of the buildings is regarded as the best example of Georgian Revival architecture in all of Osage County! Isn't that grand? :) --doncram (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, there are several buildings listed that we do know are not currently used by the Masons. For example, we know that India Temple Shrine Building is no longer used by the Masons... we know that because it says so in the nomination documents. We know that the Masonic Temple in Toronto, also known as the CTV Temple is no longer used by the Masons... because we have sources that say this. We know that Masonic Temple (Chicago, Illinois) is no longer used by the Masons, because the building no longer exists. Blueboar (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is it wildly impractical for Wikipedia to try to maintain this as a list of buildings currently used for Masonic meetings, but that would violate Wikipedia policy at WP:NOT (specifically, see WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTGUIDE -- Wikipedia is not a directory of useful information, nor is it a travel guide). Also, I think that limiting the list to extant buildings that are currently used for a particular purpose is generally inconsistent with the principle that notability is not temporary. If a building ever qualified for inclusion in a list of notable Masonic buildings, it should not suddenly stop deserving to be on that list. (Thus, if a famous building that is currently used for Masonic purposes is destroyed by earthquake next week, it will not suddenly stop being a notable building and a Masonic building. Similarly, if a notable building was built by Masons and used by Masons for several decades, but stopped being used by Masons in 1942 or 1952 or 2002, that doesn't change its notability or its Masonic association.) --Orlady (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that the fact that the Masons stopped using a building at some point does not change its notability... but we do not include buildings in this list simply because they are notable. The fact that they stopped using the building, however, absolutely does change its Masonic association. Buildings that no longer serve a Masonic purpose are no longer "Masonic buildings". By your reasoning we should include New York City and Philadelphia in List of national capitals... After all, both were at one time the capital of the United States. Both remain notable... but the fact that they are no longer the National capital means that we do not include them in the list. And the fact that these buildings are no longer Masonic buildings means that we should not include them in our list... or at least list them separately as "Former Masonic buildings". Blueboar (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your concept that the list should include only buildings currently used by Masonic lodges is one that would be appropriate if Wikipedia were a directory, a travel guide, a handbook, or a similar resource, but those are all examples of things that Wikipedia is not. (A list of notable buildings currently used for Masonic purposes would logically belong in a directory, handbook, or travel guide for Freemasons, but not it does belong in an encyclopedia.) If there is an encyclopedic purpose in maintaining a list of WP:notable buildings with some sort of Masonic association, both the "notability" and the "Masonic association" must be qualities that have permanence -- not attributes that can be erased overnight. --Orlady (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with the implicit assumption that this list is unencyclopedic. We have no set criteria for building inclusion, nor do we have a set of criteria for defining "Masonic connection." Shriners is not Masonry proper - not all Masons are Shriners, but all Shriners are Masons. Same goes for Scottish Rite. The connection can be erased overnight - once the building is sold or demolished, that's the end of it, really. What Blueboar is proposing is not to create a directory, but only that a building have a demonstrable reason to be on this list. Don, on the other hand, is simply listing anything he can find without bothering to look at any documentation first, and is then leaving it up to others to sort out his lack of effort. He is not meeting BURDEN by any stretch of the imagination, and as long as that continues to be the case, this article is, as Orlady says, unencyclopedic. MSJapan (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you note, I still doubt whether this list has encyclopedic value. As for inclusion criteria, I object to the criterion "building is currently used for Masonic lodge meetings" as nonencyclopedic. I'd be far more willing to accept this list as encyclopedic if the "Masonic" inclusion criterion were something like "built, owned and/or managed by a Masonic group" (at one time or another). However, the Freemasons participating in this discussion seem to feel strongly that the only potentially significant "Masonic" attribute is "being a place where Masonic lodges currently meet". I (as a non-Mason) fail to understand the emphasis on current meeting places -- I am beginning to guess that buildings currently used for Masonic meetings are deemed to be consecrated in some way, and that "consecrated" status (my terminology, used out of ignorance -- I apologize if my choice of words is inappropriate) is removed when Masons stop using the building. Distinctions are made between active churches and former churches in Wikipedia categorization, such as in Category:Anglican church buildings and Category:Former Anglican church buildings -- however, note that "Former Anglican church buildings" are a subcategory of "Anglican church buildings" -- when a church is disbanded the building does not stop being an Anglican church building. Similarly, while there aren't many "lists of churches" or "lists of church buildings," those that exist (such as List of churches in Florence and List of United Church of Canada churches in Toronto) seem to include destroyed and abandoned churches (once a church, always a church). (As for your comments on BURDEN, I'm trying to refrain from discussing personalities here.) --Orlady (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To address that, let's back up a bit to some basics. Freemasonry is a fraternal organization, not a religion, so the status of a building can (and does) change. Masonic buildings aren't necessarily distinct architecturally like religious buildings are (e.g., a Star of David or a steeple or a minaret or a torii, etc.) - many times, meeting places began as larger homes. Therefore, many Masonic buildings were repurposed in the first place. So there's very little visually that indicates Masonic usage other than signage. When the Masons leave, all their stuff goes too, and that's it for the building - it becomes something else (as we have seen from documents). I also know of no situation where a Masonic group has sold their building and then taken it back later, so the building loses all significance it might have had.
