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 30 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

There are two mason temples in North Carolina, one in Swansboro, one in Newbern. I don't know their actual names, and I don't know where they should go on this article, so if someone else (who knows more about the sections/stuff) wants to add those in, go ahead. --WikiSpaceboy

My house used to be own by a master mason. just so happens i found Plenlty of masonic things. espically in the attic when we knocked down the walls, Things including Order of The Amartanth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.241.251 (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this list needs a clear criteria for inclusion. Is this a List of buildings with the word 'Masonic' included in their names"?... is it a List of buildings built by the Freemasons?... is it List of buildings used (at some point in history) by the Freemasons?... is it List of buildings associated with the Freemasons? or what?

Is there any difference between this list and Category:Masonic buildings (which also needs a clearer criteria for inclusion by the way). Is there any substantial difference between this list and: Masonic Temple, [[Masonic Lodge {disambiguation)]], Masonic Building etc. We still have a huge duplication of lists here. Blueboar (talk) 11:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's my take, in order: your first option is not really a good choice as a title and would seem to be a frivolous list; the second would seem to be what a lot of people would consider, but that would mean adding taverns as well, which might not be clear, and which do not now have a connection; lastly, "associated" is not good either, because that's subjective. I suppose a better question is: if we cannot arrive at a set of consistent, useful, and clear criteria for inclusion, do we need this at all? MSJapan (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Personally I don't think we do... but given that we have prodded this twice, and the prods were overturned, I figured we should at least ask.... Does anyone have a clear concept of what a "Masonic building" is? Blueboar (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it is any building that was built for Masonic purposes. This definition would justify a merger between Masonic Temple and this article keeping the title of Masonic buildings. This would allow the article to also list things like the George Washington Masonic National Memorial and buildings like Shrine Mosques and Commandery Asylums. I doubt we're going to find a solid reference for the decision simply because it comes down to an opinion on how we wish to organize the data as editors. But if any justification is needed it might be worthwhile to mention on the page that most Masonic Buildings do have a "Masonic Building Association" which meets and handles the administration of their respective masonic building. PeRshGo (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... and what do we mean by "built for Masonic purposes"... holding meetings? Taking care of "Widows and orphans" (ie Masonic nursing homes, orphanages and schools?). What if the building is no longer used for "Masonic purposes"... Consider the case of the Renaissance Hotel in Providence... The building was originally planned to be a meeting hall for the Masons, but they ran out of money during the Depression and construction was stopped half way through. No lodge ever met there. The property sat half finished... owned by the city... until a few years ago when the Marriott Hotel chain converted it into a luxury hotel with a "Masonic theme". Do we include that building in the list?

There is apparently some objection to merging this list with Masonic Temple (see that page's talk page)... according to the NRHP Project (NRHP stands for National Register of Historic Places) that page is supposed to be a dab page... to disambiguate between the various articles (and red linked potential articles) on buildings named "Masonic Temple" (ie articles entitled Masonic Temple (Sometown, State) ). I am trying to get them to at least agree to move that dab page to Masonic temple (disambiguation).

By the way... we also have a short stub article entitled Masonic temple (small "t") which describes what a Masonic temple is.

Confusing, I know. That's why I raised the question. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, it is just me, Doncram, not the entire WikiProject NRHP, who has been working on fixing up disambiguation pages such as the Masonic Temple one which happen to include some NRHP entries, as well as other entries. The current Masonic Temple (disambiguation) page has at least 4 non-NRHP entries, by the way. And i did agree to the move of the disambiguation page to, well, "Masonic Temple (disambiguation)" with a capital T, because it is about proper noun places having name Masonic Temple (and close variations). About the capital letter or any other issues with that, please comment at the Requested Move now posted at Talk:Masonic Temple.

About this list-article on Masonic buildings, my personal view is that, because there are so many notable ones of various types and names, that it is or could be a useful article, if WikiProject Freemasonry or any one editor would choose to adopt it and develop it appropriately. I would leave it to whoever is developing it, about subjective choices to include the hospitals and other places, though i myself would tend to include them in. However, I myself am not willing, am not that interested, to develop it, so i will defer to others. I also recognize, agreeing with Blueboar above or elsewhere, that vaguely defined list articles tend to attract all manner of additions, and can be a royal pain to have association with. The disambiguation pages must conform to wp:MOSDAB so non-notable additions can be dealt with easily. But the list-article could tend to attract listing of any building anywhere where any masons ever met once, which is non-encyclopedic and not fun to work with. Or maybe it can be managed properly, but it could require some ongoing management. You all develop it, you can leave it for someone else to fix, or you can put it up for deletion by AFD if you like, i don't care. But, the category of Masonic buildings and the disambiguation pages are needed, whether this list-article is developed or not developed or deleted. That's my 2 cents. :) --doncram (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think I would go as far as to include places like Masonic nursing homes if found notable, as well as buildings like the MTV headquarters in Toronto that were once Masonic temples but are no longer. The Renaissance Hotel is in issue unto its self but I think that makes it notable enough to include as well. But as far the Masonic Temple vs Masonic temple problem, that's a different issue entirely. Conflicts like that really shouldn't exist. I know from personal experience with the NHRP they have a huge problem with the entire "Masonic Temple" naming scheme due to inconsistencies in the nominations. Given so many are just named "Masonic Temple" the decision on how to name it is usually up to the person writing up the nomination with no oversight on consistency. Because of this the Masonic Temple article is fundamentally flawed because for the most part the various temples aren't listed in the format they have on the page PeRshGo (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We now have clarified part of the confusion and overlap... The confusion between the Masonic temple and Masonic Temple articles has been resolved by moving the latter to Masonic temple (disambiguation). That leaves this list article to deal with.

I think the underlying problem lies in determining whether we are using the word "Masonic" as a proper noun, or as an adjective. Is this a list of buildings with the word "Masonic" in their names? (in which case, I think this list is overly duplicative of the disambiguation page). Or is it a list of buildings that are in some way "Masonic"... ie associated with Freemasonry? (and if so, then we need a clearer criteria for inclusion.) So... I must ask again... what do we mean when we use this word... if we mean buildings with "Masonic" in their names, do we need this list? If we mean buildings that are in some way "Masonic", then what makes a building "Masonic"? Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I see that the project banner for the dab project has been removed... and that at least one editor thinks this is not a dab page. That would indicate that the word is being used as an adjective. Do others agree? Blueboar (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To show how there is confusion here, let's take a look at some examples from the list...

• The first entry we have is State House, Bermuda (built 1609). It is certainly a notable building... Other than fortifications, it was Bermuda's first stone building, and was the first building in Bermuda purpose built to house the Government. It is the oldest surviving Bermudian building. But... is it really a "Masonic" building. It was certainly not built as such. It has no architectural features that would define it as such... it is not decorated with Masonic emblems, or things like that. I assume it was included in the list because a Masonic lodge purchased the building in 1815 and has met there since (which means that for around half of its existence, the building did not have a Masonic connection at all).
• Next we have Masonic Temple (St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador). Again, no question that the building is notable... and it was built explicitly as a Masonic building. The architecture and decoration are distinctly Masonic... However, the Masons stopped using it in 2007 and have subsequently sold it (not sure what the building is used for now). So is this still a "Masonic" building?
• Next comes Masonic Temple (Toronto) aka the CTV Temple or MTV Temple... this too was originally built as a Masonic temple (in 1917) but was sold in the late 1980s... The exterior no longer has any Masonic decoration ... the interior has been completely re-designed. So is this now a "Masonic" building?
• Jumping down a bit... consider Masonic Temple (Chicago, Illinois)... here we have a building that was built and used purely as a place for Masons to meet... but the building has not existed for over 75 years (it was demolished in 1939). So is this what we mean by "Masonic" building?
• Then there is the wonderful case of Masonic Temple (Providence, Rhode Island)... aka "Mason building", aka "Renaissance Providence Hotel". It was originally intended to be a Masonic temple... but the Grand Lodge ran out of money half way through construction and abandoned it... so they never met there. The building sat half completed for decades, until it was finally purchased by a hotel chain. It does contain some Masonic symbolism and imagery... both on the exterior and in the interior (although some of that a modern addition created by the buildings current owner and not the masons themselves)... so what makes this a "Masonic" building?

I could go on... but I think I have made my point. We need a conclusion criteria that is more than "The building is, or was, associated with the Masons in some way." So I ask YET again... what makes a building "Masonic"? Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, those are buildings and they all have a significant Masonic association. --doncram (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are the associations significant? Please be specific. Blueboar (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All are wikipedia-notable (all have wikipedia articles and there is no suggestion that should be disputed). As your own discussion indicates, the first one has masonic association of meetings there over almost 200 years. The second one, constructed in 1894, has association of over 100 years. The 2nd thru 5th ones have association via their name being "Masonic Temple". The 5th one is represented as being a wonderful, exceptional case, even. Your comments describe the association in each case. But hey, i don't want to develop this list-article. I thot u didnt either. Leave it for someone else? --doncram (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I don't want to develop it... but as a member of the Freemasonry Project, I want to try to define and clarify its scope, so other editors can develop it.

So... You take a very broad view of what should be on this list. Just to see if I understand your take on this... Is it your view that any building that is listed by the NRHP (or similar preservation/historic oriented orgs) under a name that includes the word "Masonic" has a significant connection to Freemasonry?

If so, I would disagree. My view is that, for us to say that a building is "Masonic", the first criteria is it must have been built by the Masons for Masonic purposes (ie as a place for them to meet). As a second criteria, I think it must still be in a state that can be considered "Masonic"... a building that was originally built by the Masons, but has been subsequently substantially altered (such as the Renaissance Hotel or the MTV Temple) no longer qualifies. Blueboar (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an addition... we should drop the Shrine buildings... the Shrine is a separate organization that happens to require one to be a Mason to join... but it is not part of Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the shrine "just happens to require one to be a Mason to join." It's relationship with Freemasonry is pretty paramount. More to the point though I would say that axing buildings that no longer serve as the home to lodges wouldn't be appropriate. Many of these buildings are still referred to as Masonic Temples and still have Masonic Temple written on them. The MTV headquarters in Toronto for example. PeRshGo (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the connection between Freemasonry and the Shrine is tenuous at best... to the point that, a few years ago, the shrine came very close to removing its requirement for members to be Masons. And from the Masonic side of the relationship... well, there is no real relationship. The Shrine is not officially recognized as being "Masonic" by any Grand Lodge.

As for buildings that are no longer used by the Masons... I understand the point, but we already have a dab page that lists all the notable buildings that are named "Masonic Temple" (See: {{Masonic Temple (disambiguation)]])... so what is the purpose of this list? Blueboar (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a disambiguation page is not a regular Wikipedia article. It is not allowed to contain photographs or descriptions or history. In general each entry should not contain anything more than what is helpful to identify to readers which is the item they are looking for. It certainly should not contain any of the nuances of how one place is or was once associated. And, it should not / does not include mention of many of the most notable Masonic Temples or Lodge buildings or whatever you want to call them, wherever those have different names. It can't convey the relative importance of the different buildings. In short, I think you are way over-weighting the importance of disambiguation pages. Whether they exist or not is irrelevant. Again, i don't get why you keep on talking here, if you are not interested in developing this article. Not sure why i reply, either. :) --doncram (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No... I get what a dab page is... I am asking what the purpose of THIS page is. How is THIS list of Masonic Buildings page different than the dab pages that cover the same buildings? THIS page does not contain descriptions or history (ok, it does have a few photos)... and it certainly does not contain any of the nuances of how one place is or was once associated and it does not convey the relative importance of the different buildings. In other words... THIS page seems to be nothing more than a dab page with a few pictures. Blueboar (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first was a pub in London (no longer in existence)... very notable for being where the first Grand Lodge was formed. Shouldn't it be considered a Masonic Building? The second has long been associated with Freemasonry (although most of the association has been debunked)... is it a Masonic Building? The third was built by a Freemason, the base was paid for largely through the donations of the Masons, and there was a Masonic cornerstone laying (the corner stone has a square and compass on it)... so should it be considered a Masonic building?

Or what about the US Capital... and no, I am not talking Dan Brown here... it was dedicated by the Masons (including George Washington) in full regalia... does that make it a Masonic building? And there are rumors that Jackson held a Masonic Lodge meeting in the White House while he was President.

Or what about places like Fraunces Tavern here in NYC... It was noted for hosting lodge meetings both before and after the American Revolution. Blueboar (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this sarcasm? I don't believe you are suggesting adding those. --doncram (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly sarcasm .... but not completely. There is a point that sarcasm. I don't mean to be a broken record, but we need to clarify what qualifies a building for inclusion in this list. At the moment we have a very open ended "the building has some sort of association with Freemasonry" criteria, and all of the buildings I mention above fit that broad description. So why shouldn't they be on the list? I agree that they shouldn't be included ... but WHAT disqualifies them? Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ratio of edits to discuss the list article and its redlinks vs. edits to develop the actual material is too high here, it is 1000:1 or so. The efficient way to proceed is to develop actual material on the obvious cases. Don't waste time on hypothetical questions about marginal cases until basic work is done. Do you need help starting articles on the NRHP-listed ones? There are tools available and NRHP application documents available that provide good historical accounts for you to draw from. I think in many cases your developing actual articles will clarify for you what is the individual notability of each and what is the relevance of including them in this list-article. --doncram (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This thread isn't about the red-linked articles (that is discussed below)... this is about the criteria for adding buildings. You keep avoiding my questions... (perhaps because you don't have an answer?)... what disqualifies these buildings from the list? Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a more realistic (and non-sarcastic) situation... the DeWint House in New York... as the article states: "The property was acquired by the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of the State of New York in 1932." The Grand Lodge owns it and maintains it. It thus has a Masonic association... It is listed by the NRHP. So why is it not on the list?

