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.

According to the source this building was built as a Danish community center for immigrants... then sold to the Sons of Haiti (an African-American Masonic group) in 1973... however the source seems to indicate that the Sons rent the building out to other tenants. I would agree that it is logical to assume that they meet (or once met) in the building as well, but the source does not actually verify that this is the case. I would ask that we attempt to confirm whether they meet/met in the building or not... If a masonic group is merely the landlord, inclusion is questionable. Blueboar (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Masonic group was not merely the landlord, but owned the building primarily for its own use. Admittedly, most of the articles about the building are about the auditorium, which has been an important venue for public events. However, this 50-page document about the building (not yet cited in Wikipedia) indicates that the building had always been primarily a private facility for the fraternal organizations that owned it. Page 5 states that the Sons of Haiti "continued to use the first floor rooms for their organization and rent out the second floor as performance space." Later there is information on the remodeling done by the Sons of Haiti.

For what it's worth, that document also has some information about a couple of other Masonic buildings in Seattle. --Orlady (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything that corroborates that this body is actually masonic? I'm not finding anything more than business registrations for the organisation, and a mention in the Bessel site.

Given that there is already a Prince Hall meeting place I'm a little sceptical, although it's not out of the question that it's schismatic from PH. One of the reasons for my scepticism is that the photo of the altar shows it has a cross on the front. The information about the remodelling isn't comprehensive and it's not out of the question that the altar space is related to some kind of church, given the photo that's a lot more likely than any form of masonic use.

Given the paucity of reliable information this listing looks a bit of a stretch.

ALR (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE the Sons of Haiti... given that they are listed on Bessel's webpage, I think we have to consider them to be, at least, an organization that claims to be Masonic. As for the cross in the picture... we know form the currently cited source that the Sons of Haiti rent part of their space to a church.

Orlady, thanks for posting the the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board document... the document makes it clear that the significance of the building is its history as a community performance venue, and not its tie to Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bessel also lists both RGLE and Grand Lodge of all England. Both of which needed the office cat to Tyle.

And a point of detail - Rented, they no longer own the building and I'm left feeling that they're probably defunct.

ALR (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the Sons no longer even own the building? That makes inclusion even more problematic... we have a case of a building that was originally built for a non-Masonic use... subsequently purchased by a Masonic group (although a Fringe Masonic group) and renovated for their use... but has now been renovated again for a non-Masonic use. Sigh... we really do need to come to some sort of consensus on inclusion criteria. I really have a problem saying that this qualifies as a "Masonic building". The current "if (at any point in the building's history) the building had any sort of connection (no matter how tenuous) with the Masons (loosely defined) then it qualifies" criteria just isn't acceptable. Surely we can reach a compromise and agree on something that neither side of the never ending debate will love, but both sides can live with? Perhaps we could get a neutral arbitrator to help us achieve this goal? Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's no more tenuous than some of the other stuff on this article. You're on a hiding to nothing trying to get any intellectual rigour or standards to underpin this article.

ALR (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, thanks for the interesting use of a term i didn't know. Hiding to nothing, at wiktionary. But, I wouldn't give Blueboar credit for leading anything regarding add intellectual rigor here. That is not what the endless complaining here and in dozens of other Talk pages and ANI reports and so on is about!

I do appreciate Blueboar adding a bit to the Washington Hall article before complaining about it here, though he failed to do any searching and just developed from the one source i had already provided. So the first complaining was unnecessary, was easily countered by more info that I and Orlady found, that Blueboar easily could have found instead. In general i see lots of useless complaining, and little collection of known-to-be-available-for-free good reliable sources such as NRHP documents that would bring more "intellectual rigor" to the individual articles and to the list-article treatment. So, NYAH, or PFLEH, or KERFPLUGH, or HARRUMPH or anything like that, would seem to me to be an appropriate, same-intellectual-level response. --doncram (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the article, not editors. It is no surprise that I am not happy with the current inclusion criteria... I am asking that we resolve this by trying to reach a compromise. If we can do this, then there will no longer be a need for me to complain, or for me to raise this issue ever again. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely that wiktionary entry doesn't include the most common usage, in that a proposal has no chance of success. An alternative may be flogging a dead horse.

In this instance we have no reliable sources to allow us to assure the statement that this building has a Masonic significance. I've raised a number of questions about what the implications of a single statement might mean, but we have nothing to corroborate or inform our use of the statement.

I would remind you, yet again, that it's appropriate to comment on the content, not the contributor and I'd be grateful if you could comment on how we corroborate the single statement in an otherwise pretty comprehensive document.

ALR (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, i thought ALR's statement "You're on a hiding to nothing trying to get any intellectual rigour or standards to underpin this article" was a first salvo here, and that i was just replying in kind, pointing out implicitly the insulting nature of that comment. Maybe that was more general besmirching of other editors here. I don't grok fine distinctions you might be trying to make, of when commenting on others amounts to personal attack and when it does not. Maybe i should have just asked which editors specifically were meant to be addressed by the intellectual rigour comment, instead of taking offense myself. ALR, who specifically did you mean to insult? Or, would you suggest that it is a collective stupidity here, a function of the collective nature of editing and the presence of some legitimate differences in values, that results in unreasonable, poor outcomes, i.e. that there are no specific individuals at fault? I rather thought you meant an insult directed at me and others whom you personally blame, and that you wish to hold yourself and Blueboar blamefree. --doncram (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of both systemic and specific weaknesses in the Wikipedia model that mitigate against rigorous quality assurance of article in general. Those apply to both the development of policy and guidance, and the mechanisms in place to support their adherence. Specifically the verifiability policy is a joke, as a concept that underlies all content we start from very shaky foundations as it essentially promotes the weakest available sources to a position of unqualified supremacy. Notability is also extremely weak, as it essentially allows single sourced but widely duplicated trivia to be notable whilst more selective publication of significant information is not notable in Wikifantasyland.