Consecrating a building is something that is done by Masons for their meeting places, but it has also been done for the Capitol Building, the Washington Monument, and other significant structures. It's a public ceremony that imparts nothing to the building by way of permanent status, and is done in a professional rather than a religious capacity.
I think an important point to make regarding the viability of the list is that there are nowhere near as many Lodge buildings in a given area as there are churches. Most towns have one Masonic building at most, and almost always have multiple churches. Even major cities often only have one Masonic building. It may be a large building, but it's still only one building. Compare that to the number of churches. I mean, we have around 7 listings per state here for buildings, and that's what the average town has for churches. MSJapan (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that its four of us who don't see this article as encyclopedic that are discussing this!
We're probably back at the General notability guideline for Masonic significance; substantive discussion in multiple sources independent of the subject. I appreciate that's for an article rather than inclusion in a list, but if this is a list of links to existing articles then the GNG does apply. If a subject doesn't justify an article then it shouldn't be listed (whether red-linked or not). Even where a building has an article the masonic significance still needs to be substantiate.
So I think we need to appreciate what masonic significance might look like, in order to direct what sort of sourcing we'd expect to see? I share the discomfort about current use being a key criterion, but equally was ever used doesn't denote masonic significance.
ALR (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What i see going on is two editors, Orlady and me, actually developing articles and material from time to time. And four editors, perhaps all Freemasons, debating and disputing every step of the way! Orlady has differences with me, including that she has objected to my starting stub articles. I believe strongly that my starting stub articles here has moved the "debate" along mightily far; the Freemason editors are no longer sputtering that there will never be any articles for the former redlinks. And they are no longer complaining about the alleged non-notability of places they knew nothing about, but now do (e.g. the Delaware one, where i developed the article somewhat and Orlady convincingly devastated arguments against it). Of course I agree that more developed articles are better than less developed articles. Of course I agree the list-article should be encyclopedic. I disagree that the way to get there is to sit around complaining about criteria. You are not going to come up with criteria that make any sense, if you know nothing about the buildings that are obvious candidates for permanent inclusion in a solid list-article here. Funny, i got the impression that Freemasons were builders, but I see scant evidence among present company. --doncram (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If candidates are3 obvious candidates for inclusion then perhaps you'll articulate clearly the criteria that make them obvious, preferably whilst avoiding some of the wording that many of the stubs that you have created tend to include.
It would also perhaps be more productive if you could desist from making this an interpersonal rather than content issue.
ALR (talk) 10:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I apologize for my last comment. ALR, I was responding to your apparent attempt to make it personal; your clear implication was that 4 superior-type editors not including me are concerned with encyclopedic content. Your last comment is not a good model either, to include a veiled link to wp:Weasel that way. I rather appreciate Orlady's leadership in declining to get personal, and I should have followed her lead. Places which are listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places named as "Masonic Temple" and similarly are obvious candidates for being notable Masonic buildings. And, seriously, this is yet another useless discussion section. There have been probably now over 80 discussion sections opened, with little gain. --doncram (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is it obvious? (tbh if I tried that in my real job I'd get sacked for gross negligence)
I'm content that those of you who focus on the NRHP see notability of the building being conferred by that listing, that's fine and it appears that listed status is assumed to confer notability in the UK. What I'm struggling with is how we demonstrate any masonic significance, rather than just vague association.
At the moment this is turning into an indiscriminate list of NRHP listed buildings. That's fine if that's what you're after. To make it meaningful from a Masonic perspective then I continue to take the view that there should be something significant about it, otherwise it turns into a directory.
If we can identify inclusion criteria from a Masonic perspective, and if the evidence for meeting those criteria can be demonstrated then this whole thing can be simplified. The main reason for my objections at the moment are that non-masonic buildings are being included and that the main inclusion criterion at the moment appears to be opinion.
ALR (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of this discussion section, the proposal was to set off Masonic buildings that are no longer used as meetingplaces in a separate section. I believe that has been disposed of. --doncram (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are now agreeing that those buildings that no longer serve any Masonic purpose are no longer "Masonic buildings" and thus should be listed separately, this issue has not been "disposed of"... We have three editors (ALR, MSJapan and Me) who lean in favor of either removing or segregating these buildings, and two (you and Orlady) that do not. You can not simply dismiss the opinions of other editors because you disagree with them... especially when those opinions are in the majority. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need to establish that the topic is notable