My answer: it is not (and should not be) on the list because it is not notable for being a "Masonic building". It is merely a historic building that the Masons happen to own. Blueboar (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno what to believe. You imply it is random that the Grand Lodge "happen" to own it, but it is clearly not random. Per one of the sources for the article, this one, the Grand Lodge was happy to step in to take ownership and preserve the house for its previous association with George Washington, and by doing so they are obviously strongly asserting association with GW, apparently a Mason. The house is one of few (I presume) "National Masonic Historic Sites". Are there others? Perhaps/probably every "National Masonic Historic Site" should be identified and added to the list article. This house also is or was the site of a Mason-focused museum in the carriage house. It seems more obvious to me that this one should be listed. I don't get why you would want to exclude it, unless you want (why would you?) to adhere to an arbitrary and a very narrow view of what the list-article should be, a view formed early on when you actually know very little about most of the candidates for coverage in the article. You have more idea about this one house because i and others developed this article (in this diff in 2007 i added the NRHP documents) somewhat. But it has not yet been much developed what is a National Masonic Historic Site (are there others or not?) or otherwise developed. In this case and in others not developed, you would learn more by developing the articles. Why would you want to exclude this, i don't understand, and why you want to exclude all others you know less about, before learning about them, i also don't understand. You're not informed to make these judgements; the judgements about what exactly should be included or not should not be be made now. First, develop coverage of the obvious-to-include ones. Get familiar with the types of sources available, etc. It's not productive yet to define a fine line. --doncram (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone think of a reason why Masonic temple, Masonic_temple_(disambiguation) and this page shouldn't all just be the same page? PeRshGo (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objections from me, as it would eliminate the over duplication issue. The question is... which article do we merge them to? To some extent, the answer will determine both the scope and the format. Blueboar (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose we take the informative part from Masonic temple as well as include a list of all active and former Masonic Temples sorted by country and state. We should then probably stick with the title Masonic Temple. PeRshGo (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I could see that as a possibility... but then what about the Masonic Temple (disambiguation) page? We would still have a huge duplication between that page and the list you propose. Also, would the resulting list article include something like Freemasons' Hall, London, or the George Washington Masonic National Memorial in Alexandria, VA (both of which are arguably very notable "Masonic Buildings", but neither of which would fit into a list entitled "Masonic Temples"). Blueboar (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well what I'm proposing would leave Masonic Temple (disambiguation) nonexistent as this would serve as both an explanation and listing of Temples. As for the handful of notable masonic buildings that aren't temples I'm sure we can throw those in the See also section. PeRshGo (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expect you will receive opposition from the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (especially from User:doncram) as they see that dab page as vital to their project. But I would have no objection if you can gain consensus. Blueboar (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as a further question... what would you do with Category:Masonic buildings (which is essentially a duplication of this list without the redlinks but could not be included in the merger)? Blueboar (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been talked out on this Talk page and in other discussions with Blueboar. The disambiguation pages are different from a list-article; they cannot contain photos and descriptive information. The disambiguation pages are just about places that are named (always or sometimes) by a given name like "Masonic Temple" and cannot be a complete list of all notable Masonic buildings. A category is also different. Yes, they all do provide some overlapping functionality for Wikipedia readers to navigate among articles. But, they are different. See wp:MOSDAB and other guidelines/policies.

No, the NRHP WikiProject does not regard the "List of Masonic buildings" list-article as "vital to their project". In fact they, including me, basically do not care about this list-article, which is why they and i have not developed it. Note, it is not a list of NRHP-listed Masonic buildings, it is a list of notable Masonic buildings. Yes, all the NRHP-listed ones are wikipedia-notable and probably should be listed here. Why am i participating in this discussion at all, and sometimes editing the article? Well, it happens that I am pretty experienced in disambiguation policy/guidelines and in list-article policy guidelines and i guess i am somewhat willing, as a volunteer, to try to help other volunteer editors here. Although i grumble some, because there is no one present AFAIK who is a volunteer who actually wants to develop this list-article. I would be willing/glad to help such a person, and until then i guess i may continue to revert occasional attempts to strip or delete this list-article, which is pretty surely a valid wikipedia topic. Hope this helps! :) --doncram (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm going to make it happen. PeRshGo (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification... I was referring to Masonic temple (disambiguation) and not this list when I said the NRHP project sees it as being vital. Blueboar (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have finally realized what bothers me about this list... it is the question as to whether the underlying topic (as opposed to the individual entries) is notable. Yes, there are individual masonic buildings that are notable, but are "Masonic buildings", as a class, notable? To some extent, this relates to my previous question of "what makes a building 'Masonic'?"... but it goes deeper than that. I think we need to establish that the concept of a "Masonic building" is notable... and that means finding sources that discuss the concept in some detail. Does such a source exist? Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the topic is notable. I think you would agree eventually if you browsed more in wikipedia list-article examples and relevant guidelines. Perhaps participating for a while in the wp:FLC Featured List Candidacy process would be helpful; they need reviewers there. Here, there is no one developing this list-article, and no request for review / no one to implement the suggestions of a would-be reviewer. So, i think reviewing the status of this article is really not helpful at this time. If you want to develop it, go ahead. Otherwise, i don't think this discussion is helpful, as i have otherwise stated, but new discussion sections keep popping up, so i repeat myself. --doncram (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Please explain why you think the concept of a "Masonic building" is notable. Blueboar (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just re-read WP:Red links... which states:

• Lists of "notable people" in an article, such as the "Notable alumni" section in an article on a university, tend to accrue red links to names of people of unverifiable notability. Such list entries should be removed; the lists should remain confined to names of people whose notability is attested by an existing article or other reference.

While I suppose one could take a narrow interpretation of this and say that it only applies to lists of people... I don't think that was what was intended. I think it is a broader statement about red links in list articles. If so... we should remove the red links (to be re-added once an article is actually written about them). Blueboar (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so. Feel free to add the link back once an article is written on the building. Blueboar (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the redlinks. I believe they all are NRHP-listed, notable places. The correct treatment in this case is to create articles for them, and/or to provide additional descriptive information in this list article clarifying their notability (i.e. that each on is NRHP-listed). Blueboar, you have repeatedly stated you are not interested in developing this list-article and not interested in developing articles for the redlinks. That's fine. But, then, I think you should refrain from deleting the useful structure/content of this list-article. It is ripping the guts out to delete mention of all the NRHP-listed places that are clearly wikipedia-notable. --doncram (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do see Wikipedia:Red link guideline on redlinks. In general the ones here are clearly in the "good" type covered in that guideline. Good redlinks help grow the wikipedia, etc. --doncram (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, WP:Notability relates to articles, not content within articles. You say these are notable buildings that should be on the list... OK... WP:PROVEIT ... please provide an inline citation for each and every one of them (individually), per WP:V. We can not simply take your (or any other editor's) word for it that all these red-linked buildings are listed on the NRHP.

Second, I don't think simply being listed by the NRHP as a historic building qualify a building to be on this list. I think this list needs something more. I think you need to establish what makes the building "Masonic". Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have "proven" well enough that the NRHP-listed items are NRHP listed on the disambiguation pages, where i put in supporting blue-links to the NRHP county list-articles which show the items. The NRHP list-articles are based on reports out of the National Register. You have access to these disambiguation pages. You can verify that they are NRHP-listed also by looking them up yourself. I don't promise every redlink on the page is NRHP-listed, but the majority/possibly all are. This is not a list-article that has attracted a lot of random additions; it is still mostly the NRHP-listed ones that were added early on. Your deleting them all seems wp:POINTY, i.e. disrupting wikipedia to make a point that you don't like the somewhat poor state of the list article. The most relevant suggestion is wp:SOFIXIT. If you don't like the red-links, please develop short articles on them, and/or add pictures, develop material here. The productive task for development of wikipedia is to develop the wikipedia-notable topics, not to argue endlessly about how to index/list the topics. The efficient thing to do is to develop the articles, then the notability will be clear, and one or two exceptions may come to light and then be eliminated. --doncram (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not disruptive... it is enforcing Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy. Please read WP:BURDEN... I have issued a legitimate challenge... it is now up to you (as the person who wishes to keep the information in the article) to provide inline citations to prove that these buildings are on the NRHP, and are thus (potentially) notable enough to be included on this list. Otherwise the information may be removed. Simply pointing to another article is not enough. That is core policy. I will give you a reasonable amount of time to comply, but will not wait forever. Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What i see you doing is seeming to chip away negatively at something you don't like. You've added little negative tags to the list-article; you call for reinforcements about some supposed conflict here; you open multiple repetitive discussion sections. I get that you can't and/or don't want to develop this list article. You have not made a legitimate challenge to the facts. You are not serious. You know that most / perhaps all of the redlinks are NRHP-listed. You can look them up yourself, either in the corresponding disambiguation pages as i have described or by access to the National Register database via [1] or one of Elkman's NRIS data access tools or going directly to the National Register's webpages. Basically they have been looked up already. --doncram (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very serious... this page has some fundamental problems that need to be resolved... 1) establishing that the topic of "Masonic buildings" is notable in the first place... 2) Establishing a clear and coherent criteria for inclusion ... 3) the ridiculous number of red-links ... 4) the duplication between this list and several other pages... All of these are somewhat open for discussion... but the one thing that is not open for discussion is the requirement that this list comply with WP:V.

You yourself said you are not sure if all of the redlinks are actually on the NRHP list... so... since you are the one who wants them to remain in the list, it is up to YOU to supply citations for the information, per WP:BURDEN. If you do not do so, I will start to remove them. Blueboar (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be a jerk. I have been conversing with you, grumbling along the way but basically being civil and being responsive to your questions. I have given you suggestions and useful information. I have given you informed judgements based on my experience which is, well, more informed than yours in this area. You are reciprocating by ratcheting up threats to delete stuff which has already been explained to you has merit. You are right, i am not guaranteeing every item is NRHP-listed because i have not checked that. You could easily check that. You don't have to choose to engage with me or other editors by making threats and trying to make others do what you could/should easily do. You are the one who is owning some uncomfortableness about the inclusion of some items about which you know little. You could jolly well lift a little finger and look up all of the items you don't know about. If you did some such work, and came back with an informed judgement that one or two seem not to be NRHP-listed, I would then be happy to check further and verify that, drawing upon my not-terribly-clever-but-still-somewhat-better-than-yours knowledge of some of the NRHP sources. You could ask me to do that. You are insulting me, otherwise, in your implicitly denying that all of them are not NRHP-listed, by your attempting to delete them all, which i reverted. I don't think of you as being a jerk in any permanent way, but your behavior with these threats seems pretty jerkish. Please don't choose to be that way. --doncram (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If adhering to Wikipedia's policy and guidelines is "being a jerk".... then I am proud to accept the name "jerk". A legitimate challenge has been issued... the ball is now in your court. Blueboar (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a serious problem with the basic criteria that NRHP listing confers notability as it applies to this article. Considering that the only basic issues for a listing on NRHP are that it is >50 years old and can be said to be significant to history, there's a lot of places that would qualify. "First Masonic Lodge in town" sounds great historically, but it really doesn't mean anything when almost every state has 200+ buildings that can lay claim to that statement, and I think that's what we are running into here.

Several incorrect premises in that. The reason why NRHP-listed places are notable is not that the event of NRHP-listing occured, but that the places are important historically as determined by a rational process involving several layers of review and intelligent judges. No one asserts "First Masonic Lodge in town" is sufficient for NRHP listing; that is NOT "what we are running into here". The current dab pages and/or this list which largely overlaps capture probably almost all the individually listed ones. There is not some impending flood of new NRHP listings. And no one adding redlinks willy-nilly, as far as i can see. --doncram (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

doncram wants to see development of redlinks. This is all well and good, but the only place that we're going to find such information is in the NRHP itself, if it's even available to the public. Other than that, it's just a building on a street like any other, and no one is going to have any more particular interest in it than any other building. So I don't think that many of these buildings are developable into articles in the first place.

Pretty much every one is quite "developable" into an article. The NRHP's NRIS database is indeed available to the public. A public domain copy of most of its information is available via the private website nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com; that is a convenient source for you perhaps. The good big NRHP application documents are also publicly available, free upon request to the National Register. Send an email request to "nr_reference (at) nps.gov" for any one. These are good, reliable sources, often 20-30 pages written by qualified professionals such as architectural historians. They often provide primary type information in terms of description of architectural details; the history information provided is secondary or tertiary usually as these cite all the reasonably available sources. The sources cited are also good possible sources to get. Also there are usually subsequent local newspaper articles and mentions in architectural and historical guides. --doncram (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, we've got a conflict between guidelines. In short, there are Masonic buildings on the NRHP. This makes them notable. However, there likely aren't any sources on them other than the NRHP documentation that made them notable in the first place, which would be a primary source. There's a serious question of "it is really encyclopedia-worthy?" that the NHRP project should think about, but we need to do something one way or another here.

Nope. There are non-primary sources available, including the NRHP application documents. You are just not familiar with these, which is okay. --doncram (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having given careful consideration of what to do, I've used the following items as my basis for conclusion:

1. A "Masonic building" is a vague term, as we have seen in earlier discussion. 2. A Masonic building is a relatively new development; meetings were originally held in taverns, and I believe that extended as far up as Grand Lodges as well. This is where the argument that certain taverns should be on this list originates. 3. Many of what I would consider notable buildings are notable because a Grand Lodge bought said building and converted it, and it is notable not by dint of having a GL in it, but by being a piece of architecture that stands out. 4. A building should not be inheriting notability as a separate article because a notable organization meets there. This is a pretty solid piece of WP policy, but it seems that the NRHP may be conferring listings IRL based on that very premise, so when it comes over to WP, it's technically causing a policy contradiction. If said building was done by a famous architect, that's a different matter, but I haven't seen that as of yet in relation to a Masonic building.

Nope, i doubt the NRHP gives a listing merely because a place is the first or other meeting place of Masons in a town. You aren't familiar with NRHP listed places. --doncram (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. If a Masonic group never met there, it's sort of strange to call it Masonic. That should eliminate the hotel in RI. 6. Shrine buildings should be separate - even though a Shriner is a Mason, the buildings generally don't have any other purpose than for Shrine-related stuff, and Lodges don't meet there. 7. If a building was Masonic, but was sold, destroyed, whatever, then it should go in a historical subsection. That should address any chronological issues. 8. Regardless of HRHP status, some of this buildings just have nothing that can be said about them that isn't actually related to the group that meets there, and cannot be developed into articles. It's the same way that every Grand Master isn't notable just for being Grand Master - there's just nothing there to work with to make something in the first place. 9. most importantly, we can do what we want with this article as far as WP:FM guidelines go, and they don't need to match or coincide with any other WikiProject. We simply agree to disagree if need be.