The majority voting approach to decision making mitigates against policy and guideline improvement and has a corrosive effect on the support processes. Decisions based on voting don't examine the rationale behind a vote so we end up basing decisions on sheer weight of number, not quality of debate.

The corpus of material becomes dominated by badly written trivia with contentious topics becoming convoluted and unreadable in an effort to remain compliant with what passes for policy in an effort to please everyone.

I hope that clarifies, my issues with the approaches to content management are long standing and well documented.

ALR (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion at this point would be that since the Masons didn't build it, they don't currently own it, and lent little notability to it while they did own it, it shouldn't be in this list.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above, I just removed it, but it was reverted by Doncram. Anybody else care to share their opinion? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already said I don't think it belongs... but despite what I have said above... given the current "any association with Freemasonry at all, no matter how flimsy or speculative" inclusion criteria, I would say we have to include it. There is an association with Freemasonry. We just need to make the reader aware of precisely what that association is... ie we need to include explanatory text that notes how the building was originally built and used by a non-masonic (but fraternal) group... subsequently purchased and used by a masonic group... then sold again and is now owned by a non-masonic organization and used for non-fraternal purposes. (this is something that will go in the Notes section when we convert to chart format).

That said, if you want to revisit the inclusion criteria.... I certainly would not object. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per wp:BRD, I noted SarekOfVulcan's removal as a bold move, which i reverted, and now we are to discuss. Immediate re-removal is not part of BRD. I'm not sure of protocol when BRD gets off-track, but I will return it now. The previous discussion took place prior to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sons of Haiti AFD process for Sons of Haiti which ran from SarekOfVulcan's nomination on October 7 to conclusion October 14 with Keep decision. I believe that clarified that Sons of Haiti is a black Masonic organization. Washington Hall is a notable building and provides representation for that organization here, just as the one building associated with Order of Women Freemasons provides representation here for that other Masonic organization. I believe that including both enrich this list. I believe also there are a number of buildings included here which were not originally built by a Masonic group, and/or which no longer serve as a meetingplace. --doncram (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OWF Headquarters is currently, and has for some time, been home to a Masonic organization, so its inclusion is not at issue here. Washington Hall, as pointed out above, was not built by or for a Masonic organization, does not currently house a Masonic organization, and from all evidence we've seen so far, was never primarily known for its association with a Masonic organization. The Sons of Haiti AfD is irrelevant, because this is a list of buildings. Hence, I see no reason to edit war to include it in this list, unless you're trying to make a WP:POINT. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this comes down to a simple question... is the association of the building with Freemasonry "significant"? (that is the word we use in the lede to describe our inclusion criteria). Understanding that "significant" is a somewhat subjective term, are there sources to support the view that there is a "significant association" between Washington hall and Freemasonry? Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the building belongs on the list. Like WP:Notability, "Masonic" association isn't temporary.

Moreover, this building's Masonic association was not brief. Washington Hall belonged to, and was used by, the Sons of Haiti for many years (somewhere between 37 years and 52 years, depending on the source you choose to believe). Most people would think of 37-52 years as a long period of time. Additionally, it was largely during the Sons' ownership that the building's auditorium acquired its notability as a music venue (and possibly also as a center for African-American cultural activity in Seattle).

FWIW, I didn't think there was enough RS documentation of Sons of Haiti to support the article (YMMV), but it's clear that the Sons are a Masonic group, and there's plenty of documentation for this building. --Orlady (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, the Sons of Haiti bought the hall in 1973. Out of the three artists mentioned in the article, Duke Ellington died in 1974, Jimi Hendrix in 1970, and Billie Holliday in 1953. Martin Luther King and WEB Dubois, who both spoke there, have similar issues. Therefore, I don't think it was under the Sons of Haiti's ownership that it acquired its venue notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this building is apparently Listed which automagically denotes notability. It's the HQ of the Order of Women Freemasons, so may potentially belong in this list. --ALR (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for suggesting that. This regards 27 Pembridge Gardens, an address in Notting Hill area of London. I can't find it in Heritage Gateway searching for it though. Can anyone else see if it is a Grade I, Grade II*, or Grade II listed building or find any other info about it? --doncram (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do we know about the building itself... is it just offices, or have the OWF significantly modified the building? Most importantly, are there any sources that comment on the fact that the building has Masonic connections? Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OWF web-page ;)

In the absence of the listing it's difficult to tell much about it. The OWF have been there for a long time so the listing probably post-dates any infrastructure work that they did. It contains two meeting rooms for masonic purposes, although again it's not clear if one of those is set aside for other orders rather than craft use.

In those terms it has no more of a masonic connection than most of the entries on the page.