I think the issue of inclusion criteria will be clarified by addressing another problem: we do not (yet) properly establish that the topic of this list ("Masonic buildings") is a notable topic. What is needed is reference to reliable sources that discuss the topic of "Masonic buildings". Note: I am not at this point asking whether we can or can not establish the topic's notability... I am merely pointing out that we have yet to do so.

Assuming that we can establish the topic's notability, by referring to reliable sources that discuss the topic, we will then be able to use those sources to tell us how to define terms and establish the inclusion criteria. Rather than arguing over our own interpretations of what a "Masonic building" is (which violates WP:OR), we will be able to refer to sources that tell us what a "Masonic building" is. Blueboar (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC at Village pump

Whoosh!! I just now stumbled upon a discussion at the "Village pump" that is inspired by and/or focused on the ongoing contention over this page. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: Inclusion criteria of "List of X". I do appreciate being notified of new discussions related to a topic with which I've been involved... --Orlady (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issues being discussed on VPP relate to all list articles... and it was inspired by more than just the issues facing this list (although since this is a list, the discussion will have an impact on this list. I apologize if you feel you should have been notified. Blueboar (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refimprove tag

I have re-added the {{refimprove}} tag... specifically, what we need are two things... a) sources establish the notability of the topic (as opposed to the notability of the items listed)... and b) sources that establish that each item is considered a "Masonic building". Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "refimprove" tag. There is not likely to be consensus soon on what this list-article should be, and what exactly sources should support. Tagging it just seems negative and tedious. I also even object to this discussion section, now number 80 or so in a long campaign to tar this and related articles and disambiguation pages. But, go ahead and discuss, if you like, what you want sources to show. However, don't tag the article while others are developing it somewhat positively. I thoroughly thoroughly get that you hate everything about this article, about Freemasonry, about architecture, about everything. There's no need to lay it on thicker. --doncram (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram: I think you are misinterpreting Blueboar's motivations. Blueboar appears to me to be very fond of Freemasonry, but not particularly fond of buildings as a topic. Regardless, I suggest that you try to focus on the content and not on the motivations of other contributors. ;-) --Orlady (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am replacing the tag... the issues I have raised have not been dealt with. I am also going to add the NOR tag since the definition of "Masonic buildings" in this list seems to be based on Original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 18:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the 2 tags (refimprove and original research) added by Blueboar. Blueboar, I have no idea what specific statement(s) in the article you view as original research. There may be stray remarks that could be questioned legitimately, but I have tried to use sources wherever making any specific assertion that would benefit from a source. It is not necessary to provide a source for very general statements that are obviously true. Please do identify and discuss any statements that you actually question on factual grounds here on the Talk page. But I believe there is no attempt in the article, as written, to define some new formal term ("Masonic building" or any other) as anything novel. "Masonic buildings" in the title of the article and in the usage in the article seems to mean buildings that have significant Masonic association (without defining what is "significant"). It does not seem to be necessary to define exactly what is significant enough, for development to proceed. Each questioning of a specific building, here on the Talk page, has led to a consensus decision to keep the mention of the specific building. You are welcome to complain further here on the talk page about the vagueness of inclusion criteria or any other matters, as you do. But if your complaint is the same old general notability complaint that you've raised in the AFD for this and several related articles, that's been answered in discussions on this page and elsewhere. --doncram (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram... I have already explained exactly and in detail why I added the tags, but I will do so again ...
  1. We need a source that defines the term "Masonic building", without such a source, the entire list is based on Original research. you note above that "Masonic buildings" in the title of the article and in the usage in the article seems to mean buildings that have significant Masonic association (without defining what is "significant"). That, right there, is exactly what I am challenging... I believe that this definition is Original research, and to show it isn't OR you need to provide a source for this definition.
  2. Each item listed needs a source that explicitly notes that the building is a "Masonic building", otherwise inclusion is based on an editors assumption that the building is a "Masonic building"... that too is Original research (we can not go by the name of the building... after all, the name Empire State building does not mean that New York is an "Empire").
If you remove the tags again, without at least making a good faith effort to provide the sources I am requesting, I will consider removal disruptive and take this to ANI. Blueboar (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight. The location where you actually placed a citation needed is following: "Numerous buildings around the world have significant Masonic association. This is a list of some notable Masonic buildings.[citation needed]".
Come on now! Do you seriously want to assert that there are NOT numerous buildings having significant Masonic association? Or to assert that there are no notable Masonic-associated buildings in this list?