Therefore, I propose the following guidelines:

1. A "Masonic building" should be defined as a building that was either purpose-built or converted to be a long-term Masonic meeting place, meaning it's got a lodge room in it with all the furniture, and was used for some fairly lengthy period of time.

2. The building must be notable under general guidelines, not simply by dint of being on the Register, though that may establish why it was notable. The "first/only Masonic Hall in town" alone isn't going to cut it for this list.

3. The building must have an article prior to being included here. The sheer number of potential entries on this list makes retaining redlinks a serious hindrance to list maintenance and utility. It will also give the NRHP folks a chance to create something we can take a look at - that's their area of expertise, not ours.

4. If a building used to be Masonic but isn't any more, it should go in a historical section, but it must meet the above criteria.

Well? MSJapan (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... at last someone has proposed a clear definition of what makes a building "Masonic" and a clear criteria for inclusion. I think MSJapan's guidelines work well... He provides a clear rational for why buildings are included or are not included on the list that is easy to follow. I especially like the idea of breaking this into "current" and "historical" subsections. (note: we still need to address the issue of duplication between this list and the category... but lets save that for after). Blueboar (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that several the premises of the proposal are incorrect in my view, I don't really agree with all of the proposal. I don't see much impact of items 1, 2, 4 in the proposal so i don't particularly oppose them (but maybe i would if i understood impact differently). But in particular i disagree with guideline 3. It is perfectly within Wikipedia guidelines, in particular about red-links, for redlink items to be included. All the NRHP-listed ones are legitimate wikipedia topics; that does not need to be revisited really. There is no issue as far as i see about potential entries arriving and cloggign up this list. If you don't want to create articles about the places or develop this list-article to summarize about them, that is fine. The project should be left to someone else who is interested and has time. It would be unhelpful for non-interested parties to hack away at a list of notable Masonic buildings simply to make it harder for other future-arriving editors to learn what are already known to be notable buildings that could be photographed and researched and described by them. There was other input in a section far above here about what buildings are sensible to include, too, from another editor or two.

Here's my counter-proposal: editors interested in this article should pick several of the Masonic buildings listed and do articles for them. That would include getting NRHP application documents for them and looking for available photographs. And develop the articles. That would be a direct contribution to wikipedia and it would bring you up to speed about articles about buildings. --doncram (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say all the NRHP-listed ones (and I note you don't even know for sure which are NRHP-listed!) are legitimate wikipedia topics. So what? The Empire State Building is a legitimate wikipedia topic... it does not belong on this list.

The title of this article is "List of Masonic buildings"... I don't think it is unreasonable to say that, given this title, any building included on the list has to notable because it is a Masonic building... the fact that a building is notable for some other reason (for example because it is on the NRHP) is nice, but is ultimately irrelevant for this specific list. If it does not meet that primary criteria, it does not belong. It must be notable because it is a Masonic building.

Here's my counter-counter-proposal why don't you and the rest of the NRHP project write those articles... you are the one on the NRHP project after all. From the POV of the Freemasonry Project these buildings are not notable, so it is unrealistic to expect any of us to work on them. Gee.... Think how many stub articles you could have created just in the time you spent arguing with me. Blueboar (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i just get down to this further comment from you after i already replied in several other places. Blueboar, it doesn't help for you to open repetitive conversations. I substantially replied elsewhere to most of what you say, if you would read what i said elsewhere. But, simply, it is not appropriate for you to decide; you don't get to decide what is the definition here in some arbitrary/bureaucratic fashion. You are not in charge; you do not own this; i would much rather defer to someone actually developing material. You are not informed to make any such decision; you have repeatedly stated you are not interested in the buildings or developing the articles. I also don't get why you want to encourage a narrow "POV" of the Freemasonry Project. Why do you assert they would not be interested, when you don't know anything about most of these places? You could be right in the end, but right now you don't know enough to make such judgements. --doncram (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, I am not in charge... neither are you. Things on Wikipedia are done by consensus Unfortunately, we do not seem to have a consensus on several fundamental questions relating to this list... One of those questions is: What do we mean by a "Masonic Building"? As a long time member of the Freemasonry Project (not to mention a long time Freemason) it is absolutely appropriate for me to state my opinion on that question. Does that mean my views must be accepted... no. But it certainly is appropriate for me to share my views and give the reasons why I hold them.

So far, the only reason you have given for including all the NRHP buildings is that they are listed by the NRHP... you have not laid out why being listed should qualify them for inclusion. Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have yet another page that duplicates this material... PeRshGo has cut and pasted this list into Masonic Temple. Just to keep tabs... We now have essentially the exact same list duplicated at:

• List of Masonic buildings
• Masonic Temple
• Masonic Temple (disambiguation)
• Category:Masonic buildings (without the redlinks)

And we still don't have a clear consensus about what a Masonic building is or clear criteria as to what makes a Masonic building notable... Great... Just Great! Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I see that his idea is a Merger of this list into Masonic Temple. I can live with that (at least the number of duplications has not grown)... but it simply moves the problem to a new article. We still need to form consensus on what should and should not be on the list.
• I- will complete the merger and move this talk page to the archives of Talk:Masonic Temple. Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Sigh... merger objected to and reverted by Doncram. See... Centralized discussion at: Talk:Masonic temple (disambiguation)#Requested move 2 Blueboar (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, absolutely i reverted, and yes please do let's see there. I restored the article List of Masonic buildings and this Talk page. It seems absolutely wrong, by the way, to kill an ongoing Talk page and copy-paste its discussion to somewhere else. Obviously we were discussing the issues for a list-article about Masonic buildings HERE. About the somewhat overlapping structure of articles and dab pages and categories, do let's discuss that at the centralized discussion--doncram (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a moot point, now that you undid PeRshGo's merger... but most of the discussions we have been having here on this talk page relate only to this list (where ever it eventually ends up), and not to the dab page. For example, the issue of whether to include red links... red links are generally considered appropriate in dab pages, but are generally considered problematic in list articles (different standards for different kinds of pages). When PeRshGo moved the list to Masonic Temple the issues we have been discussing moved to that page as well. Thus, I felt it was appropriate to move this talk page over to Talk:Masonic Temple. It was also appropriate to undo my move when you undid the redirect of the list. Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• See move discussion at Talk:Masonic Temple#Move?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it grows yet again... with the creation of List of Masonic Temples. We now have no less than five duplicative iterations of this list. None of which clearly establish what makes the underlying topic notable in the first place. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)**+[reply]

• Well I've responded to you on 3 pages now. Just read one of those. PeRshGo (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Shrine is a completely separate organization that happens to require its members to be Masons. I don't think we should include their buildings. Blueboar (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topic discussed in the AFD, still ongoing, and perhaps at a few other Talk pages already. I suggest wait till AFD is closed. --doncram (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK... ADF has been closed (no consensus what so ever)... so, can we discuss this now? Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great that the AFD which you opened, is closed in favor of keeping this list. Given you wanted this list deleted, why do you care about some subissue now? I don't want to be jerked around to new fake issues. How many discussion sections are open on various pages by you, on these articles? Are there any other discussions opened by you about this question, already? Anyhow, Shriners is a Masonic organization, and Shriner-associated buildings would then seem to fall naturally within the general Masonic buildings category and this list. Perhaps it would make sense eventually to split them out to a separate list, but having a few notable ones in this list, currently organized geographically, seems fine for now. Could you please develop a list of the most notable Shriner buildings, in a userspace page perhaps, to inform a future discussion? Please allow editors to develop material here gradually. If you yourself contribute constructively, i think that could earn some consideration, but there is no need to have a lot of further contention here. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I care because these are not Masonic buildings and thus do not belong on the list. Articel development does not just mean adding things... It means making the article the best it can be, which might inlude removing things that don't fit. Why do you care? Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start off by saying that aside for what they do for kids I'm not a fan of the Shrine. Personally if they did away with the organization, buildings, ritual and all, but merged the charitable aspects into another branch of Masonry I'd be thrilled. But the fact is they are a Masonic branch. They were founded by the Masons, they share the same members, they often share the same buildings, and their symbols are found side by side throughout the world. As much as I dislike it the Mason, Shriner connection is undeniable. PeRshGo (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have significant concerns about equating the Shrine with Masonry, but recognise that the distinction isn't all that clear to many.

The pre-requisite for membership of the craft is not rooted in ritual or allegory in the same way that the various appendant bodies are, it doesn't promote itself as more than a charitable activity and there is no suggestion that the ritual, such as it is, may be allegorical or speculative in a masonic sense.

ALR (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but would you say that the Shrine has Masonic endorsement? PeRshGo (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No.

ALR (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ALR is correct. The shrine does not have Masonic endorsement. Unlike the York or Scottish Rites, the shrine is not considered an extension or continuation of Freemasonry. It is a completely seperate entity that happens to require (at the moment at least) that its members be Masons. The problem for this article is that some Shrine buildings contain Lodge meeting rooms in them, while others (most?) do not. These were built by the Shrine chapter so they could raise more money to support their hospitals by renting the rooms to local Masonic lodges.

This highlights why we need a clearer definition of what a "Masonic building" is. If a "Masonic Building" is any building that freemasons have ever met in, then those Shrine temples that contain lodge rooms would be included... as would all sorts of other buildings... nothing in Masonry requires meeting in a purpose built buildign... Masons meet in private homes, church and synogogue halls, and even bars and taverns that have a private dining area. If we define a "Masonic Building" as a building that was purpose built by the Freemasons, then most of these would not be included... and the Shrine buildings should be removed (even if they contain lodge rooms) because these buildings were built by another organization, and the Masons simply rent the room for the evening. Hell, I even know of one lodge that shares a building with the local Knights of Columbus chapter... so is it a "Masonic Building" or a "KofC Building?". I realize this is all confusing to a non-Mason... but this is exactly the sort of confusion we need to sort out. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the consensus at the AFDs of "List of Masonic Buildings" and of "Masonic Temple" and elsewhere is that the list of buildings named "Masonic Temple" is to be merged back into this list. Since it was originally generated from this list, just with editing down to remove redlink items and Masonic halls named otherwise, i believe it is mostly already included here. Additions to the separate "Masonic Temple" article which need to be checked, i think consist only of the following items and pics:

• Belleville Masonic Temple item for the Masonic hall in Michigan (as opposed to one in Belleville, Texas), with photo File:Belleville Masonic Temple.JPG. (Status: item not in this list article and may not be notable, but photo currently also in this list-article)
• photo for Detroit one File:Detroit Masonic Temple - Detroit Michigan.jpg (Status: already in this list-article)
• Dayton Masonic Center item and photo File:Dayton Masonic Center.jpg (Status: item not in this list-article and may not be notable)

I think that's it. Any other differences to check? Otherwise I believe it would be ok to finish implementing the merger by striking the section from the Masonic Temple article. I would wait for its AFD to conclude, first, though. --doncram (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to verify the NRHP citations on several computers (with both IE and firefox)... the link provided (here) is a front page that supposedly contains a way to access the pages or files that discuss the specific buildings. However I can not gain access anything beyond the front page. Can anyone else do so? If so, how? Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What, now you disbelieve the references that i put in? Yet another discussion section attacking this page? Anyhow, click on Download on that page. You can then download the NRIS database and check them yourself. --doncram (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely reasonable to seek to validate the references, per verifiability.

I would observe that the web page in question is quite user hostile.