ALR (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. I was hoping for something a bit more substantial than the one sentence statement at the OWF web-page. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to English Heritage's Images of England 27 Pembridge Gardens is Grade II listed (see entry) listed on 7 November 1984. That site is no longer maintained so I checked its entry on Listed Buildings Online which has the same data but no photo.— Rod ^talk 07:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is in Heritage Gateway here. I found it by searching for "Pembridge Gardens", and working down the list. The content is identical to Listed Buildings Online; it in fact provides a link to this source.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ALR, Rod, and Peter I. Vardy for info. I used the links to make a short section about the building within the Order of Women Freemasons article, and created redirects 27 Pembridge Gardens and Headquarters, Order of Women Freemasons to that section. I also added the whole article to Category:Grade II listed buildings in London. I added it to this list of Masonic buildings, but don't see a list-article of Grade II buildings to add it to. I think this is now done well enough, given the info available. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question... are "designated" buildings (or "listed" buildings... or what ever the correct term is) in the UK considered "inherently notable" the way NRHP listed buildings are in the US? If so, then I would suggest undoing the redirect, and creating a stub article for 27 Pembridge Gardens... (it would link to the OWF article and vise-versa). That way we would avoid confusing the notability of the order with the notability of the building. (if "listed" buildings are not considered inherently notable, then we have a different issue to discuss).Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI... I have done this. Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK... Clariosophic seems fairly insistent that we work on things here... so... below are my latest thoughts on format put into a preliminary version of just one section (the section for Asia)... note that I have broken out the geographical info into separate sortable columns. Since this is currently a small and managable sub-set (ie it will not be difficult to make changes), I propose that we use it to reach a consensus on the basic structure... then when we have reached a consensus, we can move on to Europe and finally North America. Blueboar (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image	Building name	Country	State/Province	City/Town	Year built	Notes
	Zetland Hall	China	Hong Kong SAR	Hong Kong	1865/1949	Name refers to two buildings at different locations, Both purpose built to house the District Grand Lodge.[1]
	Goshamal Baradari	India	Andhra Pradesh	Hyderabad	1682	Originally constructed as a palace for the Nizam of Hyderbad. Donated to the Masons in 1872 it has been used as a meeting hall since.[2]
	Penang Masonic Temple	Malaysia	Penang	George Town	1927	Purpose built as a Masonic hall, currently houses several Masonic lodges.[3]
	Masonic Temple	Pakistan	Punjab	Lahore	1914	Purpose built as a Masonic hall, it was the meeting place for Lodge of Hope and Perseverance No. 782 from 1914 to 1972. Now remodeled, it is used as a multi-purpose Punjab government building.[4][5]
	Freemasons Lodge Building	Pakistan	Sindh	Karachi	1914	Purpose built as Masonic hall and used as such until 1972. Now used by the Sindh Wildlife Department Conservator; renovations began in circa 2008.[6]

Sorry to everyone else that this comment is repetitive to suggested directions to Blueboar, given above. Blueboar, please don't request review of any proposed version of a chart that does not meet minimal requirements. A chart which includes unreferenced info will not survive. Please also don't include anything that is not covered in the corresponding individual articles. Otherwise it would appear you are foisting unnecessary contention upon the editors here. Also, perhaps it would be better if you get at least one other editor to sign off on a "proposal" elsewhere, agreeing that it meets reasonable requirements, before forcing it upon editors here. --doncram (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK... what info included in the chart do you think needs to be sourced? We can either source it or remove it. Also, As far as I know... everything I included in the chart is included at the various articles. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The material that was unsourced by inline references is the material that was not followed by an inline references. I don't think i can make that clearer. Could you please do a favor and get Clariosophic or one other editor to agree with you, first, that a proposal is ready for others to look at, elsewhere. I am suggesting that person should sign off that your proposal meets minimal requirements already discussed here (two that I have stated, and others stated by Orlady and others above already). Otherwise, as here, you seem to be trying to get attention for a proposal that is not ready. You have cost millions of bytes of discussion on your thoughts at this Talk page and related pages already. It is not important right now to put a table in place right this moment. I recognize that you want for everyone to drop everything and engage with your current proposal; you wish to impose immediately upon everyone else, imposing cost when you could alternatively cause less imposition by getting something more ready. I resent the unnecessary further imposition. --doncram (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clariosophic asked for it to be worked on somewhere public -- like here. Leave it for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, the only entry in my sample that does not have a citation to support the information is the building in Lahore... (and the only reason I did not include one is that I am not sure which of the several citations that exist at the main article would best support the information here). Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it written that each entry must be supported by exactly one citation? Cite several. --Orlady (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The current version of this table looks pretty good to me. Looking ahead, however, I am anticipating that we will have some difficulty figuring out what continent Bermuda belongs to. --Orlady (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking about that... we have the same question with the Canary Islands (which are part of Spain... but not in Europe). My suggested solution would be to include them both in a sub-chart section entitled "Atlantic and Caribbean islands" (we don't have any entries for the Caribbean yet, but that might change). Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I've never been to the Canaries and I don't know a whole lot about them, but because they are part of Spain, I think they should be included in Europe. Bermuda, on the other hand, is not part of the United Kingdom, so your "Islands" category may work for it. --Orlady (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like we have moved on from Asia. I have moved that section to the holding pen and I will post the Islands section so everyone can see what it would look like. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks ready to be moved to the mainspace. clariosophic (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the comments above, I think we have a consensus approving of the idea of conversion over to a chart format (if someone disagrees, please do speak up)... the next question would be implementation. I see two options... 1) review and reach a consensus on the entire list, and then carry out the conversion en-mass ... or 2) review and reach a consensus on each "by continent" section, and convert each section as we go along. (If the latter, I would suggest we break up the review of the US buildings by state and convert as they become ready). Your thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say review each section first, then move it to a subpage here. When it's ready, move the whole table to the main article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean create something like Talk:List of Masonic buildings/Conversion to chart format to hold "approved" sections?... that would work for me. Good suggestion. Any objections? Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I have done this. Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image	Building name	Country	State/Province	City/Town	Year Built	Notes
	State House	Bermuda	NA	St. George's	1620	The oldest stone building in Bermuda. Housed Bermuda's Parliament from 1620 until 1815, when the capital was relocated to Hamilton. Since 1815 it has been leased in perpetuity to a Masonic Lodge.[1]
	Masonic Temple	Spain	Canary Islands	Santa Cruz de Tenerife	1899 - 1902	Purpose built as Masonic hall, currently houses several lodges.[2]