I suppose you might want me or someone should make up some bogus Masonic building definition (i.e. indeed apply wp:OR, and then be stuck proving with sources that that exact term applies or not, when there are no sources applying that made up term. The term Masonic building is properly used here loosely as what it should and does mean: buildings having some significant Masonic association. Indeed, it is not exactly decided by the productive editors here what are the exact borders of inclusion/exclusion criteria. That means the list-article is not final; it does not mean that your adding random tags helps clarify anything or speaks to any general need. For you to protest continuously at every step of the way here, and to backtrack to questions decided by consensus to keep/not delete this article, is a waste of editors' time.
I'll pause with myself removing the petty tags you've added for the moment. Would anyone else care to comment and/or step in to fix this again now? --doncram (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll step in and restate a few questions from up the page that were ignored.
On the topic of notability of the topic, it's still not evidenced that Masonic buildings per se is a notable topic. I am aware that the majority vote in the AfDs was to retain the article, however we're now struggling with lax inclusion criteria.
You stated that it is obvious that some buildings should be included, which implies to me that obvious can be reasonably easily identified. Therefore I asked you:
In what way is it obvious? (tbh if I tried that in my real job I'd get sacked for gross negligence)
On the subject to notability of the building I'm content that those of you who focus on the NRHP see notability of the building being conferred by that listing. That's fine and it appears that listed status is assumed to confer notability in the UK. What I'm struggling with is how we demonstrate any masonic significance, rather than just vague association. What we have is a list of notable buildings that you think have an association with Freemasonry. What I think should be identified is how we substantiate and evidence that association.
At the moment this is turning into an indiscriminate list of NRHP listed buildings. That's fine if that's what you're after. To make it meaningful from a Masonic perspective then I continue to take the view that there should be something significant about it, otherwise it turns into a directory.
If we can identify inclusion criteria from a Masonic perspective, and if the evidence for meeting those criteria can be demonstrated then this whole thing can be simplified. The main reason for my objections at the moment are that non-masonic buildings are being included and that the main inclusion criterion at the moment appears to be opinion.
My main objection to the lack of inclusion criteria is that the list is being populated with buildings that you think are associated with Freemasonry. Many of the stub articles that you create are littered with speculative wording. You're also determined to force in buildings that are explicitly not masonic like Shrine buildings, I also object to the inclusion of AASR buildings as that is an appendant body to Masonry, not craft Freemasonry.
The basis of the list has no substance, therefore reasonably constitutes Original Research, and many of the entries have no evidence of any masonic significance, hence Synthesis.
ALR (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: To make this very very clear... Article tags alert editors to problems with an entire article, a problem that relates to more than just one sentence or paragraph. The reason why I placed the {{refimprove}} tag was to avoid placing multiple in-line {{cn}} tags. Every entry in this list needs to cite a source that establishes that the building is a "Masonic building". Only a few do so. I could have put a {{cn}} tag on every entry, but that would be considered pointy and disruptive. It is not one sentence or paragraph that needs references... references are needed throughout the article.
The {{Original research}} tag was placed because a) the definition of "Masonic temple" that is being used in this article is Original research (it is the invention of a Wikipedian or group of Wikipedians), and b) the individual entries are being added based on that Original research definition, and are thus OR themselves. This is another issue where a page tag is more appropriate than an in-line tag, as the problem affects the entire article and not just one sentence or paragraph. To resolve this issue, and remove the tag, we need a) a source or sources that define what a "Masonic building" is, and b) sources for each item listed that demonstrate that they fit a sourced definition. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: You don't own this article, and you don't get to judge that "Masonic building" must be defined in some formal way and that every entry here must meet whatever your foottnote standards are proving that it meets that definition for you. It is pretty obvious that there are many Masonic buildings having notability, and that many of them are listed here.
About the original research tag, I see no statement in the article that is original research. There is no definition of Masonic building in the article, and no particular need for one, I think. I suppose there may be a definition at the Masonic Temple article. Your concern might better be directed there.
About both tags, I see no purpose served by tagging the article. You are free to raise your concerns, as you do, here on the Talk page. Tagging the article just seems to detract from the readers experience, and does not provide any benefit in conveying anything new to editors. Other editors are fully aware of your views on this article, already. --doncram (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topic vs Content

I think the problem here may stem from a confusion between the Topic and the Content of an article or list These are two distinct concepts... related to each other but not the same. The topic is "what the article is about"... the content is "what the article says".

The Topic is primarily governed by WP:Notability ... what we don't do (and need to do) is establish that the Topic of the list ("Masonic buildings") is notable. We need to do this through citation to reliable sources that discuss the topic of "Masonic buildings". Remember... The topic is not the same as the content. You can have a list entirely populated notable items, and still have a non-notable (Consider: List of US Presidents who like broccoli for example... everyone listed would individually notable, but the topic would not be notable).