ALR (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in context of multiple AFDs and negative comments in many opened discussion sections, it also is reasonable to believe the question is unfriendly. For one example, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry#Request for assistance - List of Masonic buildings, the same questioner seemed to want to quash development of articles on the buildings and this list-article itself. In that discussion, I gave a link to a different, more-user-friendly interface to the NRHP database, too. --doncram (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disbelieve your references... I would like to improve them by linking directly to the page that discusses the buildings, rather than a front-end search engine (that does not work for me). The intent of the question is not unfriendly... it is not desinged to "quash" developement of the article ... it is an attempt to improve the article. Please assume good faith. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read #Let's see how this flies... discussion section above. I gave you directions there on how to obtain NRHP nomination documents, which are good, reliable sources on these places. The nom docs are often written by architectural historians or other experts, and include bibliographies of their sources about the historical importance of a place. They also often include some primary-type information, such as detailed description of architecture observed by the writer, but it is acceptable and good to use primary source info in Wikipedia, when used with care. By the way, I also there gave a link to another copy of the NRHP database information (the private website which I refer to as "NRHP.COM"), which, as i stated there, you might find more user-friendly. But, the NRHP.COM website has known, systematic errors due to imperfect understanding of the National Register by its private programmer(s), so in general direct links to it will be removed in favor of links to the National Register directly. If you actually want to find out more about a given NRHP-listed building, the best way to start is to get and read the NRHP nomination document. --doncram (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarrely, apparently because i explained why references to NRHP.COM would be removed in favor of direct links to the National Register, Blueboar goes the opposite way, in an edit just now. I reverted, and i am already sick of this new approach for B to attempt to cause drama. --doncram (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I am confused... first you point me to a website that you say is "a good, reliable source on these places". Then, when I use it as a source to directly verify that a building is on the NRHP list, you say that website isn't reliable and revert my edit. All I want to do is provide a more direct link to a webpage that discusses each building and verifies that it is indeed on the NRHP. I am not attempting to cause drama... I am simply attempting to improve the references. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not point you to the www.NationalRegisterOfHistoricPlaces.Com website (which i refer to by shorthand of NRHP.COM) and say that was a good, reliable source. What I said was "NRHP nomination documents [emphasis added]... are good, reliable sources on these places. The nom docs are often written by architectural historians or other experts, and include bibliographies of their sources about the historical importance of a place." NRHP nomination documents are documents, not entries in a database. I used NRHP nomination documents to provide better references for the 3 NRHP-listed Virginia masonic buildings. I suggest that if you want to improve other references, you could do the same. NRHP.COM is in fact an inferior copy of the National Register's National Register Information System (NRIS database), which provides brief database-type info taken from the NRHP nomination documents and adds NRHP-listing date and other status info. NRHP.COM introduces errors (for one example, it lists places as listed that in fact NRIS reports instead were de-listed from the NRHP) and is otherwise inferior as a reference. It is now usual wikipedia practice to delete NRHP.COM references in favor of direct references to NRHP's NRIS database. Further, the most obvious way to improve a reference to NRIS is to replace it by reference to an NRHP nomination document. Do you want to get the NRHP document for one site, to see what that is like? Pick one site, please? --doncram (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, I now understand a bit better... thank you. So is there a web site (or sites) where we can access the NRHP nomination documents for all of these buildings? Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. There are state government websites in some states, including Virginia and New York, that provide these. For a few other states there are documents available for most of the state's places in a National Park Service system. For most states they are not available online. --doncram (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK... then, as a first step, where we can, we should link to those documents that are on line ... and then cite to the hard copy documents if they are not on line. My point is that the website that is currently used as a citation is so user-unfriendly that it is essentially useless for someone who wants to verify that a building is indeed on the NRHP and why it is on the list. So, for each entry, we need to cite the documents that discuss that specific building. If we can link to something on line, great... but that is not required. At least we can tell readers what specific documents support the information. And yes, I do understand that this is a daunting and time consuming task... it will take us a while to complete it. I am not in a rush and I will be happy to help. Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To start us off... which States are on line? could you provide a link? Blueboar (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In recent days i cleaned up wp:NRHPhelp to be able to provide it in semi-decent form to you. It provides info on which states have NRHP documents on-line and which do not, although i have not checked the info for accuracy recently. I actually prefer to start an NRHP stub article and add the NRHP document reference to that, first, like I did for the Virginia ones. Constructing a proper reference with authors and date of preparation and so on is a little bit time-consuming. It seems more worthwhile in the actual article for the place. Then you can swoop by later and grab copies of those references to use also in this list-article. The first step in starting an NRHP article can be to use the "Elkman NRHP infobox generator", also described at wp:NRHPhelp. I would focus first on picking a state to work on where the NRHP docs are on-line, and then create the NRHP stub articles with infoboxes using the generator. Then add the NRHP doc reference there with some summary info. Then bring back info to the list-article which should provide just snippets from the actual articles. --doncram (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doncram... the links on the wp:NRHPhelp page should move us in the right direction. Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The recent addition of The Level Club in New York City again raises the question... what makes a building a "Masonic Building"? The Level Club was founded in the late 1920s as a private gentleman's club (along the lines of the Union Club, the University Club or the Racquet Club). However, the men who founded it all happened to be Masons, and membership was restricted to Masons (although being a Mason did not guarantee membership in the club). The building originally contained the type of rooms one would expect in a private men's clubhouse... bedrooms for out of town members, kitchen and dining facilities, bar, a ball room for dances with the ladies, a billiards room and a card room, an auditorium for lectures and plays, (a swimming pool was planned but not built). However, absent from the building were lodge meeting rooms. The club never had any "official" connection with the Grand Lodge... it was simply a private club that required its members to be Masons.

The club lasted only a few years... closing its doors when the depression hit. The building still stands... it became a hotel in the mid 1930s, 40s and 50s... and then a drug re-hab center in the late 60s and 70s. It was recently renovated as luxury condominiums. Thus, for most of the building's existence it has not had any connection to Freemasonry.

That said, the building, as a structure, was certainly inspired by the fact that its builders were Freemasons. Its dimensions are supposedly based on those of King Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem (a structure of significance to Masons)... The exterior is festooned with carvings of Masonic emblems... levels, beehives, hexagrams and such. When people see the building they often (incorrectly) assume it must have been a Masonic temple at one time. There is a connection between the building and Freemasonry... although the connection is somewhat indirect.

So the question is... Does this building belong on this list, or not?... is it what we mean when we use the term "Masonic building", or not? We are once again faced with the fact that we have yet to properly define and state a criteria for inclusion in this list... and to do that, we must answer the question: what makes a building "Masonic"? Blueboar (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't disagree with what Blueboar writes, and admitting that I simply assumed that it was masonic, I would like to say that if a stricter definition of Masonic building is adopted, there really will need to be a subcategory of some sort to enable interested people to find buildings like th elevel Club because that is some eye-popping, over-the-top Masonic facade.AMuseo (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the "See Also" section is for. I would have no problem with linking to the article on the Level Club there. Blueboar (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of the lede states: "These buildings have significant associations to the fraternal organization of Freemasonry." I have tagged it as dubious. I thought I should explain the tag... first, I think that is the sort of statement that needs a source (I know the MOS says that normally we don't put citations in the lede, but that assumes the information is discussed and cited later in the main text of the article... in this case it isn't). Without a source, the statement is essentially WP:Original research. It is also confusing... are we saying that these buildings are significant to the Freemasons? (if so, who says so?... my personal opinion, as a Freemason, is that a few are, but most are not)... or are we saying that the association of these buildings with Freemasonry is significant to others? (but again, who says so?). Blueboar (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like forced notability to me, which is why it comes out sounding strange. Having cogitated on the matter at length, I think it's a bit backwards; what we have is not a bunch of Masonic building on the NRHP, but rather a bunch of NRHP-listed buildings (which is from whence notability arises as far as WP is concerned) that happen to have some connection to Freemasonry (which I believe we don't have nailed down quite yet, because the majority of the documents aren't accessible). Reversing the lede should solve that part of the problem. MSJapan (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the topic (and perhaps the title) of this list should be: "Buildings on the NRHP that have a Masonic connection"? ... hmmm... It would make the list more explicitly a sub-page of the NRHP project, which I see as a good thing (as it would give the list a clearer focus and a definite primary criteria for inclusion... being listed on the NRHP... the Masonic connection would be shifted to being a secondary criteria). We would still need sources to substantiate both the NRHP listing and the "Masonic connection" (and we would still need to define what we mean by "Masonic connection")... but I do think this idea is a step in the right direction.

That said... We should definitely wait to see what Doncram thinks before we make such a major change. He and I already have a somewhat adversarial relationship... and I would like to ease away from that. Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• question What would that do to buildings that are notable because some significant Masonic event happened in them, but that are not notable architecturally?AMuseo (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Define "significant Masonic event" - an assertion that was made earlier in tihs discussion when we were trying to ascertain notability was that these "Masonic buildings" aren't notable solely because they are the first Masonic building in a given town, and there's not much else that's significant in the grand scheme of things that I can think of offhand. The vast majority of the really major things (formation of GLMA as the first constituted GL in the US, formation of Prince Hall, and the printing of the first Masonic book on US soil, as examples), happened well before the concept of a "Masonic building" existed. So I think we need an actual NRHP documented Masonic building to see why it's listed and go from there. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find one with digitized records yet, so a few more hands in in that area would be helpful. MSJapan (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which brings us to the issue of sourcing. The sources provided so far are far from adequate. From what Doncram tells us, a lot of the NRHP documents we need for proper sourcing are off-line... yet the NRHP entires are all cited to a website that does not even list the buildings. (ie the website provided does not provide direct support for the fact that any of these buildings actually are listed by the NRHP.) That needs to be changed. We also need a citation that clearly demonstrates that the buildings listed actually have "significant associations to the fraternal organization of Freemasonry". From a strictly WP policy based perspective (WP:BURDEN, WP:RS and WP:NOR all apply), if this is not fixed, we would be within our rights to start deleting buildings from the list. I would prefer to fix the problem... but removal is an option. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. After all you have pulled with your 20 or 30 or more discussions opened everywhere, and your multiple AFDs, I will certainly revert your edits myself and/or seek ANI type actions against you if you embark on such a tactic again. The info is in NRIS. Are you trying to suggest that i am lying, with my saying NRIS was the source for my entry that a given place is NRHP-listed? NRIS was/is my source. I pointed you to several ways to verify any and all, and you are rejecting all that again? There is no requirement that every source used in wikipedia must be on-line. Your tactics for building a cooperative editing spirit, or whatever you are seeking by making new threats, are frankly bizarre. --doncram (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not saying you are lying... I am saying a) that the website that is currently cited does not directly support the fact that these buildings are on the NRHP (this is a WP:RS issue) and b) that we need a source that shows that the buildings have a "siginficant association to Freemasonry (this is a WP:NOR issue). I am saying that these two problems need to be fixed by providing proper sources... but I am also warning that if it isn't fixed, Wikipedia policy tells us that the problematic information may be removed. Blueboar (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing as it stands is not correct. You cannot source to a DB main page (or a website index page) to refer to a specific entry within its structire; you must source to a specific page which includes the entry. If the entry doesn't exist, then there's no source. MSJapan (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is an entry in the NRHP's NRIS database for each item that I noted by footnote to NRIS as being NRHP-listed. I looked up each entry in the list, in the NRIS database (actually, i searched NRIS for every instance of "Masonic" and similar strings, and these are the entries in it). There is no page number in the database. Please explain, what else would you want? Please explain, what fact are you questioning? --doncram (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A database works by having unique records that are searchable and cross-referenceable through certain fields. Each record has a unique number in the database. This means that every record is locatable by a reference number of some sort. Now, shift the database to a web server, and every record now has a unique URL. If it doesn't, no record actually exists, or it's not a database. That specific record's URL is what we need as a cited source. Search results aren't good enough, because those don't substantiate the statement.

I am also very interested in seeing what the rationales for inclusion were on these buildings, because the lede is contradictory and we need clarification. That clarification will also clear up all the issues we are having in this article. If the building is on the NRHP due solely to the architect or the architectural style of the building, its Masonic association is irrelevant, and it moots the purpose of this list. If, however, the building is on there for some Masonic reason (other than being Masonic Hall #1 in a given town), now we have something to work with in terms of criteria, and write a lede that makes sense. MSJapan (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MSJapan says in a few brief paragraphs what I have been trying to say for a while. Blueboar (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The database is a fully adequate source for documenting the fact that a place of a specific name in a specific town and state is NRHP-listed. I consulted the database, in fact using the Elkman interface, and I discovered/verified that each of the places where I added footnote to NRIS, is in fact listed on the NRHP. Would it make you all happier if the footnote was changed, so instead of linking to the URL which you find so unfriendly, so that it just read "National Register's NRIS database", with no URL? It is fine for us to use an off-line source. It is effectively off-line to you, because you have not tried to download the database available at the URL and because you have not used the Elkman or NRHP.COM or Archiplanet.Com or other online variants of it. Would that suffice, to change the reference so that it does not give a URL?

About the reason why each place is listed, that is best found out from the place's individual NRHP application document. That is different than the database. The database does actually contain some general codes, i think four "event" vs. "architecture" vs. two others, which broadly categorize which one or more of 4 general NRHP listing criteria are met. But the database does not include the paragraph or two, or in some cases several pages of text, explaining why the place was being nominated for being NRHP-listed. I do encourage you to collect those, where available on-line, or by request for free copies to be emailed to you or sent by postal mail, if you would like to develop those further. --doncram (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You want this article, you get the info. You're making up all these reasons to explain why burden of proof does not apply to you. There are indeed URLs in those search results; they're just blank. The PDF link is supposed to have the information, because that's what it is there for; it doesn't because the records haven't been digitized. My point is that your sources don't exist as you claim them to (because querying the DB doesn't get the information), and your idea of sourcing does not match with policy. And in bold once again, so that there's no misunderstanding: You can argue all you want about how you're right, but since it isn't consistent with policy, it doesn't matter. You are too busy trying to prove you're right to solve the greater issue. If readers don't have access to the documents, and the writers don't have access to the documents, then it's not possible to generate this list in accordance with Wikipedia policy. MSJapan (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to query the database yourself for "Masonic", try this link. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And for a specific listing (i.e. "Crane Hill Masonic Lodge" in Alabama), use this link. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've done that before. The majority of URLS therein contained are blank, which is why this discussion is going on. There's nothing accessible to get usable sources. MSJapan (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you click on the result returned in Crane Hill's case, at the bottom of the page (below the PDFs), there's a "Published" field that shows you the NRHP listing date (11/29/2001 in this case), and there's an "Item No." field that tells you the NRIS database reference number (01001294 in this case). No, for this specific property, the pdfs haven't been digitized yet, but I believe there is enough information in the database already to sufficiently assert that the site is listed on the NRHP. If not, the pdfs can be freely requested from the National Park Service (see here for more information). --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that without the original paperwork, we here are unable to create an adequate article. There are too many underlying questions of why a building was listed. If its listing has nothing to do with its purpose as a Masonic building, it's not really appropriate to be on here, in my opinion. I can't tell that from the sparse data. I will also point out that there are 209 entries on that search you have linked, and I figure if I'm going to have to go get all that, I might as well get everything related. I also have a real issue regarding agitating for an article and then telling others to go do the work, but that happens more foten than not. MSJapan (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I came across this conversation late, so I neglected to actually read the arguments above. I thought the problem was not having a link directly to the information about a specific building (which I provided as my second link and could be done for all 209 on that list). I guess the question then becomes, "Does an NRHP-listed building with 'Masonic' in its name always relate to a Masonic building?" While I would see no reason why they would not, I can see why you are expressing the need for more sourcing, and I actually tend to agree with you.

While it is easy to obtain the documents for all of these places – even by snail mail if necessary – you should not be required to. The person who added the material, which I believe to be Doncram, should have the burden of proof. Unfortunately, you will get nowhere with him, as I have tried many times unsuccessfully to try to get him to change the way he works in several different areas. He has one set way of doing things, and even if everything he adds may be completely correct (it's not), he has not the slightest regard for existing policy that supercedes his goals with the NRHP wikiproject. His outlook is that since all NRHP listings are inherently notable, the articles will be eventually created (though "eventually" may be in the year 2598 or it may mean next month). All he has to do is oppose any threat to what he has set up for as long as possible until 1) he gives in creates some short, one-sentence stub to smoke-and-mirrors appease his perceived threat, or 2) someone creates an actual article with third party sources and actual information.

