Historic sites

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites 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.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Freemasonry High‑importance

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 High This article has been rated as High-importance 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.

There are a number of impressive masonic buildings in St. Louis, Mo, e.g. this one in midtown on Lindell blvd. Why have they beeen forgotten? I do not want to interfere here, but I have written a short article in German WP on the subject of this "double decker acropolis" and I would be happy to have better and newer pictures not only regarding this building but also regarding the other masonic landmarks on Lindell. Robert Schediwy --91.129.8.20 (talk) 09:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Here's some useful information on the topic:

1)The Scottish Rite Cathedral, at 3627 Lindell, was designed by William B. Ittner and was dedicated in 1924. A fine example of neo Classic style, the building has a frontage of 235 feet and is approached by a broad flight of steps. Its auditorium seats 3000 persons. Features are an extremely wide proscenium and a fine organ.

2)The Masonic Temple at 3681 Lindell was completed in 1926. The three receding stages of the classic style building are symbolic of the three steps in Masonry. The height of the building is 175 feet and is constructed of Bedford limestone with gray granite trim. (Architects: Eames and Young).

3)At 3821 Lindell is Moolah Temple of the Mystic Shrine (completed in 1912), a brick and tile building in the Moorish style. Source[1]--91.129.8.20 (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)--91.129.8.20 (talk) 09:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, being "impressive" is not a criteria for inclusion in the list ... but that said, at first glance these certainly appear to be good candidates for the list. To add them, you would need sources that a) discuss the building in some depth (to establish its notability) and b) explain what the association to Freemasonry is or was. Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Robert for commenting. They do appear to be good candidates to add. I see the German wikipedia article is here. And it has external links to:

• this blogspot.com webpage that includes multiple photos and more information, and
• this stlouis.missouri.org webpage about the history of the Lindell neighborhood (the above-posted info is copy-pasted from there, as Robert notes)

I think it's enough info to add them to the list here, although actually starting separate articles should perhaps require a bit more.

Further, i note this waymarking site suggests the New Masonic Temple is a contributing property in the NRHP-listed Midtown Historic District (St. Louis, Missouri) (currently a red-link). NRHP nom doc for that district would be one source to get. And this postcard calls it "magnificent", and i agree!

That's a very good start for us, thanks! --doncram 23:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The articles we need, i think, then are:

• Scottish Rite Cathedral (St. Louis, Missouri)
• New Masonic Temple (St. Louis, Missouri) (or New Masonic Temple?)
• Moolah Temple of the Mystic Shrine

Help developing these would be appreciated. --doncram 13:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles started. --doncram 15:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped out the quote about the dedication of the Iowa GL building "being the most important event in Iowa Masonry". It was removed as "puffery", then put back as "a quote of puffery". The fact remains that it is still puffery, as opposed to a statement of fact. At best, it is a subjective quote, which is also not a statement of fact. Therefore, it adds nothing of value to the entry on the building, other than an attempt to find something that asserts the importance of the building, and thus its inclusion on the list. MSJapan (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I think that the building is note worthy enough to be included on the list (and no, that is not the same as saying I think it is notable enough for a stand alone article) ... but I also agree that self published puffery isn't the best way to justify inclusion. I am sure we can find another source. Blueboar (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several times over, there's been misunderstanding of policy and practice of Wikipedia related to this item, expressed in unjustified edits removing the item from the "List of Masonic buildings" article, in misguided AFD to delete the article I started about the building (towards clarifying its notability, as I was hoping to avoid moronic discussions here, about the significant distinction between notability-for-an-article vs. notability-for-mention-in-a-list), and in multiple edits on its description.

This is tedious. The description column can and IMO should be used to give interesting facts; it is not at all necessary to prove notability in that column. It has been an unusual obsession of a few editors about notability of items. Get over it, please!

Anyhow, while I am sure someone could craft something better still, the description "Library, museum and administration building whose dedication was asserted to be 'the most important event in Iowa Masonry' during the 20th century!"^[1] is IMO pretty obviously more interesting than "Library, museum and Grand Lodge administration building^[1] I think the assertion is interesting, even if it is puffery. But, what event in Iowa Masonic history of the 20th century does anyone possibly think was more important?!?! --doncram 02:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is obvious that two editors disagree with you. so is there a compromise we can reach?