The Content is primarily governed by WP:OR, WP:V (and WP:NPOV)... in a list, the content is both the introductory text that explains the topic, defines terms, and outlines any inclusion criteria, etc. and the individual items listed. To satisfy WP:OR and WP:V in a list, we need to cite sources... to verify that the explanatory text is based on reliable sources and is not OR, and that the items listed fit the inclusion criteria and are not being added based on OR. In this list, to satisfy WP:OR and WP:V, we need to verify that the buildings listed are considered to be "Masonic buildings" by a reliable source.

Now, this list has problems with both its Topic, and its Content. We need to establish that a) the topic is notable, and b) the content is verifiable and not OR. Both of these problems can be resolved with proper sourcing.... but that begs another question... do the sources we need exist? Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, maybe this is discussion section #82 now.
The answer to your question, for you, is NO.
What is your goal here, to kill the article? To kill off the interest of other editors in identifying historic and current buildings associated with Freemasonry? To prevent readers from being able, in the future, to learn about them? You are killing us all.
For other editors, including those involved in the AFDs on this and related articles, it is obvious that there exists numerous significant buildings associated with Freemasonry. There are some very large, significant ones in major cities. There are small buildings in small towns that were, like one in Oklahoma, one of the major buildings of the small town. The buildings erected throughout the U.S., at least, were often one of few major buildings in a given small town, besides churches and town hall buildings, and they stand out as landmarks. In some small towns, the significant such building is an Elks building; in others it is a Masonic Hall. The list-article provides a place to identify and describe the significant, wikipedia-notable ones. --doncram (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My goal is to apply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to this article. No more, no less. Blueboar (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Well, your leadership in opposing every aspect of this list-article and associated articles has been found lacking, in dozens of decisions taken by other editors' consensus so far. The other editors, including me, have applied Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I do not agree with your current concerns, either, again based on my understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --doncram (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What "other editors"? Its just you Doncram. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram reported at ANI

I have had it... Doncram's repeated removal of legitimate issue tags, his clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it comes to the problems with this article ... and his severe lack of good faith (especially towards me) has become intolerable. I am calling in the Admins (see: here). Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Lead

I rewrote the opening sentence to comply with the Manual of Style advice for lists. I also remove the uncited opening statement which has little relevant anyway on the list article. Above Doncram says it is obvious that there exists numerous significant buildings associated with Freemasonry. This is as maybe - however it does not mean we can then say it without a source. Wikipedia works on verifiability not truth. So, if it is obvious there will be sufficient reliable sources to support such a statement :) I'm sure someone can find one --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 15:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have a question about the very first sentence of the lede... Is this article "a list of notable Masonic buildings from around the world." as we state, or is it a list of notable buildings from around the world that have some sort of ill defined Masonic connection? Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that in line, pretty much, with how list introductions start. Usually we say "list of notable x" then in the next sentence define what we are covering. I don't think adding comments about ill-defined Masonic connection is constructive.... that's all. Even if it is true for the article we should aim to remove that ambiguity not edit it into the lead :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 17:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem... What I was trying to get at is that there is even some disagreement as to what this article is supposed to be about... and determining that may help us to move forward. Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - just running through the archives properly now (youch). Looks like there was some tentative consensus at times but it kept falling apart. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 17:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability & inclusion ambiguity

The notability of some of the redlinks concerns me; I suggest removing them till notability is established. Currently most appear to be supported by U.S. National Park Service, National Register Information System, March 13, 2009 version. - I assume this is used to establish that it is a Masonic connection, however that does not really confer notability on the building.