Arrgh... I am trying to put a {{reflist}} for the new section, so people can see that the material is properly sourced... it works fine in preview mode (ie it gives me the two references cited the new section)... but for some reason it does not work when go live and save it to the page (it repeats the references for the Asia section). Obviously, this will not be a problem once we convert on the main page (we will have one reflist for the entire article, as you can see at the Talk:List of Masonic buildings/Conversion to chart format holding pen). I think the glitch is just a function of breaking it down here (having more than one reflist on a page may confuse the software). I have made this work before, but I don't remember how. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's because there can only be one reflist on a page.clariosophic (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A solution would be to transfer Asia to the mainspace, so the reflist list wouldn't be a problem.clariosophic (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved by using <references/> instead of {{reflist}} Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The 2-item chart for Bermuda and the Canary Islands looks very nice, but I'm not especially thrilled with "Atlantic and Caribbean islands" as a region designation. As has been noted, the Canary Islands are officially part of Spain, so by rights that entry belongs to Europe. Additionally, in spite of the scope of the title, the table doesn't include any properties in the Caribbean...
  After reflecting on the fact that the only listings for "Europe" at this time are in England, Scotland, and that one in the Canary Islands, I think it might make sense to step back from the idea of grouping the list strictly by continent. (What's the purpose of a "Europe" category if there are no entries on the continent of Europe?) Accordingly, I suggest (1) clustering the UK entries under either "British Isles" or "United Kingdom" (I think "British Isles" would be the better choice, both because it is a geographic grouping and not a political grouping and because it would be useful if it turns out that there are Masonic buildings in the Republic of Ireland or the Isle of Man; I don't know it the Channel Islands could also be included under "British Isles") and (2) retitling this new table to "Atlantic Islands" for now ("Caribbean" could be added later if there's anything in the Caribbean to be listed in it). --Orlady (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm.... as for having a "Europe" header if there are no entries on the continent... Don't we assume that the list might grow and change? For example, I would assume that the Paris headquarter buildings of the three major Grand Lodges in France (the Grand Lodge National de France, the Grand Lodge de France, and the Grand Orient de France) would probably be notable (although that is just an assumption). Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there are other notable Masonic buildings in Europe (you would be more likely to know that than I am). It just seems grandiose to create a list structure that accommodates elements that don't exist... --Orlady (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well... that leads to another question... we don't currently have any entries from Africa, South America or Australia/New Zealand ... should we assume that there are notable masonic buildings in those locations, and create (currently) empty sub-charts for future entries? Or should we wait until we actually have an entry and then create a sub-chart for it. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't create empty tables. --Orlady (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional thoughts: The heading "Building's history" places unnecessary (and unreasonable, I think) constraints on the content of the notes column of the table. Change that heading to "Notes" -- that way, it could include information on the building's history, but it could also discuss topics such as architecture, unusual features of the building, predecessor buildings that were destroyed, etc., as appropriate for the specific entry. There's plenty of precedent for this use of the title "Notes", as it is used on featured lists of buildings (see, for example, List of tallest buildings in Minneapolis and List of castles in Greater Manchester). --Orlady (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to "notes"... but Clariosophic indicated a preference for leaving such details to the individual articles. I think he has a point... We do need a column (whatever we call it) where we explain to the reader what the association with Freemasonry is (as an association with Freemasonry is the criteria for inclusion) ... but other than that, do we really need to duplicate details that can easily be found by clicking on the link to the individual articles? Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I wasn't aware that Clariosophic owned this page -- and (based on my past interactions with Clariosophic) I have a strong hunch that Clariosophic also would not claim to be in charge here. Regardless of that, I also don't see any indication that Clariosophic directed that the last column must be title "Building's History", nor that the table must not include any nonhistorical information. Actually, what Clariosophic advised earlier on this talk page was that the column title be "Notes" or "Description," which is what I'm also asking for. I am not saying that all available information on the building needs to be included in the "Notes" column, but rather that there should be no preconceived limitations on what kind of information should be there. --Orlady (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've learned long ago that no one owns pages. I agree with Orlady on the Notes, etc. Perhaps add things that might intrigue the reader to go to the articles, e.g., a famous person or event associated with the place, etc. Right now I'm working on trying to expand the Penang article. clariosophic (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK... great... then unless anyone else objects (which I don't expect), I think we can say that there is consensus for the column header "Building History" to become "Notes" and that it be open to adding whatever details are deemed appropriate. I'll make the change (we can easily undo if someone objects) Blueboar (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This just leaves Orlady's question on the issue of where to place the buildings on Bermuda and the Canary Islands (which I tried to resolve by them their own "Atlantic and Caribbean islands" header). Again, the issues are 1) Bermuda is sort of off on its own and does not fit in any other classification. and 2) the Canary Islands are politically part of Spain and thus could go under "Europe", but geographically they are not really part of "Europe". Any other suggestions? Blueboar (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I favor the geographical approach rather than the political. The Canary Islands aren't part of or adjacent to Europe. France also has overseas departments in the Caribbean and Oceania, which it considers integral parts of France. Obviously they are not parts of the continent of Europe. On another note, let's stick with Europe as a category and not get into the can of worms of UK vs British Isles. These are historic Masonic buildings in the Republic of Ireland. As noted above there are historic Masonic buildings in France itself. clariosophic (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have started to talk about this section above... I will post an initial draft. Blueboar (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image	Building name	Country	State/Province/region	City/Town	Year Built	Notes
	Royal Masonic School for Boys	United Kingdom	England	Bushey	1903	Purpose built as a school by the United Grand Lodge of England, it closed in 1973 and is now in use as a state school.
	Cheltenham Masonic Hall	United Kingdom	England	Cheltenham	1818	Purpose built as a Masonic Hall and still used as such[1]
	The Hanging Chapel	United Kingdom	England	Langport	13th Century	Originally built as a fortified gateway, the building as been used as a guild chapel, town hall, courthouse grammar school and museum. It has been used as a Masonic hall since 1891, and is currently leased by the town council to the Portcullis Lodge.[2]
	The Cloisters	United Kingdom	England	Letchworth	1907	Originally built as an open-air school dedicated to Psychology, it was sold to the local Freemasons after World War II. Several Masonic lodges currently meet in the building.[3]
	Chiswick House	United Kingdom	England	London	1726-1729	Built as a private house for Lord Burlington, used as such until 1892 when it was converted into a mental hospital. While no evidence exists to indicate Masonic use some scholars speculate that the building has Masonic motifs[4]
	Freemasons Hall	United Kingdom	England	London	1933	The headquarters of the United Grand Lodge of England and the third Masonic building at this location, which has been a Masonic meeting place since 1775.[5]
	27 Pembridge Gardens	United Kingdom	England	London	unknown	Originally built as a private home in 19th century building, it was donated to the Order of Women Freemasons in 1924, and has been used as the order's headquarters since.[6]
	Royal Masonic School for Girls	United Kingdom	England	Rickmansworth	1934	Purpose built as a school by United Grand Lodge of England[7]
	Church of St Edmund	United Kingdom	England	Rochdale	1873	A Grade I listed building, the church's construction was commissioned by Freemason Albert Hudson Royds; it is extensively decorated with Masonic symbols.[8]
	Freemasons Hall	United Kingdom	England	Sunderland	1785	A Grade I listed building believed to be oldest purpose-built Masonic hall in the world; still in use for that purpose.[9]
	Pollokshields Burgh Hall	United Kingdom	Scotland	Glasgow	1890	Purpose built as a Masonic hall; the meeting place for Lodge Pollok, Pollokshields No. 772.
	Lodge Mother Kilwinning	United Kingdom	Scotland	Kilwinning	1893	The lodge's building, consecrated in 1893, includes a museum of Masonic artefacts. The lodge traces its history to the building of Kilwinning Abbey, circa 1140. The current lodge building replaced a lodge building that was erected in 1779.[10]