As for what might be considered more important than the dedication of the building... I think the 1944 centennial celebrations of the founding of the Grand Lodge would be a good candidate. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is tedious. No, I don't agree that two editors disagree with me, at least not two who have understanding of the relevant facts and policies here. One editor has so far completely misunderstood the situation, believing that a quote is not factual. That is a truly basic misunderstanding of how the encyclopedia and written English and basic communication works. It is absurd to insist that "Library, museum and administration building whose dedication was asserted to be 'the most important event in Iowa Masonry' during the 20th century" is not a factual statement. The dedication was in fact asserted to be that. It is supported by the reference. The editor believes the statement is puffery; it simply is not; it is an entirely factual statement. One or both editors have continued to believe that the description section statement must be something that defends the notability of the item. That is false, too. It is boring to keep going through this again and again.

That leaves one other editor actually searching for something else interesting or otherwise to say. What is needed for a descriptive statement is something about the building. I drafted what I drafted, and it is about the building. I repeat that "Library, museum and administration building whose dedication was asserted to be 'the most important event in Iowa Masonry' during the 20th century" is pretty obviously more interesting than "Library, museum and Grand Lodge administration building". There is no other proposed wording on the table.

So, I expect to continue to develop this list-article, including restoring the mildly interesting factoid that i have drafted. Unless someone comes up with something better. I would be happy to see some other good alternative.

But, why the focus on battling one drafted statement here? There are lots of descriptions that are needed for this list-article. Why would one or two Masonic editors be so focused on opposing one factual statement, which has been well enough defended already? Editors who basically are not involved in developing positive material for this article, who are hyper-focused on one entry in a long list now, where they've just lost a couple stupid battles to remove the entry and to delete its article. It's obviously a sore subject. If you want to contribute, please do, but please consider trying to contribute positively in some way. Please move on to some other items for a while, please try to develop some other positive descriptions, could you? --doncram 12:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A while back, Blueboar, you embarked on an editing campaign to change the NRIS references in articles linked from this list articles, and changed 20 or so before agreeing to stop. That was covered in Talk:List of Masonic buildings/Archive 6#NRIS references in Masonic buildings articles. Would you please now go and fix those? --doncram 12:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ones needing fixing now include at least the following ones, from Blueboars contribution history at that time:

# 14:23, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Mount Moriah Masonic Lodge No. 18 ‎ (cite same source, but without link to long dead website)
# 14:23, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Knob School-Masonic Lodge ‎ (same source, but without the link to a dead website)
# 14:22, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Hampton Masonic Lodge Building ‎ (same source, but without the link to a dead website)
# 14:21, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Fort Smith Masonic Temple ‎ (same source, but without the link to a dead website)
# 14:20, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Russellville Masonic Temple ‎ (same source, but without the dead link)
# 14:19, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Masonic Temple (Pine Bluff, Arkansas) ‎ (changed citation - same source but without the dead link)
# 14:18, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Masonic Temple (El Dorado, Arkansas) ‎ (Changed citation - cite database as if in hard copy, since linked website is dead)
# 14:17, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Lee's Chapel Church and Masonic Hall ‎ (Changed citation - cited as if database is hard copy since linked website is dead)
# 14:16, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Chester Masonic Lodge and Community Building ‎ (Changed citation - cite database as if in hard copy since linked website is dead)
# 14:15, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Yell Masonic Lodge Hall ‎ (Changed citation - cited database as if in hard copy since linked website is dead)
# 14:13, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Bradford City Hall-Byers Masonic Lodge ‎ (Changed citation - cited as if database were in hard copy since linked website is dead)
# 14:12, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Farmers and Merchants Bank-Masonic Lodge ‎ (Change to citation... cited as if in hard copy since linked website is dead)
# 14:11, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Masonic Temple (Yuma, Arizona) ‎ (Changed citation - linked website is dead, but database itself is still valid)
# 14:09, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Masonic Hall (Wickenburg, Arizona) ‎ (Changed citation... cited as if in hard copy since linked website is dead)
# 14:07, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Polly Rosenbaum Building ‎ (Change citation... cited as if hard copy database since link is dead)
# 14:06, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Joseph T. Smitherman Historic Building ‎ (Change citation... cited as if hard copy since link is dead)
# 14:04, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Scottish Rite Temple (Mobile, Alabama) ‎ (Change citation as if hard copy... since linked website is dead)
# 14:03, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Crane Hill Masonic Lodge ‎ (cite in hard copy since link is dead)
# 14:02, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) West End Masonic Temple ‎ (cite in hard copy since link is down)
# 14:01, 3 November 2010 (diff | hist) Masonic Temple (Fairbanks, Alaska) ‎ (Link in hard copy, since website is down)