In addition there is some ambiguity about the inclusion criteria into the list. Is this a list of notable Masonic buildings? or notable buildings with a Masonic connection? Or buildings with a notable Masonic connection? Or a combination? I think it should be established a solid bar for inclusion (as we do with all such lists) and then carefully source each one :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 15:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally I'd support a fairly inclusive criteria - as long as it is clear :) In terms of the referencing - any building with a Wikipedia article which states a Masonic connection does not really need it sourced here. For the purposes of list clarity, and in my experience, it is fine to allow the WP article to support the inclusion/notability in most cases :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 15:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest we do actualy need to be clear about what we mean by a Masonic connection, many of the entries on the list do not have such an association at present.
Are we discussing sustained and significant use, a financial interest such as ownership, or a significant architectural involvement?
ALR (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point - I'd tentatively say all three (although financial interest may be problematic - a Masonic owned tea shop isn't too notable :)). And modify the sections to reflect that (depending on how well we can source it). As it is I propose we do the following:
  • Remove all redlinked buildings unsupported by a source to show notability
  • Remove the source link (mentioned above by me) for buildings with a WP article that show a Masonic connection reliably in the article (to make the list cleaner)
Then decide on inclusion/structure criteria and go from there (with a clearer lead). --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 16:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was intended to illustrate the issue, we haven't as yet managed to identify, and source, anything that can be used as an objective criterion. Doncram takes the view that inclusion is obvious, he's been asked to amplify on that since obvious should be pretty straightforward to articulate. He's so-far refused to do so.
Bluntly I can only think of a couple of buildings, at least in the UK, that have any real masonic significance, the rest are just places that Masons meet. Those are the three Grand Lodge buildings.
And all the best in trying to remove anything from this page!
ALR (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Errant asks: Currently most appear to be supported by U.S. National Park Service, National Register Information System, March 13, 2009 version. - I assume this is used to establish that it is a Masonic connection? Actually, no... that is part of the problem. Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, that presents a massive problem. What exactly is the content of the entries in that database? is there a link? --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 16:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a difficult question to answer... in one sense No. Doncram has been basing his citations on a hard copy of the database that used to be accessible but is no longer on line (it was taken down)... there is a new website, but that does not mention whether the building has any Masonic connection. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that means it probably fails WP:SOURCEACCESS. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 17:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well... that was my initial reaction too... but apparently not. This was a huge issue about a month ago, and we went round and round over exactly that question... you should probably look through the archives before you reach a determination on that. Blueboar (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You'll note from the discussion that one can write to the parks service and ask for a copy of the nomination documents, which summarise the nomination and inclusion rationale. It wasn't clear whether that would also provide references or copies of the other supporting material.
ALR (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The NHRP is a list of places that have some sort of historic, sometimes architectural significance. According to those who involve themselves in that project the evidence required to gain a listing implies sufficient evidence to meet the General Notability Guideline. The snag we have is that there is a reluctance to cite any of that supporting evidence, instead asserting that the listing itself should be sufficient. From a personal perspective I'm reasonably content that listing probably does confer some form of notability, it seems to be somewhat similar to the Listed Building status in the UK. What would be extremely useful though would be some reference to some of the supporting material.
What the listing doesn't assert is any Masonic significance. There is an assumption in some quarters that merely the name should be enough, but it is also apparent that the Masonic dimension isn't part of NRHP listing. In some cases there may only be one Lodge meeting in a building, in others there may be more than one.
A useful example in the UK context, is the Letchworth Masonic Centre. It's a listed building because of it's architectural significance. It was sold to a Masonic buyer, although it's not clear who that was, and is used as a meeting place for a range of Lodges and other orders. It's probably owned by a Hall association, that's quite a common business model in the UK, who hire it out to the various Lodges, other organisations and for private functions. It has no real Masonic significance, the it's a meeting place, dining room and bar. The offices of the Provincial Grand Master are elsewhere. The argument could go either way, if this is a list of notable buildings with some form of Masonic connection then fair enough, if it's of notable masonic buildings then I wouldn't say that it justifies inclusion.
So we still haven't got clarity around the topic of the article, once we have that then we could work on how to evidence inclusion in the list. Of course the topic should be demonstrably notable in its own right.
ALR (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which brings us to the issue establishing notability of the topic (as opposed to establishing notability of the items listed). Whether we consider the topic to be "notable masonic buildings" or "notable buildings with a masonic connection"... we still need sources that establish that the chosen topic is notable. I have serious doubts as to whether such sources exist. Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is all repetitive. Blueboar's objections to the notability of the topic of Masonic Temple were addressed by AFD on that article, which resulted in Keep decision. It was abundantly pointed out in the AFD for that and for this list-article and elsewhere, that there are tons of sources available. I see no need to revisit the topic of notability.
I also do not see a need to follow Blueboar and ALR's apparent wish to define notability for this list-article at some high and insular standard. I believe they are both Masons and could be interested in the list-article being limited to buildings that are important for Masons like themselves to know about according to masonic teachings or something. One or both have voiced strident opposition to including the Delaware building that is NRHP-listed and appears to be the most important Masonic-associated building in the state. Another standard that they may have promoted is to list all buildings which are notable for being current Masonic meetingplaces. Perhaps that would be a useful list for a Masonic private webpage, in order to direct prospective new members to those meetings, but that would not be encyclopedic. It seems more reasonable to include buildings on this list which are wikipedia notable and have Masonic association, and for the moment it seems best not to finetune exactly what is significant enough. So far the proposals to restrict inclusion have seemed really arbitrary and have been rejected by general consensus. We have made progress in advancing the views of a couple Masons here, knock on wood, by discussing individual cases. But it would seem more productive if editors could divert some small percentage of their time on this important topic, if they could divert some time towards actually developing articles and material. --doncram (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as Masonic Temple is concerned... it isn't so cut and dried as Doncram makes out... there were actually two almost simultanious AdD discussions on that article... this one that resulted in a "Delete" decision... and this one that was a Keep. It seems that someone convinced the closer of the first AfD that I must not have been telling the truth when I said that I had actually looked for sources and could not find any, and that I lied when I had actually read the sources suggested for that topic and found that they did not support the article. I note that no one !voting keep on either of those AfDs has edited that article to include one single sentence that is supported by a citation from those suggested sources since the AfD.
As for Delaware building... "...appears to be the most important Masonic-associated building in the state"... No... it is one of the most important Arts related buildings in the state and happens to have a not so important former association with Freemasonry. The building is important, yes... but you ignore the issue of why it is important. It is important because of its connection to the performing arts, not its connection to Freemasonry.... The nomination documents devote several paragraphs to its importance to the performing arts... and toss in the Masonic connection in one sentence at the end. In other words... the Masonic connection isn't why the building is considered notable. Blueboar (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article clearly fails WP:LIST "If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list. "