• Comment - Since the Canary Islands are part of Spain and Spain is a country in Europe, if there is going to be a Europe table, the building in the Canary Islands needs to be in the Europe table. (Similarly, if there are any Masonic temples in Siberia, they should be listed under Europe, rather than Asia, because Russia is considered to be a European country.) --Orlady (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of Spain may be in Europe, but is it correct to say that the Canary Islands are in Europe? It is sort of like saying that that Saint Pierre and Miquelon are in Europe because they are part of France and the rest of France is in Europe. Blueboar (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - What sorting principle was followed for arranging this table? I can see that England is before Scotland, but I can't perceive how sorting was done within England and within Scotland. --Orlady (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No sorting principle was used (yet)... I simply entered them into the chart in the same order that they were listed on the current bullet pointed list. Feel free to fix it your self... otherwise I'll do so later. Blueboar (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK.... now alphabetized by city/town. Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any other issues on the Europe section? Shall we move it to the holding pen?

Yes, I have issues with it. The only issue related to the table structure is my contention that if the scope of the table is Europe, it ought to include Spain, namely the building in the Canary Islands. The larger issues have to do with content. First, there are images of many of these buildings (look for them in the articles about the buildings) that ought to be in the table. Second, the information in many of these notes is dull as dishwater. The factoid that a building was "Purpose built as a Masonic hall" may be the factoid that has led the Freemasons among us to accept that the building is a Masonic building, but it does not explain why the rest of the world would be interested in the building -- nor why it deserves to be discussed in an encyclopedia. I realize that Blueboar doesn't much care about the aspects of buildings that make them interesting to people, so I don't think there's any purpose in nudging Blueboar to write better descriptions, but the need for better descriptions exists... --Orlady (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I will hold off for a bit... Feel free to add information that you think is missing. As long as we explain the Masonic association (and thus why it is on this particular list), I don't really mind us saying more than that. Blueboar (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple of clarifications around the schools, since the Masons is a meaningless statement. I've also caveated those that have no known or corroborated Masonic use whose place in the list is based on speculation. I appreciate that it's highly likely that this will be immediately reverted because the absence of evidence is itself not evidenced, but I do dispute that these buildings even belong in the list at all so think that they should be caveated.

ALR (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly there was an objection to placing a caveat around the former church in Rochdale.

It would be useful to find some way of caveating the inclusion, since we don't actually have anything that suggests that it is a Masonic building. we don't even have reliable speculation that it's Masonic, only a local newspaper report that it has Masonic symbols. Given that even the Square and Compass aren't exclusive to Freemasonry it does strike me as a bit of a stretch to jump from a barely reliable source that asserts one thing to a conclusion that's only vaguely related.

As above, whilst the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence it is contrary to the Constitutions of UGLE to meet in a church.

ALR (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the building was built to be a church, it was not purpose built as a masonic hall... inclusion, therefor can only be justified under it having a "significant association"... I have to agree with ALR. I don't think the association is significant enough. However, I do understand that others might disagree. Perhaps an RfC is in order to get a broader sampling of opinions? Blueboar (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your "caveat" was totally unsourced -- original research. On the other hand, the Masonic symbolism in the church is not merely the opinion (nor the original research) of a local newspaper reporter. That newspaper article quotes "Nick Bridgland, Heritage Protection Team Leader for English Heritage in the North" as saying: “St Edmunds is unique as it merges the architectural style of Gothic revival with Masonic symbolism to create a building which is not only a successful parish church but also a temple to Freemasonry. The completeness of the Masonic scheme is unparalleled in England and the importance of this building is reflected in its Grade I listing.” --Orlady (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about we try something along the lines of The church has never been used for Masonic purposes however a regional official for English Heritage has identified the decoration as historically significant?

My concern is that we've now degraded our standard for inclusion so far that we've now got a building that was privately commissioned by by a freemason and decorated according to his wishes. It doesn't have any association with any Masonic body, has never been used by a Masonic organisation and appears to have been funded on a private basis. Given that set of circumstances I think we could work to find some way of presenting it appropriately,

We have one primary source stating that the decoration is significant, you're stretching the bounds of intellectual rigour and propriety to represent it as something it's not.

ALR (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what we have for Canada... and the US (Alaska, Alabama and Arizona)... more to come (I think it best to do this in smallish chunks) Blueboar (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image	Building name	Country	State/Province	City/Town	Year Built	Notes
File:IMG 1380.JPG	Masonic Temple	Canada	Newfoundland	St. John's	1896	Purpose built as Masonic hall - Currently houses several lodges.[1]
	Masonic Temple	Canada	Ontario	Toronto	1917	Purpose built as Masonic hall, sold in 1994 and remodeled. Now known as the CTV Temple (home of MTV Canada)[2]
	Montreal Masonic Memorial Temple	Canada	Quebec	Montreal	NA	Purpose built as Masonic hall - currently houses several Masonic lodges.[3]
	Masonic Temple	United States	Alaska	Fairbanks	1906	Originally constructed by the Tanana Commercial Company, the Masons purchased the building in 1908 and renovated to add a second story for lodge rooms and a main hall.[4][5]
	West End Masonic Temple	United States	Alabama	Birmingham	1926	Purpose built as a Masonic hall, it was used as such until 1985, when it was sold and converted to office space. The building was destroyed in a fire on New Year's Day, 1996.[6]
	Crane Hill Masonic Lodge	United States	Alabama	Crane Hill	1904	Historically used as a department store, dwelling, and a school[7], it is currently used as a Masonic hall.[8]
	Helion Lodge	United States	Alabama	Huntsville	1911	Home of the oldest Freemasons' lodge in Alabama, which erected this building to replace a previous building.[9]
	The Temple Downtown	United States	Alabama	Mobile	1922	Purpose built to house a Scottish Rite chapter, the building has been sold and converted into a banqueting venue.[10]
	Joseph T. Smitherman Historic Building	United States	Alabama	Selma	1847	Constructed in 1847 as the Central Masonic Institute, a school for orphans and the children of indigent Masons, the building subsequently was used to house various schools and hospitals and at one point housed the Dallas County Courthouse. It is currently a historical museum.[11]
	Masonic Temple	United States	Arizona	Kingman	1939	Purpose built as a Masonic hall and constructed by the WPA, the building is currently is used for office space.[12]
	Polly Rosenbaum Building (originally the El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium)	United States	Arizona	Phoenix	1921	Moorish Revival building built as a meeting hall for the Phoenix chapter of the Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine (the Shriners). After the Shriners built a new auditorium in 1989, this building was acquired by the Arizona Department of Mines and Minerals and remodeled. It now houses a museum.[13]
	Masonic Hall	United States	Arizona	Wickenburg	1922	Built as a meeting hall for the local Freemasons and Knights of Pythias, both of which needed to hold their meetings on the second floor; no building that fit this requirement was available in Wickenburg. Later housed a Montgomery Ward department store.[14]
	Masonic Temple	United States	Arizona	Yuma	1931	Purpose built as a Masonic hall and still serving that function.[15]