Though, like I said above, I believe the simple fact that "Masonic" is in the NRHP listing title denotes that the buildings were in fact Masonic buildings, if another editor requests more sourcing, the original author is obligated to provide it, especially in such a case as this, where articles were added en masse. If, Doncram, you would simply look for sources instead of opposing, opposing, opposing for the sake of opposing, maybe you would get something done. Hell, you may even find enough sources for a few of these buildings to make a few new articles (and by articles, I mean actual freaking articles; not the crap you usually spit out in these discussions). Yes, this is a major task, but you can't keep expecting to lay out ground work for some other editor to come along and fix all your mistakes; at some point you have to realize that you are the other editor, and you need to start making some actual substantiated edits if you wish to continue to be treated with any respect whatsoever. I am honestly physically growing tired of listening to you whine about how NRHP properties are so notable and how all these people are out to attack you. It makes me wonder: After encountering so many people with opinions differing that those you hold, you have to think....... maybe it's you? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dudemanfellabra. As we've covered before, we are all volunteers, and I have been unable to influence you to engage in certain big editing campaigns and vice versa. I have provided substantial information in the list-article and in this Talk page, about specific places and about the sources available. I don't care for your language and negativity, but thanks for your thoughts otherwise. --doncram (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is it with all this new-found "we are all volunteers" stuff as of late? Yes, we are all volunteer editors to this encyclopedia; now stop using that as an excuse for your laziness. My unwillingness to sort through all your mistakes is secondary and irrelevant to the fact that you make the mistakes. If you didn't feel the need to add 80,000 redlinks to disambiguation pages... if you didn't feel the need to insist that every single one of these listings – no matter how obscure they are – deserves its very own article even if it's only 1,500 bytes long... if you didn't feel the need to oppose everyone you come into contact with, you wouldn't have to convince me to help you with these endeavours. No one forced you to begin doing all of these things; you did them under your own free volunteer will. Other editors, under their volunteer will have found issue with your contributions, and you cannot defend them because of the minuscule and lackluster sourcing put forward by the NPS and the NRHP, on which you based much of your editing. Had you not undertaken such a task and focused instead on creating quality articles and adding sourced content to the encyclopedia, I assure you that you would not be facing as much opposition. Do not pull the "We're all volunteers" card on these opposing editors; they didn't make you add the material in the first place... you chose to. Now man up to your additions and stop whining. That's all I have to say to you. This page is now off my watchlist. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, i did "man up" and provide lots in response to other editors' concerns over a long period. Specifically it was complained that significance of many places wasn't known and perhaps there were just directory-style mentions of non-significant places. I then devoted some time to identifying which ones were NRHP-listed and adding more, and noting which entries seemed not supported by that source. D applies judgmental negative language about the fact that the wikipedia is not fully developed everywhere by me, i guess, already. Well it is equally he and everyone else at fault for not developing everything already. :) And following recent practice by D, D makes a driveby comment and flees. Seems like D not manning up, to me. --doncram (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram... when you say, "...I then devoted some time to identifying which ones were NRHP-listed..." How did you identify these? And exactly what do the rest of us have to do to replicate your identification process? Give it to us step by step. Blueboar (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer here to Blueboar's question here and also partially answer B's questions in other discussion sections by my explanation here.

Specifically, i ran searches within this "Who Has" search tool supported by User:Elkman, which queries a downloaded copy of the free, public domain NRIS database. I searched on "Masonic" and "Mason" and discarded any items that seemed not to apply (e.g. a house named "John Q. Mason House"). I added entries to this list-articles for places named "Masonic Temple, Mason's Hall, etc. You could check any one item, e.g. for the "Masonic Temple" one in Grandin, Missouri, search on "Masonic" and scroll down to find it. If u further click there in the "Infobox" column you will be brought to a cut-and-paste-ready NRHP infobox for use in creating a wikipedia article. I used that already to create a starter article at Masonic Lodge (Grandin, Missouri). If u scroll down within that suggested infobox text, you can find "added = October 14, 1980" which is the date of NRHP listing, and "refnum = 80002335" which is the NRIS reference number for that item, and if you scroll further down u'll find a suggested category for Carter County, Missouri, to be included in the wikipedia article. The date of NRHP listing and the refnum will usually be the same as will appear in the "NRHP.COM" webpage for NRHP listings in Carter County, Missouri. But Elkman's interface is reliable, in that if a Masonic building is listed there, it can be believed to be NRHP-listed; the "NRHP.COM" webpage would list a place as being listed on a certain date if in fact it was in fact de-listed on that date, and there may be other errors in its data. So, in general it is better to cite NRIS directly, and not promote the error-prone NRHP.COM site. But, the Elkman interface does not display the reason code for NRHP listing, which the NRHP.COM site does display. For a site that has been verified to be NRHP-listed already by checking Elkman's interface to NRIS or otherwise, I will tend to believe the NRHP.COM's reason code and its reported reference number for a place is accurate, though i still don't like to cite it in a wikipedia article. It is far better to cite NRIS for the reference number and for reason of listing get the NRHP nomination document which is the true source for the NRIS data entry (which is the source for NRHP.COM). Both the NRIS data entry and the NRHP.COM's programming can introduce typos/errors, relative to the NRHP document. Does this help? --doncram (talk) 02:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.... so the only thing you actually looked at was a search tool created by Elkman (another Wikipedia user) and hosted on his personal website (http://www2.elkman.net) ... if this is the case then 1) according to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, that website should be included in the citation... However, 2) personal websites are not normally considered reliable. Blueboar (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the following passage as lede to the article. In doing so I removed some assertions about what the list should or should not include, that should be discussed in the Talk page but not argued by making technically inaccurate assertions in the article. I also removed the overall "refimprove" tag. I can only imagine it was applied to question some assertions in the lede, because the building list is factual. With the restored version of the lede, I see no particular need for questioning of it, but I would welcome reasonable discussion here of any specific element that someone believes is not entirely factual.

Here's the passage:

This is a list of Masonic buildings that are notable. Many are architecturally significant and are listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places for that reason. Others are significant for other reasons.

These buildings have significant associations to the fraternal organization of Freemasonry. The basic organizational group of Freemasonry is the Masonic Lodge. The buildings in which lodges meet are variously referred to as Masonic buildings, Masonic halls, Masonic temples, or, confusingly, Masonic lodges. Some of these buildings may be used by one lodge in particular, others are used by more than one lodge (or by associated groups such as Scottish Rite bodies or Knight Templar commanderies.) Some of these buildings may have historically been used to house Masonic lodge meetings, but are now used for other, non-masonic, purposes and are no longer owned by the Masons.

There are thousands of Masonic buildings around the world. Between 1870 and 1930 a large number of the Masonic buildings in the United States were built. American architects who designed them include Burnham & Root, Napoleon LeBrun, Osgood & Osgood, John Russell Pope, and John C. Austin.

Shrine mosques are related buildings that were built by the Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine (more commonly known as the Shriners), a separate group that happens to require membership in Freemasons as a prerequisite for joining.

--doncram (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first issue I see in the first paragraph is "notable for other reasons" - such as what? It's all well and good that these buildings are on the list, but the fact that no one can access the majority of the listings still makes this a very vague sort of notability, and hasn't really addressed the issue of Masonic connection. There is a difference between factuality and utility in a lede, and yet I believe here we have neither.

In the second paragraph, the issue of significant association has still not been clarified to my satisfaction, and having been unable to locate any documentation on any of these buildings to indicate why they are on the list, I dispute the factual accuracy of the statement, especially because it has been implied in the next paragraph and the previous paragraph that the listing of the building may have more to do with the architect than the purpose of the building. Again, no available sources to prove anything either way.

No documentation or sourcing has been shown to assert any of the third paragraph, and the last paragraph is irrelevant.

My main concern in all of this discussion is that doncram claims offline sourcing is OK (which it is), but also asserts ready availability (which is not true). I've tried to look at the online DB, and none of the documentation is available for any of the buildings I have searched for so far, and I must also note there is a tremendous amount of user unfriendliness involved in said system. As far as I ma concerned, the burden of proof is not being met for this list as it stands now, and the assumptions and statements being made in the lede have no corroboration whatsoever aside from doncram's claims. Correct or not, we cannot go on one person's claims. I want to see sources, period, or I'm going to have to ask for further outside intervention on this. I think both sides here are acting in good faith and somehow are unable to reach a common ground, and it's wasting a lot of time and effort to be going in circles over the same points. MSJapan (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph consists of two statements: 1) that some buildings in the list are architecturally significant (which is supported by several examples in the list-article, for example the Virginia ones), and 2) that not all buildings in the list-article are significant for that reason. The second part allows for buildings to be listed here for other reasons. In fact there are 4 generic reasons why buildings are NRHP-listed. I am not looking it up right now, but I believe the 4 reasons are approximately: they can be significant for their architecture, for their association with a specific event, for their association with an important person, or for their being a good example of some common type of historic building. I do not know that all the NRHP-listed ones are significant for their architecture (and based on percentages and the large number of places here, I strongly believe not every one is listed for architecture), and there may be other buildings listed here or which could be added which are listed for some other reason. So, it is necessary to allow for that in the lede. You can call it awkward, but the wording is okay/accurate: some are significant for their architecture and some are significant for other reasons. It really does not say much. The current version is, I think, what i wrote at one point to replace some assertion which in fact was not true. This is true, and doesn't say much, and that is fine for now in my view.

About the second paragraph and about the ready availability, how can you say that you cannot find "any documentation on any of these buildings to indicate why they are on the list". What about the Virginia ones and possibly others that have full NRHP application document footnotes? Have you read a single NRHP application? It seems essential that you read several, in order to educate yourself on what kind of sources they are. Their purpose is to explain the significance of the place and why it is nominated for NRHP listing. And, they are readily available. Some are on-line. All are available for free. I have given instructions repeatedly how you can obtain them for free by request to the National Register. They will mail them to you by postal mail, if they do not have a scanned version to email. Please, please, please, pick one or several, and make a request to the National Register to get them, by email request to nr_reference (at) nps.gov. I agree wholeheartedly about the waste of time it is to go around and around in circles, which is what is going on again and again and again. I think this responds to most of what MSJapan has just said, and i will stop now. --doncram (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I further reverted again when ALR just now restored an earlier version of the lede and tags for "refimprove" and "pagenumbers". What page number do you want, for what? I won't keep reverting the lede if others want to change its wording, unless the new wording is actually false in some way, or unless it amounts to wishful thinking / assertion of what one editor wishes the Talk page consensus to be about which buildings will be included in the list-article. The version i just removed included assertion about which type of Prince Hall buildings are included, which seems to be an assertion of control over which non-existent entries might be added. That should be discussed on talk page, not argued by adding controlling-type assertions to the lede. The lede is meant to be a summary of the article, not a set of rules guiding the building of the list. Arguing about the lede is pretty useless now, as it is hard to summarize a list-article that has not been built. I wish the concerned editors would get sources and develop entries in the list, not quibble about the lede. --doncram (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note that what I did was re-add the two Quality Assurance tags asking for better evidence, and more accurate referencing of your sources. Your edit summary when you reverted my request for improved quality did not cover the substantive content changes that you made as well.

With a database you should be able to provide pointers to the specific records pertaining to the buildings. As was indicated when that tag was inserted, it's not perfect but it does illustrate the issue. Might I suggest that rather than quibbling over the specific tag in use that you respond to the suggestion and provide much more detailed pointers to the records.

With respect to the request to improve sourcing, it is wholly inappropriate to continue removing this tag without providing some substantive improvement to the sourcing. At the moment there are several sourcing issues:

• There is no clear inclusion rationale, with evidence to support that. We've already been through that in the AfD, nobody was able to provide a source asserting an inclusion rationale. I would suggest that this topic needs to be addressed before specific items are included.
• The majority of US buildings are supported by only a single source. From an evidence perspective this is very questionable, I don't believe that it meets the needs of Notability policy, although clearly you disagree. If the tag is added the burden of evidence rests with you to to support removal, if you can't then it should remain.
• You have no inclusion rationale for non-US buildings. Until such time as these are evidenced then they are, as observed, vulnerable to removal. I have stated several times that this looks like a US specific list, and the requirement for evidence with respect to the non-US buildings could be resolved by re-titling and making this a US specific article.

I would suggest that it would me more productive to respond to the criticisms, provide some evidence.

ALR (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you also are finding this unpleasant to deal with. I definitely am. It appears currently there is no one present who is willing and interested to further develop this article, by doing the possibly enjoyable work of obtaining free NRHP documents and other sources, and developing up some information about each of the significant Masonic buildings. That's okay. You and me and everyone, we're all just volunteers. There's no incredible urgency to developing this list-article. I happen to think there's no benefit to tagging it negatively, or to making threats intended to force another volunteer editor to do something or another. It is well enough established that the general list-article topic is notable, and it is well-enough established that each of the NRHP-listed items, at least, are notable items to be included. To best advance this list-article, i suggest everyone present please give it a rest, for six months or a year. That would perhaps clear the air and allow some interested editors to make something better of this, free from too much criticism. I do not intend to let others' irate demands affect my life very much more here. I may give intend-to-be-helpful information from time to time, and I may return to remove negative tags and to restore adequately-established-as-notable items to the list. I did already help out by defending it in the AFD, by developing some of it (specifically the Virginia entries with additional sources, and the identification and documentation of all the NRHP-listed ones). I hope you all could find your way to seeing those as helpful contributions. But basically I overall find this unpleasant. Good luck in finding someone else to do for you all whatever it is you want, subject to all the criticism you will provide to them. --doncram (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that you may find it less unpleasant to deal with if you actually respond to the concerns raised, rather than disrupt the QA process by removing the tags that indicate those concerns.