Orders that should not be included

I want to restate my objection to Shriner and Scottish Rite buildings being included in this list, unless there is explicit evidence demonstrating that they are used by a Masonic Lodge for the purposes of holding Masonic meetings. These objections were essentially just ignored up the page, so the issue should be clear, rather than getting lost in the noise.

ALR (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second that Objection. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the Objectors. It is not at all clear why Wikipedia should define "Masonic" in a restrictive fashion that limits its application to certain organizations within Freemasonry, while excluding others. I gather that both ALR and Blueboar are themselves Masons who belong to whichever Masonic organization is deemed to be the only true Masonic order, but the distinction that is being made is utterly opaque to me -- and, I suspect, to the world at large. In common usage, "Masonic" is adjective that refers to Freemasonry in general, including not only Free & Accepted Masons and/or Craft Masonry, but also York Rite, Ancient & Accepted Rite, Scottish Rite, Prince Hall, Royal Order of Scotland, Shriners, and various other groups that appear to the world to be types of "Masons" but apparently are deemed to be "appendant bodies" to Freemasonry. The distinctions that Masons are making seem analogous to saying that only the Roman Catholic Church can be called "Christian" (because its adherents consider it to be the only true church). --Orlady (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the argument for including the York Rite and Scottish rite... In the US these bodies have a semi-official recognition by the Grand Lodges. They are routinely referred to as "appendent" or "concordant" bodies. However, I also understand ALR's objection. In England, where he is from, these bodies are definitely NOT considered part of Freemasonry. The Grand Lodge officially frowns on them. In Europe the situation is even more mixed and confusing. Some jurisdictions reject the rites... others embrace them to the point where they are intertwined and one organization. So, we seem to have a choice between favoring an "Amero-centric" POV, or an "Anglo-centric" POV. Not sure how to resolve this in a list article.
The Shrine is different... it is not considered "within Freemasonry"... It is not considered an "appendent" or "concordant" body. It is a completely separate organization that requires its members to be Masons. Its goal and purpose is different from that of Freemasonry. It simply is not "Masonic". Blueboar (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Orlady, including that some editors here seem too close to the topic to have objectivity. It is not necessary and in fact not practical to limit the list to buildings that have no association with any subgroup. There is at least one building, and perhaps more, that is named "Scottish Rite Cathedral" or other name with "Scottish Rite" included, and the same building is also named "Masonic Temple". I imagine it would be impractical to define what percentage of notability of that building is associated with the Scottish Rite subgroup as opposed to other subgroups. Also, it would probably be politically incorrect and/or breach into potential issues of apparent racism, if editors began to argue that the Prince Hall subgroup ones (which reflect Freemasonry's heritage of white vs. black segregation) should not be included. No one has made such arguments yet, AFAIK, but I could just imagine it being messy and impractical to argue that a building where one subgroup met sometimes should be invalidated because of that. It is impractical to keep upt to date about what percentage of Masonic involvement at a given building was associated with each of many subtypes, and it is not important. Broadly they all are Masonic associated, and this list-article provides a way to navigate to their articles. --doncram (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of reasons for objecting, the first being principle, the other main one being practical.
Freemasonry is a system of three initiatory degrees, and within that all Masons are equal. A number of bodies build on that, using their own initiatory system, and are recognised as doing so in a way that is additional to Freemasonry, but not part of it.
We have a significant difficulty adequately defining Freemasonry in Wikipedia and came to the conclusion on the Freemasonry page itself that the focus would be limited to Freemasonry, and not the various other bodies that are associated, or would wish to associate themselves with Freemasonry. The relationships between the various bodies that direct Freemasonry and the other bodies is complex, in many cases mutually exclusive, and in many cases uni-directional inasmuch as a body may claim Masonic significance or relationship but that is neither recognised nor reciprocated.
To illustrate some of that complexity, Prince Hall Freemasonry is something that would be reasonable to include, notwithstanding the absence of inclusion criteria, as it is a system that practices the same Three degree system that sees achievement of the Master Mason degree as the highest level a Mason may attain.
From a practical perspective we limit our scope. I rather think that Doncram has recognised that already as he's started a List of Scottish Rite Cathedrals listed in the NRHP.