Note the citation request for the hall in Wickenburg, AZ... I can find no source (yet) that says there ever was a lodge in that town. Yes, I agree that the building would probably be named "Masonic Hall" if a lodge never met there... but the threshold for inclusion of information is "verifiability not truth"... we need confirmation. So we have to keep digging. Ideally, I would like a source that can tell us whether the building was purpose built as a lodge or was purchased (and then later sold) by a lodge. Does the NRHP database have anything on this? Blueboar (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you spelling Wickenburg correctly in your investigations? I ask because when I Google "Masonic" and "Wickenburg", I turn up lots of obituaries for men who were members of a Masonic lodge in Wickenburg (apparently the lodge there is Hassayampa Masonic Lodge 37). Then there's this list of Arizona Masonic lodges, --Orlady (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Orlady... This is getting interesting. So we know from the obits that a lodge did at least exist in Wickenburg at one time... and we have another local lodge's website saying it currently exists... however, the relevant Grand Lodge says it does not currently exist. As far as current existence goes, I would tend to call the Grand Lodge more reliable (as GLs are more authoritative and up-to-date.) I am speculating here... but lodges do shut down and return their charters, and this may have happened with Hassayampa No. 37 (and if so, it would explain why the GL does not list it).

Now all we need to do is reliably tie Hassayampa 37 to the building in question (just to be sure that Wickenburg didn't have two lodges at one point... unlikely, but possible).

By the way, I just want to make it clear that I am not challenging the inclusion of the building in the list... I simply have questions about what we can reliably say about the building in the Notes section. In this case, the citation request is just that... a request for citations (and more information)... not a challenge. Blueboar (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the drafted Wickenburg description, that is unacceptable for various reasons, some previously discussed in this Talk page and its archives. For one it includes reference to private website "NRHP.COM" instead of NRIS; NRHP.COM is just a copy of NRIS (see archives, see wp:NRHPhelp.) The drafted description erroneously accepts from NRIS, then, that "department store" is a "current" use of the building, when the data NRHP.COM has copied from NRIS is from the date of NRHP listing, in 1986. For another, it makes a negative assertion based on Blueboar's failure to find positive information about something; that is unreliable and unacceptable as has been discussed for another research matter or two where Blueboar was unable to find any info. For another, whether or not a Masonic Lodge meets at the place is probably not noteworthy in this list-article. For another, these assertions are not made in the article for the place, where positive mention of a place being a Masonic Lodge meeting place according to some Grand Lodge directory could possibly be acceptable. To actually say something substantial, one approach would be to obtain the 1986-era NRHP nomination document, available for free upon request. I rather assume no one will obtain that anytime soon, because: I am not that interested, i am guessing that Clario is not that interested, and I think no one else participating at this Talk page has ever requested and obtained a NRHP document that is not available on-line. Anyhow, there is no urgency to manufacture something to put in the Notes/description column. It can and should just be left blank if there is nothing noteworthy to say yet. --doncram (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram is right:

(1) NationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces.com is not a good source to cite. It is simply a private mirror of the federal government database (it is not a source in itself), and we have discovered errors in the website's rendering of some of the data.

(2) There is no need to fill in the "Notes" cell of a table row if there is nothing worthwhile to say at this time. It certainly is not a good idea to engage in original research simply in order to fill in a table cell. --Orlady (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like NRHP.com... feel free to replace it with a better source. It was simply the only source I could find for what the current status of the building is.

I would object to leaving the Notes section completely blank (in the long term... I don't mind if it is blank temporarily, while we work on improving the chart)... we do need to justify inclusion (ie explain what the association with Freemsonry is). If we can't do that, then we should remove the entry. We can always re-add it when someone manages (or bothers) to come up with a source to support inclusion. Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Peoria #31's "Golden Scroll":

Bagdad merged with Hassayampa Lodge No. 37 in 1993 and Hassyampa merged with Peoria Lodge No. 31 in 2005.

That could explain the timing issues above... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sarek... that helps with the end of the story (logical assumption: during one of these merges the building was sold). The next thing is to try to find out the beginning of the story... whether the building was purpose built as a Masonic hall, or whether it was something else before the Masons had it. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