You've been asked to provide detailed pointers to database entries, it is recognised that the request for page numbers is not an entirely accurate request, but of the available tags it is the most appropriate, since database record pointers are a reasonable substitute. The burden of evidence remains on you to provide that.

I remain unconvinced that this is a notable subject, and the inability to provide a clear inclusion rationale is pretty strong evidence of that. Once we have clear, supported, inclusion criteria then we can work on what to include in the list. I'm afraid that walking away from a weak article with no valid inclusion criteria is intellectual cowardice.

We have to work within the recognition that the majority of votes in the AfD were to keep the article, so despite their fairly specious reasons we're left with a weak article to try to improve. Calling for QA on the article is a way to do that. Persistently removing the QA tagging and arguing that WP:Notability does not apply is not a particularly constructive approach. If we can agree inclusion criteria, then I'm content to work further on the actual content. Until that time I would intend to focus effort on applying some intellectual rigour there, rather than elsewhere.

ALR (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't done anything except tell other people what to do and claim that your methods are correct when they are not, so let's not play the victim here. MSJapan (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I can't even tell what the problem is anymore. Are people just complaining that the NRHP documents arent 100% online yet? PeRshGo (talk) 08:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the complaint is that the citation that is currently given for bulk of the entries in this article is inadequate. the article make two claims: 1) that the buildings are on the NRHP list and 2) that they are significant to the Masons. We currently attempt to cite the first claim... but the citation that is given is insufficient. The bulk of the article is cited to a website that tells you (very indirectly, and with a lot of confusion) how to obtain certain documents, when what we need is a citation directly to the documents themselves (whether on line or in hard copy). In cases where the NRHP documents that support inclusion in this list are not online, it is inappropriate to cite to a website; and in case where the NRHP documents are on line, it is inappropriate to cite a website that does not directly link to the online version of those documents. We do not even make an attempt to cite the second claim. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I'm finding this persistent removal of QA tagging rather tedious and the specious reasoning and circular arguments rather frustrating. It's increasing difficult to interpret any of Doncrams behaviour as exhibiting anything resembling good faith.

Given that the majority opinion is that there are issues around inclusion criteria and general sourcing are we approaching a point where gaining some outside view on Doncrams behaviour is appropriate?

ALR (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I repeatedly removed the "pagenumbers" tag you've added, because there are not page numbers to add. It seems wp:POINTY or bad or something for you to keep adding that tag, when you understand there are no page numbers to add. Perhaps we should get an outside view about that, yes.

There are reference numbers on the NRHP entries in NRIS. You can see that in the nrhp infobox for places that have an individual article; you can see the same reference number in the NPS Focus system; you can see it in the NRHP.COM entry; you can see it in other versions of NRIS information. I don't happen to agree that adding them to this list-article would help; it would detract from its readability and give undue importance to a set of arbitrary code numbers. The places can be looked up by their name plus location in any system that also reports the reference numbers. An internal reference number is okay to include in an infobox in an article about a specific place, but cluttering up the list-article is not helpful, i don't think. I don't really care if you want to add them or not; i would just observe it as basically a waste of your time, serving no purpose for readers. --doncram (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... now we are finally getting somewhere... It sounds as if those reference numbers might count as an equivalent to page numbers... I think this is exactly the sort of building specific information that needs to go into the citation for each entry. I would be willing to remove the "page numbers" tag if you were to add those reference numbers to the citations. Blueboar (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i won't add those reference numbers. I think they would detract from this list-article; i fail to see how they would add anything for readers. You can look them up and add them if you like, however, via Elkman's interface (or via NRHP.COM for any site that has already been verified to be NRHP-listed from NRIS via Elkman's interface or otherwise, which all of these have), and you can then cite NRIS directly as the source for the reference number. Better, you could create articles for any red-link ones, using the Elkman infobox generator. And better yet, you can request some NRHP nomination documents and use those to form good references like i did for the Virginia items in this list-article, to be included in articles about them and also here.

If you add the reference numbers, then sometime later we can delete them all, as they are not helpful for readers. Adding them could perhaps serve temporarily as verification to you that you verified the NRHP listing (which was already verified by me); you can add them all in many small edits and then we can later delete them all in one big edit. Note, Wikiproject NRHP editors do not bother to report NRIS refnums in the big state and county NRHP list-articles indexed from List of RHPs. In wikipedia they appear only in infoboxes in individual NRHP articles. Some states have different identifier codes they use, too, which we also don't report. Hope this helps. --doncram (talk) 02:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say you already verified the NRHP listing... exactly how did you do this? Blueboar (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind... you answered a similar question above. Blueboar (talk) 03:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any further progress around inclusion criteria, can I suggest the following:

• Coverage - my preference would be craft buildings only as it's a more universal approach to Freemasonry. The treatment of the various appendant bodies is very different outside the US. There is also the issue of perhaps buildings with affiliation where no lodge meets, such as the Royal Masonic School, or the Masonic Homes in Dunblane.

• Significance - Open to debate but the fairly bland criteria that seem to apply to this US register don't strike me as particularly useful elsewhere. I'm struggling to see a referencable criterion to be honest. Gut feel says that the Masonic Peace Memorial and perhaps Clerkenwell are significant, but I can't put my finger on why. My preference would be for masonic significance, rather than buildings where masons happen to meet, so that would for example exempt Canonbury Tower for example.

• Ownership - I think this is really weak, but there is potentially an argument for it.

Any other potential criteria?

ALR (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone keeps editing the lede to make incorrect claims, and then call for citations to prove the incorrect claims. For example that ". Some are architecturally significant and those specific to the United States are listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places for that reason.[citation needed] " NO, as i and others have explained, the NRHP listings are not just for architectural significance. Please read some of the NRHP documents, and browse some examples where the NRHP listing is not because of the architecture. This is moronic! --doncram (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To use your own words, "not just" also means that "some are", and that's exactly what the lede says. Nothing moronic about that. MSJapan (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would help if you would actually cite the NRHP documents we are supposed to read... so that we know which buildings are on the NRHP list because they are architecturally significant, and which are on the list for some other reason. It is hard to read "some of the NRHP documents" when you are not told what these documents are or where to find them. Blueboar (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence as written implies that only some buildings world-wide but all NRHP-listed buildings are listed for their architecture. As I wrote it before, and is covered in language further above, some NRHP-listed ones are listed for their architecture, which is different.

I can't apologize for getting frustrated that no one is consulting any sources on these. But I will acknowledge that I have greater facility than you in figuring out what the NRHP's NRIS database says. You might not be able to look these up easily (although you would come across examples if you did collect NRHP applications as I have given directions to you). For specific example, this NRHP.COM page shows that the NRIS listing for Yell Masonic Lodge Hall is listed for its representation of Social History, first, as well as for Architecture, second. See the "Area of Significance" field, which is NRHP.COM's reporting of what appears in NRIS. This NRHP.CoM page shows that NRIS lists Architecture then Social History for Masonic Temple (Pine Bluff, Arkansas), which is a different emphasis. Also different is the Masonic Temple (Gainesville, Florida) being listed for just Architecture (per this). Here's one without "Architecture" appearing: the Masonic Lodge (Grandin, Missouri) has "Historic Significance: Event", and "Area of Significance: Industry", as given in its NRHP.COM mention, which is based on NRIS. No one has requested or collected the NRHP nomination document for that one which will explain the "Event" of importance. You can get that document by following the instructions i and others have given to you. --doncram (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For one further example already covered in the list-article, the Hiram Masonic Lodge No. 7 is not listed for its architecture. Its linked NRHP nomination document's Section 8 shows checkoffs "for politics/government" and "social/humanitarian" but not architecture. Not inconsistently with that, NRHP.COM reports from NRIS that it has "Historic Significance: Event" and "Area of Significance: Social History, Native American, Politics/Government". The list-article and the article and the linked NRHP nomination document about the place explain the significant event(s) which occurred there. So for the technically-minded, it has been established that more than one NRHP-listed place is not listed for its architecture, okay? Hope this helps. --doncram (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It helps... but confuses me further for a different reason... First you object to my using the NRHP.COM website (see the discussion thread entitled: "[Talk:List of Masonic buildings#Accessing the NRHP website|Accessing the NRHP website]", above, and this diff)... now you point us to that same website to show why buildings are on the NRHP. So is it reliable or not? Can we use it or not? Blueboar (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've just now further above again explained, that the NRHP.COM webpages are not reliable for some things, so I don't like to point readers to them at all by citing them ever. Like they will show a place is NRHP listed and that it was added on a certain date, when in fact that place is not NRHP-listed and was de-listed on that date. You can't tell which is which. Also their reporting of acreage of each listing is off by a factor of 10. There may be other systematic errors, too. But, I don't know of any systematic error in NRHP.COM's reporting of listing reason codes, for any site that has already be verified to be NRHP-listed by use of Elkman's interface or by other means. If pushed, as above, I would choose to accept the NRHP.COM-reported reason or the NRHP.COM's reported reference number as probably accurate, but in a wikipedia article I would cite NRIS directly, instead. (Again, NRHP docs are the underlying source for NRIS; NRIS is the underlying source for NRHP.COM, which is just a copy with some introduced systematic errors). I have myself downloaded the NRIS database and run some programs to generate some reports, and I could conceivably run reports on the reasons for NRHP listing. But better still for any specific site would be to obtain the NRHP nomination document, which gives both general checkoff codes for reasons and actual text explanations of the reasons why a place is nominated for NRHP-listing. Such as association with a specific historic person, or being the place of a specific event, or whatever. Hope this helps. --doncram (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It clarifies... Not sure if it helps... it means we essentially have to treat the NRHP.COM website as unreliable. And it sounds as if we are back to needing citations to the original NRHP nomination documents (which, because they are primary sources, have their own set of limitations).

There's no WP guideline or policy that indicates NRHP listing confers notability, so I have started a discussion on it here at the village pump. MSJapan (talk) 06:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some justification for saying that NRHP listing confers notability... the problem we have been facing is substantiating NRHP listing. Blueboar (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am hereby formally challenging the reliability of www.nr.nps.gov as a citation, and removing it as a citation from the article. While there are multiple reasons for this (discussed above)... I will identify two that are of immediate concern:

• The website is no longer supported and no longer works, it thus fails both WP:RS and WP:V.
• As Doncram noted above... he did not actually get his information from the website cited... but instead got it from an intermediary search tool. The citation therefor fails per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.

I have attempted on several occasions to substitute other sources that I find acceptable, and each time Doncram has reverted me. It is therefor up to him, per WP:BURDEN, to find a reliable replacement. Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this ridiculous and stupid set of edits stripping out sourcing from the article. You have launched new discussions elsewhere and, though you get some small sympathy that the source is not everything you wish it would be, you are utterly rejected about basic fact of whether it is a reliable source. It is in fact the source of the info on each NRHP-listed place for which i added the reference. It is accepted as a reference. Is it 40 discussion sections you have opened attacking this article now? Sheesh. --doncram (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No... it is not an acceptable citation. Read the discussions at WP:RSN. Blueboar (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at WP:RSN, citing the link pages at NPS Focus seems to be an acceptable replacement. If formatted correctly, they are unambiguous and are one obvious click from the pages we actually want the reader to access (which, for technical reasons with the NPS website, we can not link to directly). To give an example... see this Link to NPS Focus page for Crane Hill Masonic Lodge. I have put this in the article... I realize that replacing all of these citations will be time consuming. If Doncram shows a good faith effort to at least begin the process of adding new citations, I will back away from my hard line stance re WP:BURDEN and help. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As i have explained patiently enough to you before, the direct way to improve this list-article is to obtain NRHP documents and/or other superior sources and use those to actually develop superior material in the article. As i have explained briefly at the wp:RSN discussion, I don't think that references to the NPS Focus system are better. I would bet a million dollars that if i had proposed those to you, or put those in myself into this list-article, you would be complaining. Because for the most part they promise documents that are in fact not available through that system, and you would be seizing upon that as the newest thing to complain about, blaming me. It seems pretty clear that the efforts of several editors here are not to improve the list-article, but rather to find fault in repeated ways. Again, it is unpleasant to try to contribute here. --doncram (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit i restored footnotes supporting NRHP information, including one footnote to NPS Focus and otherwise using the only so-far-formed footnotes. Please note i accept Blueboar's perhaps odd preference for the NPS Focus footnote, which does establish NRHP listing, for the Crane Hill one. If Blueboar wishes to form and enter NPS Focus footnotes to substitute for other NRIS footnotes, and if the NPS Focus footnote does actually provide the specific support needed for a given entry, i will not delete such substitutions. But if wholesale deletion of sourcing again occurs, i will be inclined to revert again, perhaps again losing other minor or major edits that might be made, inbetween. It is wasteful as a matter of developing a properly sourced article, to merely delete footnotes, losing track of which information is sourced. I don't know, maybe the editors here have little experience developing sourced articles, or otherwise don't care to keep track of which information is sourced vs. which is just randomly written in by editors writing from their personal knowledge or beliefs. Is that the case? I think i am the only one present who has developed sourced material in this list-article, anyhow. --doncram (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now over 3rrr... I have reported you. We understand that you don't think citations to NPS Focus are better... but everyone else does. More to the point, every one else agrees that the NRIS page is flawed and must be replaced. Please stop re-adding it. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, i don't see such a report in your contribution history yet. Maybe you are composing it. Please do point to this discussion in your report. Unfortunately, i have another commitment now and won't be able to respond in some ANI / 3RR discussion. Technically, i don't think i violated 3rr; i simply reverted your edits 3 times, and in my last edit to the article i did something different, accepting your preferred reference for the Crane Hill one, consistent with my comments here, part of ongoing discussion.

