National Register of Historic Places

This 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.

Freemasonry

This 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": Improve to Featured Article status Freemasonry Tracing board Isaac Newton University Lodge Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia Operative Masonry Primitive Scottish Rite Add content to stubs… Check recently changed articles for possible improvement, to remove vandalism, etc. Requests Articles for all United Grand Lodge of England-recognized Grand Lodges (if notable) Participate in articles listed for deletion Need images Scottish Rite York Rite Sovereign Grand Lodge of Malta New Article to be created Adonhiramite Rite Portuguese Rite Brazilian Rite Irish Rite Moorish Rite Rite Français Moderne Rétabli Articles to be re-written Freemasonry in Cuba - Entirely AI generated.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 21 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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