woops... Huston, we have a problem... I used Wayback to access the GL website from 2005 (here)... which lists Hassayampa Lodge No. 37 and gives an address of 470 Rose Ln.... However, the NRHP says the address of the listed Masonic Hall in Wickenberg is 108 Teneger... This could be either North or South Teneger St.... while N Teneger does intersect with Rose Lane... 108 is no where near that intersection. This means that Hassayampa Lodge may not be the lodge after all (or it could mean that they did meet in the historic building at one time... at some point moved to Rose lane... and then in 2005 merged and closed shop). Two steps forward... one step back! Blueboar (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts: While Peoria is a suburb of Phoenix, Wickenburg is NOT. See [Google Maps] and you'll see there is a lot of empty desert between Phoenix and Wickenburg, which is almost on the county line with Yavapai County. See also the NRHP Nomination Form for Wickenburg MRA] under the topic Social there is a discussion of the social and fraternal history. The only other Masonic related body mentioned is a Shriners group. At the time of listing in 1986, the building was not being used as a Masonic hall. I find it unlikely that Wickenburg had more than one Masonic lodge. The low No. 37 would indicate it as one of the earliest in the state. Bagdad Lodge No. 54 was in Bagdad, which is in Yavapai County. clariosophic (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary to delve into the history of Masonic lodges in Wickenburg. Since the place was a boom town at one time -- in an era when freemasonry was more popular than it is now, it's entirely possible that it had multiple lodges in the past. Regardless, that Wickenburg MRA is a good find. It provides (on page 18), ample information to document that the Masonic Hall was built for Masonic purposes. It states:

A popular gathering spot which functioned as a sort of gentleman's club around the turn of the century was the old barber shop... This early informal clubbing gave way to organization of the Knights of Pythias Lodge and Free and Accepted Masons. A 1917 newspaper article chronicles the need for a two-story business block because both fraternities charters called for meetings to be held on the second floor, and none was available. The call was met soon,after, however, with the construction of the Masonic Hall building (1-15) on Tegner Street, now [this would be 1986] the location of Montgomery Wards. This building is also noteworthy as a rare local example of the concrete frame with brick infill method of construction.

--Orlady (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the MRA is a very good source... I think we can formulate a verifiable statement as to the masonic association with the building based on it. That's all we really need. We don't need to assume that Hassayampa was the lodge that met in the building. It does not matter what lodge met in the building as long as we can establish that a lodge met in the building (or that there was some other significant connection to Freemasonry). I think the MRA does that. So let's base our statement for the notes on the MRA (I'll work on it). Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Issue: Regarding the El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium... I realize that the NRHP lists the building by that that name, but does anyone else? We actually have a three way "listed name" vs "common name" vs "official name" conflict... We know what the NRHP calls it... and given the huge lettering on the outside of the building (seen here), the common name is probably the "Arizona Mining and Mineral Museum" while The "offical name" used by the Dept. itself is the "Polly Rosenbaum building"... I raise the issue because, apparently, there is another building in Phoenix that goes by the name "El Zariba Shrine Auditorium" (ie the current El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium ... the building that the Shriners built and moved into when they sold their former building to the ADMM, see here). Thoughts? (note... I have opened a discussion about a possible page move at the main article... but for now I am just asking how we should list it here. I don't really like the somewhat long and clunky way it is currently listed... but it at least draws attention to the issue.) Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is definitely an issue!

In my experience, the National Register listing names often are not good names for articles. The NRHP listing may have been done 10, 20, 30, or more years ago, and the listing name often is no longer the most common name, if indeed it ever was. This is the clearest case I've ever seen of a building whose article name should not use the NRHP listing name. The NRHP listing was done in early 1989 before the new El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium building had been completed, so the name was valid at that time, but that is no longer the case. IMO, the article should be renamed to Polly Rosenbaum Building without further ado, and the article and this list should both discuss the previous name and the history (as discussed at this source), including the fact the Shriners have a new auditorium that uses the same name. (BTW, the building is named the Polly Rosenbaum Building, according to this source. The fact that it houses the museum does not necessarily make the museum name into the name of the building.) --Orlady (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be moved, and have made it a formal RM request at the talkpage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I some questions regarding the Masonic history/connection of some of these buildings... Hopefully someone will be able to come up with the answers. Blueboar (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you have inserted far more information in this list than exists in most of the individual linked articles about the buildings. (Ideally the articles should be more informative than the list, not the other way around.)

Also, I find it odd that while the most salient fact in most of the articles is that the building is listed on the National Register, but that's nowhere mentioned in any of your propsed list entries. The fact of National Register listing is not wildly fascinating (IMHO, anyway), but it seems more encyclopedic than "purpose built as a Masonic hall" or the fact that the Masonic lodge met on the second floor... --Orlady (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it... That's why we post it here first. The reason why I add the information about the building being purpose built as a Masonic hall, etc is to substantiate that it meets the inclusion criteria. I have been focused on substantiating why the building qualifies as a "Masonic Building"... The information that I put in the notes is what I think needs to be stated in order to do that. I agree that it isn't very interesting, but I think it is necessary. (without such substantiation, we might as well rename this List of buildings that are listed by the NRHP with a name that includes the word 'masonic') If you or other editors want to add other stuff, fine. That is how we end up with a good article. Note that no matter what we do, it will be an improvement on what the list currently has. Blueboar (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas state agency: Here is the NRHP page for Arkansas Historic Preservation Program. Click on Search the National Register Listings in Arkansas, then choose the county and wither enter city or name. When the building comes up click on its name to get the full listing clariosophic (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added refs for the first and last ones in the table. Some agency in each state reviews the NRHP nominations before they are sent to the NPS. Some states, e.g., South Carolina, have put on the net extensive pictures, text and a copy of the actual NRHP nom. form for each property in their state.clariosophic (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for Arkansas properties may be easier just by pulling up the whole county. Unfortunately not all listings have more than a squib. The Yell one for instance is not clickable. It does give an alternate name for the building. clariosophic (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]