But Blueboar, that is just pretty nonsensical, to remove the source that was actually used, in favor of no source, losing track of which info is sourced vs. not. If you want to substitute a source for a specific item, that is different. What happened to your supposed willingness to actually add seriously better references, by obtaining NRHP nomination documents? Have you obtained and read a single one of the NRHP documents, ever? Even from the on-line available ones that I have added direct links to? I see no evidence that you have. It just seems hard to see that you are trying to do anything constructive here. -

It makes perfect sense to remove a source that everyone (except you) agrees is flawed... and to begin the process of replacing it with new acceptable sources. You simply do not want to accept the consensus (both here and at RSN) that the NRIS source is flawed. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my sarcasm, but... I am well aware that heated discussion can inflame tempers and thus cloud otherwise sound minds, and I think that has happened here. I must point out that entries the display like "http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natregadvancedsearch.do?searchType=natregadvanced&selectedCollections=NPS%20Digital%20Library&referenceNumber=86001164&natregadvancedsearch=Search Link to NRHP - NPS Focus page for Masonic Temple in Kingman" are among the ugliest excuses for a reference citation that I've ever seen at Wikipedia. A decent reference citation ought to bear some resemblance to the type of citation one would see in an academic journal or student term paper, and that format most decidedly does not do that. I'd expect to see something more along the lines of "Masonic Temple in Kingman, National Register of Historic Places NPS Focus website, accessed July 19, 2010." --Orlady (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point... and not too difficult to fix (time consuming... but not difficult). I will get on it. Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I can avoid making lots of changes only to have to redo them later... I want to make sure that I am formatting the citation properly ... I have done the Arizona ones along the lines that Orlady suggests... any problems or suggestions before I move on? Blueboar (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About Orlady's suggestion and 3 revisions to Arizona entries by Blueboar, I note the displayed text is showing a title that does not appear in the source, i.e. shows "Masonic Temple in Kingman" or "Masonic Hall in Wikenburg", when the linked pages show "Masonic Temple" or "Masonic Hall", alone. Those are not accurate references. The NPS Focus links, any way presented so far, look pretty horrible to me, and in some/perhaps many cases on this list-article are inadequate substitutes for NRIS references (because NRIS is the source for info not appearing in the NPS Focus system). --doncram (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Petty... but OK... I have fixed the highlighted text to match the displayed title that is at the source. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, please stop being disruptive. You have been told by multiple editors, both here and at at WP:RSN (specifically WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#www.nr.nps.gov) that the NRIS page you keep linking to is not acceptable (it does not pass WP:V). You have already been admonished about edit warring over this... and yet you continue to insist on it. I am not going to engage in edit warring by reverting your most recent edit (as I was admonished for that as well) ... but, if you continue, I will raise your disruptive behavior with admins. Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to my adding some info about the Crane Hill Masonic Temple, including that it is "gable fronted", which comes from NRIS, and my adding NRIS as a source, because it is the source. Note the NPS Focus system does not have that information. About the RSN discussion, I don't see any consensus that NRIS is unreliable or that, where it is the source for material in wikipedia articles, it should be removed. By all means, go ahead and try to get a consensus there, that where NRIS is the source for something, and there is no other source, that NRIS should not be stated to be the source! --doncram (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information may have come from the some document somewhere at NRIS... but it did not come from the webpage www.rn.nps.gov, which is what you are citing. That is the front page to a search engine, and as such is not acceptable.

I think you are confusing the citation with the source itself. No one is saying that the NRIS is unreliable... they are saying that we can not cite www.nr.nps.gov when citing the NRIS. Blueboar (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, the citation displays "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. 2009-03-13. http://www.nr.nps.gov/.", which is a reference to the National Register Information System, which is a database. A URL is provided to where you can download the database. The 2009-03-13 edition date for the database is given. I think it is pretty clear. But are you saying you wish for a formatting change to the reference, to explain "This is a database, and the exact information cited appears in the database and not at the URL which is where you can download the database" or something less wordy, to that effect? I am not averse to some wording expansion or other improvement in the reference. But, as pointed out in the RSN discussion, it is a valid, reliable source, and is the source for the information here. --doncram (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tht's not what I got out of that discussion. I got the following: "go get it yourself" is not acceptable in a source, and downloading a DB is not an acceptable means to verify a source. MSJapan (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The March 13, 2009 edition of the NRIS database is a source, like a book, which can be consulted and verified by many people. What Blueboar states above, that "the information may have come from some document somewhere at NRIS" shows misunderstanding of what is my source for the info. The information comes from the NRIS database itself, which i consulted from either the March 13, 2009 edition which i myself downloaded, or from the copy downloaded by User:Elkman. NRIS, the database, is the direct source. Yes NRIS includes info mostly taken from NRHP nomination documents, but also additional information, and it is the direct source for information such as the "gable fronted" snippet of information, which does not appear in NPS Focus, a different system. You have to accept that it is a source, like a book, which you might not be able to use to verify from, if you yourself consult a copy of the book or database. Is there some other wording that would satisfy you, like an explicit statement: "This is a database, which, like an off-line book, is a source which can be used to verify the information reported." That wording would be heavy-handed, of course, but there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding so maybe heavy-handed explanation is needed? --doncram (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To continue your analogy of the NRIS being like a book... when we cite a book, we have to give page info so that the reader knows where in the book to look. You can not simply cite the book and say... "its somewhere in there... you look for it." More to the point, citing the website www.rn.nps.gov is not like citing a book... it is more like pointing to the library door and saying "there may be a book that covers this in there somewhere". That simply is not acceptable.

Look, what I am saying is very simple... while discussions are ongoing at RSN as to what we should link to when citing the NRIS and NRHP... the one thing that is clear is that we should not link to the webpage www.nr.nps.gov to do so. There are multiple reasons for this, reasons that have already been noted here and at RSN. You have been involved in these discussions so you should be aware of these reasons. Please, accept what you are being told in multiple venues... and stop linking to this webpage. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no, you misunderstand and/or misconstrue what is being said elsewhere. And what you wish for -- no sources!? -- is no way to develop an article while keeping track of which sources support which facts. There is no consensus anywhere that NRIS references should be removed willy-nilly. If there is some improvement of wording for the NRIS reference, to clarify for you and certain others that this is a reference to a database which is like a book, then that improvement can be implemented sometime in the future. It would be horribly disruptive of anyone to simply remove the NRIS reference which is the source for the given information, especially where there is no other source which can be substituted. --doncram (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the NRIS reference that Blueboar complains about could be fixed by revising it to say: "National Register Information System. National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. 2009-03-13. Retrieved from National Register Information System Download Center on [DATE]." The date would, of course, need to be inserted (this would be either the date that Elkman downloaded the data or the date that the user downloaded it). Also, the download center link is currently not functioning; it was working earlier this morning, so I don't know if the National Park Service has taken it down or if this is just another one of their chronic website problems. --Orlady (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Orlady. Actually i think it is appropriate to give the March 13, 2009 date as the edition date of the NRIS data. That is the date it was copied from the live NRIS database into a downlaodable file, which Elkman subsequently downloaded. The actual date that Elkman or I or anyone else downloaded the March 13 edtiion could be noted, too, i guess, but is secondary. The only way i know to refer to the specific edition of NRIS, is to use the March 13 date. So some further refinement, building on Orlady's draft and clarifying the edition of NRIS, is needed. --doncram (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My notion is that the citation should include both the version date of the database and the date that a Wikipedian retrieved it. The second date may seem extraneous, but (because electronic sources can be modified without the modification being detectable) it is often deemed necessary to include the retrieval date for full traceability of the source. --Orlady (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the website is down, i assume temporarily. Sorry, maybe i wasn't really noticing your version did include the March 13 date. But i think identifying that date more clearly as the edition date would be helpful. While regular NRHP editors understand it as the edition date, sometimes new editors change it to the current date of when they are adding an Elkman NRHP infobox or otherwise editing an article. So, assuming the URL http://www.nr.nps.gov/nrdown1.htm is correct (while it is not working right at this moment), then I think the following should suffice, and would be a small improvement on the usual NRIS reference: "National Register Information System, edition of 2009-03-13. National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. Retrieved from National Register Information System Download Center on [DATE]." --doncram (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again... you engage in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please get a clue.

While discussions as to what we should cite continue at RSN... yes, I would prefer to (temporarily) leave the entry with no source than reinstate a source that is considered flawed. Barring that, I would prefer to cite the NPS Focus page (which, by the way, is a more appropriate reference to the NRIS - as it gets you more directly to NRIS information). Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You suffer extremely from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. NPS Focus is a different system. It does not contain or provide certain information which is provided by NRIS, such as the factoid that the Crane Hill site is "gable fronted". This is absurd to have to keep explaining to you. Your refusal or inability to understand simple concepts is, cumulatively, exasperating. --doncram (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but I did not use NPS Focus to cite the factoid that Crane Hill was "gable fronted"... I cited it to support the statement that the Masonic Lodge in Crane Hill was NRHP-listed... and only that statement. Since the NPS Focus page does support this specific statement, it is a proper citation. You, on the other hand, wish to add the factoid about the gable fronts.... However, there is a problem with your citation for this factoid... www.rn.nps.gov does not say that Crane Hill is "gable fronted". In fact that web page does not mention Crane Hill or gables at all. When you cite to a webpage, that webpage must contain the information being cited. Thus, you must come up with a citation that directly supports your factoid. Blueboar (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source is NRIS of the 3/13/2009 edition, which is a specific version of a database that has about 85,000 records. I notice, B, in your statement further below, that you dismiss use of a database as a reference because you note that it is searchable and you view it like the results of a Google search. I gather you have seen in Wikipedia RS policy somewhere that Google-type search results are not citable sources. But this database is not like a Google search, because the contents of the internet covered by a Google search are both infinite and ever-changing, and not reliable. This copy of the database, instead, has just its 85000 records and is unchanging. It will always be available, like a book or a fixed spreadsheet, to verify that any specific record contains whatever is asserted about it. It is not an open-ended search, really, to find what is said in the database about a given place like the Crane Hill site. There's no uncertainty as to what will be found. It is, instead, a 100% reliable, certain lookup of exactly what is there, on the rows having title "Crane Hill Masonic Lodge" or equivalently on the rows having database reference number 01001294. Also by the way Crane Hill is in Alabama. If you want to refer to a "page number" in the database, you can best do that by giving the unique name "Crane Hill Masonic Lodge" or equivalently the reference number. Does this help? --doncram (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, my objection isn't to using the NRIS as a source... my objection is to the use of www.rn.nps.gov as a citation. These are different things completely. Citing www.rn.nps.gov is akin to citing "card catalog" for information that is found in a specific book in a library with 85,000 books ... and that simply isn't acceptable. As you say, there are some 85,000 records in the NRIS... it is our job to tell the reader which one discusses the Crane Hill building. WP:V makes it very clear that a source must support the information directly (the bolding comes from WP:V). So we need to format a citation accordingly. To go back to my card catalog/library analogy... it is our job to hand the reader the exact book that contains the information and say... "The information is in chapter 5 of this book." Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the page labelled "Crane Hill Masonic Hall". Would it help you to think of this like a big spreadsheet? It's on the row with title "Crane Hill Masonic Hall", which you can scroll down and find. There's nothing more helpful to say; it doesn't help you to know that is row 3,542 of the spreadsheet. It's the entry for this place in the database. That's all i can say. --doncram (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you were staring at a spread sheet with 85,000 rows, it would help to know that the information you wanted was at row 3,542. But my point stands... you say: "It's on the page labeled 'Crane Hill Masonic Hall'"... fine... then cite the page labeled "Crane Hill Masonic Hall". But don't cite www.rn.nps.gov instead of that page... www.rn.nps.gov isn't the page labeled "Crane Hill Masonic Hall". Blueboar (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the title of this list, we have two obvious things to source. 1) that the buildings listed are notable, and 2) that the buildings listed are "masonic".

Since we can cite specific NPS-Focus pages for the buildings that are on the NRHP, I think we have a workable solution to issue of substantiating that the buildings on this list are notable as buildings. We can continue to work on replacing the poor NRIS source with acceptable NRP-Focus pages while we begin the discussion on the second criteria...

We need sources to substantiate that these are indeed "Masonic" buildings.

I still think that to do that we will need to better clarify what we mean by the term "Masonic" building. I am not happy with the current working definition of "any building that has some sort of undefined tie to Freemasonry"... but, even if we accept that definition, we still need to substantiate that these buildings fit that definition. I don't think the fact that the NRHP includes the word "Masonic" in their name for a building is enough. We need sources that directly tie the buildings to Freemasonry, and explain what the tie to Freemasonry is or was. Any ideas? Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, the one in Connecticut you added a ref to went in as a synagogue, not a Masonic Building, but it was apparently one in the past. Also, the search result is still one step removed from the nomination papers, so can that be fixed at all? Additionally the plugin needed to view the pages no longer exists - might be a problem. I could only view the title page although the whole thing was digitized. Going in the right direction, at least. MSJapan (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One step forward... three steps back... I may have spoken too soon. And editor (not me this time) has questioned the reliability of the NSP-Focus citations in the discussions at WP:RSN... If it isn't acceptable, we may be back to square one... not being able to substantiate anything in this article! This is frustrating! Blueboar (talk) 23:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This situation has gone on long enough, and it will be resolved one way or the other. As fingerpointing isn't solving anything, the simple fact is that there is a lack of communication or understanding somehow, and that lack is being mitigated by page reversion. I have asked for full edit protection for the article to avoid some of the nonsense going on. Whether it goes through or not, we are going to work this out without anybody editing the page. Since neither of your ways seem to be working, it's going to be done my way, with no complaints. I'm not going to take sides in this, but I am going to make everybody put their money where their mouth is.