Would you please fix all of these to the standard NRIS reference which has since been rolled out? --doncram 12:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the new standard NRIS reference? (I have lost track) Blueboar (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the one that appears in all other NRHP-listed places linked in this, including Cedar Rapids Scottish Rite Temple where you have been editing recently. The bot changed the reference in all pre-existing articles except the ones you had changed to non-standard form. New articles with infobox from the Elkman system come in with the reference. Thanks. --doncram 13:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To spell it out more clearly for Blueboar, the new standard NRIS reference is what resulted from discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 48#Please change the standard citation to omit the link. To fix the items you changed, you should go to the article, figure out which version of NRIS was in fact the source that had been used (i.e. look at the NRIS reference date in the version before you changed the article), and replace what you put in by:

1. <ref name=nris>{{NRISref|2009a}}</ref> if date=2009-03-13 appeared in what u replaced, or
2. <ref name=nris>{{NRISref|2008a}}</ref> if date=2008-04-15 appeared in what u replaced, or
3. <ref name=nris>{{NRISref|2008b}}</ref> if date=2008-04-24 appeared in what u replaced, or
4. <ref name=nris>{{NRISref|2007b}}</ref> if date=2008-06-30 appeared in what u replaced, or
5. check for other version numbers at template:NRISref

This would restore a valid reference describing the source that was actually used in developing the article. For the older dates, an alternative would be for you to update the NRHP information using the March 2009 NRIS data, and show that.

The bot run did all such replacements for all 25,000 or so other NRIS references in wikipedia already. --doncram 15:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I will give it a shot. I'm busy on other things right at the moment, so please be patient. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar, could you please give an update about this? This is a ping to keep this item from being deleted. --doncram 20:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sorry it took me so long to get to this... it was not a priority. In any case, done. Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list-article is obviously long now and I expect to split it soon. Probably to just split off List of Masonic buildings in the United States. The huge amount of edit history in developing the United States entries would be left behind in the current list-article, but i see no remedy for that. I'm not expecting there's any other alternative, but would consider any others' comments. --doncram 12:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to a split, but I do have a concern... if we split off the US Buildings, does it leaves us with an overly short list where it comes to the non-US buildings. Just to think out loud... Perhaps a split to Masonic buildings listed on the NRHP... which would leave the few non-NRHP American buildings with the international ones? Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, if the majority of the edit history is US buildings, you could just rename this to US and split off the other content to a new List of Masonic buildings article, giving the current diff from this article for attribution purposes in the edit summary.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point that the U.S. list is now a large majority of the article, and splitting by U.S. vs. non-U.S. will leave the U.S. chunk still very large. But at least it is developed out, and won't grow too much more, too fast. The non-U.S. portion could grow by expanding out into tables with pics and descriptions and so on, as Blueboar was developing in draft form. So splitting U.S. vs. non-U.S. does make some progress at least.

Thanks, that's a good suggestion about how to do the split, with attribution in the edit summary. Another consideration, come to think of it, is that there are dozens of wp:ANI and wp:3RRnb and other discussions that link to here or to archives of this Talk page, and avoiding breaking all of those links is desirable. I don't mind leaving all that behind, in my going on to continue to develop a newly splitoff article of the U.S. list. --doncram 14:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good point. Thanks. Leaving it here would be better, then. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the suggestion is now to split off the non-US buildings? What would we call that article? Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was my suggestion, but I withdrew it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... OK... then what is the suggestion?

I do have to at least make an alternative suggestion for people to think about ... We could bring the list back to a more manageable size if we narrowed our definition of what constitutes a "Masonic building"... limiting it to those buildings that were/are purpose built to house Masonic bodies, as opposed to those that are/were built as something else and are now merely occupied by the Masons. (I am not trying to re-open old debates here... just making the suggestion). Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor added an entry for the Israeli Supreme Court building in this edit, which i reverted for now. It included a link to a Wikipedia article on the supreme court building that does not support a Masonic association at all, and no outside reliable source. Even if there is some association which can be established, the building should not be included in this list unless it is quite a significant association. The building was built to be the supreme court building, apparently. --doncram 15:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

300 Albert St East Melbourne Vic Australia is the UGLV landmark building. GL does not feature it in their web site but they do run another http://dallasbrookscentre.com.au/ http://www.walkingmelbourne.com/building785_dallas-brooks-hall.html migth also be of interest.

Looks like you are going for major buidlings - but this one is well known in the sate http://www.lodgedevotion.net/devotionnews/education-editorial-articles/creswick-havilah-lodge-no-26-its-building-201105