I'm having difficulty responding to your use of the RCC as an example because it's not a reasonable comparator. I guess the closest I can get is that Catholicism and Hinduism are both religions but you wouldn't describe Hinduism as Christianity.
My specific objection to the Shrine is that whilst the Shrine requires those who join it to be Freemasons they don't have an initiatory system, to the extent that there was talk in some Shrine governance organisations of opening up membership to non-Masons.
To illustrate some of the issues with other bodies, as an English Mason I'm not permitted to have anything to do with an Eastern Star Chapter, although as a Scottish Mason I am, and in fact both my parents were members of the Star. Also as a member of the Antient and Accepted Rite in England I'm not permitted to take dual membership in the US as the advancement is very different. The imapact of that is that while all US A&AR Masons are 32nd Degree, I'm 18th and can't in practice attend in the US, although I am permitted to.
And bluntly, just because you don't appreciate the complexity doesn't mean that we need to dumb down this article. If we eventually get some clarity around what this article should look like, or indeed if it justifies it's own existence, then there may be scope for future expansion or subordinate articles.
If there is evidence that these buildings are in use by a Masonic Lodge for the purposes of Masonic meetings then they presumably will meet the criteria that we eventually decide on for inclusion. If they don't then they shouldn't be listed.
ALR (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You state: "If there is evidence that these buildings are in use by a Masonic Lodge for the purposes of Masonic meetings then they presumably will meet the criteria that we eventually decide on for inclusion. If they don't then they shouldn't be listed." As I have said before (repeatedly) in various ways, that sounds like a charter for a directory or travel guide for Masons (and apparently you would further restrict it to a set of Masonic groups that are allowed to associate with each other). Regardless of which Masonic groups are included or excluded, "directory" and "travel guide" are two things that Wikipedia is NOT. --Orlady (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You and I share the view that this article probably has no encycopedic value. I would argue that we improve the chances of finding some encyclopedic value if we restrict inclusion, rather than open it out.
ALR (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, ALR is so touchy now that he has twice reverted my edits to this section. I think it is appropriate for me to insert a short correction, within his longish comment, regarding an incorrect claim about what i did. He has deleted that. I also think there is misunderstanding about how editors usually indent comments in Talk page comments. When one editor fails to add an indent mark, others frequently fix the indentation so that the Talk page flows properly. I really don't want to talk about, much less fight about, indenting in Talk pages!
I do believe the comment works better indented underneath the statement that it contradicts, somewhere above, but here it is again:
CORRECTION: Note, that seems not accurate. There is indeed a Scottish Rite Cathedral disambiguation page to which i have contributed, including adding several ones listed on the NRHP. This like other dab pages provides means for readers to find there way to articles. It is not a standalone list-article. I have no intention to create one on the narrow topic of SRCs that are NRHP-listed. I thot that we were successfully educating several editors here about the difference between dab pages and list-articles! This List of Masonic buildings article is the only list-article about masonic buildings that i am aware of. --doncram (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought a little more about the RCC comparison, and I think this can illustrate it a bit more meaningfully. If we open this article up to anyone who who describes themselves as Masonic then it's wide open. There are bodies that are tacitly recognised, some that aren't.
Using the example of the RCC, we don't have a List of Roman Catholic Chapels article, but if we did have would you consider it appropriate to include Canterbury Cathedral, I can see an argument why you might given that it was an RC Abbey until the early 16thC. The practical comparison I'd make there would be a list of Masonic buildings and including perhaps a Swedish Rite building. How would you feel about including North London Central Mosque in a list of RCC Chapels? I'd put that in the realms of a Scottish Rite Cathedral in comparison to a Masonic building. Moving out a bit more, and reflecting back on my earlier comment, how about including an Ashram in a list of RCC Chapels? That's probably comparable to including entries on Feminine or Atheist Freemasonry.
I hope that helps illustrate why my view is that if we are going to have this article, bearing in mind that the majority of votes in the last AfD were for keeping it, then it should be meaningful and appropriate. It should also be easier to determine effective inclusion criteria if it is.
ALR (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F380590451