Doncram and Blueboar will take a new subsection below, and explain clearly and succinctly what source they want to use, why they want to use it, and how it meets WP:RS. I will then ask for third opinions on the validity of those statements so that none of us here are actually making the decision. If that does not solve the problem, then we're going to have to go to Stage 2, which is why we shouldn't use a particular source. To avoid any unnecessary fooling about, note the following:

There is to be no editing of the article by either party until the situation is resolved. Lack of assent by either party will invalidate that party's position. Editing by either party will likely lead to a block of some duration for disruptive editing. So think about what you want to do, keep your hands to yourselves, and get to work. MSJapan (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree... with the notation that I just made an edit to the article before seeing this proposal... If MSJ feels that this edit goes against the spirit of my subsequent agreement, he may revert it. Blueboar (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I don't understand what MSJapan is saying in some details (i literally don't understand some of your sentences), although i get the gist of what you mean. However, there is #More about NRIS source above, and the discussion open at wp:RSN. I don't think a new discussion starting from scratch is needed. Blueboar, can you please comment in #More about NRIS source above, about the specific suggestion proposed by Orlady and revised slightly by me? Then that can be used everywhere that i used the previous NRIS reference, where i had used NRIS as the source for info in this list-article. And we are all done then. If Blueboard disagrees, then he needs to convince other editors at the wp:RSN discussion and/or above and elsewhere. The NRIS reference has long been accepted and is in use in thousands of wikipedia articles; Blueboar's protestations or a brand new discussion section here cannot overturn that. MSJapan, if you want to have a brand new discussion from scratch, please first consider the wp:RSN discussion and propose closing that discussion first, and explain why. Offhand, I don't think a new discussion to put new demands on all NRHP editors is needed. --doncram (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question to MSJapan... Are we allowed to comment on each other's statements in rebuttal? Blueboar (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that MSJapan's assertion this is "Solution time" means NO to that. We're past the point where anything we say will convince each other of anything. There are open discussions above and elsewhere, anyhow. If MSJapan wants nonetheless to allow further comments by us, I hope/request that you and i will be only allowed to do so within our own separate statements, as done in arbitration. --doncram (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not thinking of convincing you (I agree that we are beyond convincing each other)... but you made some statements that I would like to comment on in a separate sub-section, for the benefit of those other (neutral) editors that MSJ will call in to help resolve our debate. If he says no... that is fine. He is setting the rules for this mediation and I have agreed to that. If he says yes, I assume he will allow you a similar chance to comment. Blueboar (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to see if we can resolve the situation purely on the basis of fulfilling RS, because that is as objective a solution as possible. Counterarguments are a step away from objectivity, and possibly counterproductive, so let's see what we can do with step one first. Let me know when your statements are complete. MSJapan (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK... in that case... I think I am done. Blueboar (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated in the discussions above, there are two things we need to establish (through citations) for each entry in this article... 1) why the building is notable, and 2) why the building is considered a "Masonic building". The present disagreement focuses on properly establishing the first of these two things. I believe that there is a consensus that being listed on the NRHP confers notability on a building (I don't completely agree with that consensus, but I will abide by that consensus). Thus, we can establish notability for entries in the US by establishing that the building is on the NRHP. The debate we are attempting to resolve center on how best to do this. I am going to combine MSJapan's steps into one comment... because for me, the debate is less about what sources are acceptable as it is what source is not acceptable.

There are actually several ways we could cite the fact that a building is on the NRHP... we could cite a book that mentions this fact, or a magazine article that mentions this fact. If there is an offical website for the building, it might mention this fact, and I would consider that reliable... And, yes, we could cite the NRHP directly for that fact. (Note however, that we don't actually have to cite the NRHP directly, even if we all agree that doing so is an obvious choice).

Of the various choices for citing the NRHP directly, it is my belief that citations to NSP-Focus (such as this one for Crane Hill Masonic Lodge in Arizona are the best choice. These webpages contains the logo of the NRHP, and the name of the specific building (and link directly to another page that contains more info about the building). The example I just gave directly supports the fact that Crane Hill Masonic Lodge is listed on the NRHP. It may be limited as to other information, but I believe it passes WP:RS and WP:V for the simple statement that the building is NRHP-listed.

The same, however, is not true for www.rn.nps.gov, the citation I object to. Doncram seems to think this is an acceptable citation to the NRIS database... it isn't. This web page contains no information on any buildings. Perhaps at one point in the past we could use it to eventually get to a web page that supported the statement... but the page itself does not and never did directly support the information. And WP:V calls for sources to directly support the information in our articles. Thus, this web page does not, and never did pass WP:V. Even when the search function worked, a reader wishing to verify that a building was listed would have had to use an attached search function to confirm the statement. It has long been held that search engine results are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. For example, if I am trying to cite information about the Detroit Masonic Temple... I am not allowed to cite this Google search result... I can use that Google search result to find a reliable source about the building, and I can cite that reliable source, but I am not allowed to cite the Google search result itself and leave it at that. However, with www.rn.nps.gov we are not even citing a search result - instead we are citing the front end of the search engine. Citing www.rn.nps.gov is the same as citing www.google.com. I am convinced that citing www.rn.nps.gov is totally unacceptable, and was unacceptable even when the search function worked. The search page is not the NRIS database itself, any more than the table of contents of a book is the book itself. or, perhaps a better analogy would be that pointing to a card cataloge as a valid citation for information found in a specific book in a library.

Doncram makes a very solid case in his statement in favor of using the NRIS as a source. What he does not do is make the case for using www.rn.nps.gov as a proper citation to that source. The sad thing is that he is correct in noting that lots and lots of pages cite this webpage... and I suspect this is the underlying reason why Doncram is so desperate to keep the citation. If we determine that www.rn.nps.gov is unacceptable here, it will probably mean that it is unacceptable in all those other articles as well. Which will mean that the NRHP WikiProject will be faced with the daunting task of correcting all these flawed citations. They have my sympathy... In an ideal world, someone would have realized that the citation was flawed before it was replicated throughout almost every article written by a very prolific WikiProject. But... we don't live in an ideal world, the problem wasn't caught early on... and now does have to be fixed. At minimum, we can fix the problem here, at this article. Blueboar (talk) 05:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background (My characterization)
There have been multiple previous issues raised and/or highly promoted by Blueboar, such as AFD for this list-article (resolved as Keep), AFDs for related disambiguation pages (all resolved as Keep), and attacks on red-links (mostly resolved as Keep for now, at least where wikipedia-notability is established by documentation of NRHP listing by references to NRIS), which have all been resolved, eventually, uniformly against Blueboar's strongly held opinions. This has involved multiple calls to Disambiguation-focused editors, NRHP-focused editors, ANI/3rr, Reliable Sources Noticeboard, in a total of discussion sections that must be over 50 now, and hundreds of edits by many editors. This is a pretty big consumption of community attention, all generally applied to dealing with one or a few Freemasonry-focused editors acting out their personal assertions, in the absence of their having knowledge about NRHP sources and general Wikipedia policies about disambiguation and other matters. Maybe that is good education of them going on, but it seems unduly contentious and inefficient. In general there's been total dismissal of advice that i and others with knowledge about various matters, including some Freemasonry-focused others, have given patiently. I firmly believe that the current issue is being seized upon by Blueboar as important personally for him to win one, finally. Unfortunately he has been misled a little bit by some others' comments (in particular from an NRHP-focused editor who has recently had other disagreements with me, and who has been gamely trying to come up with an acceptable alternative avoiding use of NRIS), and Blueboar has seized upon an ill-considered solution. Overall i don't think he has done that badly in coming to his current proposal, but unfortunately he is completely unfamiliar with the NRIS database, with NRHP nomination documents, and everything else most directly relevant here, so he is completely vulnerable to misunderstandings, especially when biased now towards opposing anything i suggest. If I had been advocating his currently proposed solution, I firmly believe that he would have been very happily joining a chorus of opposition pointing out the deficiencies. You can take or leave this assessment of background by me.

Current issues
The issues now are simply a) how information which is from NRIS should be shown in a reference (which all must agree should be given in a reference, at least when NRIS is in fact the only source for certain info), b) whether NRIS is a valid source for information generally such as NRHP listing status, date and more info, and c) is there value to adding references to NPS Focus. My answers are as follows:

a) A probably acceptable revised NRIS footnote is:^[1]

This version could be used immediately in this list-article, and if NRHP editors concur, applied in other articles. Or some variation agreed upon by NRHP editors could be rolled out and replace this version here, too. Please note, where the NRIS database is a source and the only source for infromation, it is only honest to show NRIS as the source in a reference. It is absurd to suggest that NRIS as a source, when it is the source, should be disallowed. The usual reference, implemented in over 2,000 list-articles and probably 20,000 or more individual NRHP articles has been like this:^[1]

Older references show an earlier date than the latest 2009-03-13 edition date, referring to earlier editions of the NRIS database that were previously available and were used. This usual reference is somewhat vague about what the 3-13-2009 date signifies. The change to the revised version is small but actually a substantial concession/advance, actually. Blueboar should be proud of having provoked it; it is no small matter to get consensus to change the standard form of a reference used in many thousands of articles.

b) NRIS simply is a valid, reliable source. This is widely accepted by hundreds of editors, and the weight of precedent in more than 22,000 articles should not be lightly dismissed. While Dudemanfellabra has recently proposed a NPS Focus-based reference as an alternative in some cases, and has revised one NRHP list-article to include multiple links to NPS Focus instead or in addition to NRIS, there is no consensus among NRHP editors that such is generally (or ever) appropriate. In fact I believe that NRHP editors would strongly reject any requirement to jettison NRIS, the actual source for vast amounts of information in NRHP list-articles, in favor of multiple poor NPS Focus references cluttering up articles and directing readers towards unsatisfactory experiences. Paraphrasing what Orlady helpfully pointed out in Talk above and/or at wp:RSN, it would be a falsehood and unethical to state in articles that NPS Focus or the NRHP nomination documents were the source for info, when NRIS was the source. It is easy to show examples where NPS Focus lacks info that is in NRIS (such as "gable front" factoid for the Crane Hill one, and coordinates information, and probably many fields like alternative names, architectural style info, and more) and that NRHP nomination documents also lack info that is in NRIS (such as NRHP listing date, usually, and any later updates such as delistings to NRHP listing status).

c) The current version of NPS Focus is in terribly poor shape, and references proposed that point to it are pretty horrible, IMO. The NPS Focus reference proposed by Blueboar for the Crane Hill site, to establish its NRHP-listed status, does not establish that. The first page linked shows little more than "Crane Hill Masonic Lodge". Clicking on that brings one to a page displaying:

URL: http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/01001294.pdf
Link will open in a new browser window 
URL: http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Photos/01001294.pdf
Link will open in a new browser window 
Publisher: National Park Service 
Published: 11/29/2001 
Access: Public access 
Restrictions: All Rights Reserved 
Format/Size: Physical document with text, photos and map 
Language: eng: English 
Note: 14538 Cty. Rd. 222 
Item No.: 01001294  NRIS (National Register Information System) 
Subject: EVENT 
Subject: SOCIAL HISTORY 
Subject: BUILDING 
Subject: 1950-1974 
Subject: 1925-1949 
Subject: 1900-1924 
Keywords: Cooper,Philip Aquilla;Boone,Robert;1904 
Place: ALABAMA -- Cullman County -- Crane Hill 

Record Number: 348318 
Record Owner: National Register of Historic Places 

Note, it is nowhere actually stated that the place is NRHP-listed, or when it was listed. Conceivably it could be a page showing info for a proposed NRHP listing, or one that had been delisted, or any of various other possibilities. The two URLs it suggests don't work: they only bring you to a PDF file saying the NRHP nomination documents have not been digitized (which is certainly unhelpful, and quite possibly false, too, though the system will not let you get to them). There are "Keywords" which don't identify those names refer to architects or builders. There is a "Published: 11/29/2001" date, which one might assume means that the NRHP nomination text and photo documents that should be linked, were published on that date. It actually seems that assumption isn't correct, but rather the date "Published" field is occupied by the NRHP listing date, for NRHP-listed items. For example, for the Alabama State Capitol and other NRHPs which were designated National Historic Landmarks before 1966, the published field is the NRHP listing date of October 15, 1966 for all of those, while the linked NRHP nomination-type documents weren't written until much later (not until 1979 in the Alabama State Capitol's case). It may be the case, but is not actually known or asserted anywhere that i know of, that the subset of NRHP-nominated places which are displayed in NPS Focus are just the ones that were in fact NRHP-listed and which also remain NRHP-listed up to some unspecified date. With some extra information, we could well conclude that, but then the reference still does not actually assert the NRHP listing. I actually suspect Blueboar would be crying foul if i were the one advocating this reference, due to the poor experience it gives to readers and editors, if i was using it to assert NRHP listing and/or date of NRHP listing or anything else.

NRIS, on the other hand, is a database that contains whatever substance is given in that NPS Focus output, with better identification of what the fields actually are, and significantly more information, such as for the Crane Hill site:

Architecture: Free standing gable front
Other names: (none given in this case)
Historic function: social; education; domestic; commerce/trade
Historic subfunction: meeting hall; school; multiple dwelling; department store
Building is not listed for architecture
Number of acres: 1.7
Number of contributing buildings: 1

(This info copy-pasted from Elkman interface output. There are additional NRIS fields available which apply to other properties, or which Elkman's interface does not happen to display, too.) For sites that once were NRHP-listed, but which have been demolished and delisted, or for sites that have been proposed for NRHP listing but denied, and for other status conditions, the NRIS database has comparable information, with information current as of the closing edition date of the NRIS database. It currently appears to me that NPS Focus does not contain any of that other information.

Bottomline: If the NRHP application is found to be online by searching NPS Focus, it should be used as a reference directly. Whether or not the NRHP application is found there, a reference to NPS Focus currently gives a bad experience and should be avoided. It's better to use a reference to the comprehensive NRIS database, which is well-understood by numerous NRHP editors, instead, for anything that might be somewhat supported by an NPS Focus reference. So, for this list-article, i would add NRHP nomination document references wherever NRHP nomination documents are readily available, delete all the recently constructed separate NPS Focus references, and revise and keep all the NRIS references where not replaced by NRHP application references (and note the NRIS references would all be the same, so really there is just one reference applied multiple times, saving considerable clutter). --doncram (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Orlady

In order to address this question, I am setting aside for the moment the fact that I still don't perceive that this list-article has a valid purpose and list scope -- and, therefore, I don't have a clear idea what the reference citations in this list are supposed to be sources for.

I agree with essentially everything that Doncram says after the heading "Current issues." --Orlady (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar says "Doncram makes a very solid case in his statement in favor of using the NRIS as a source. What he does not do is make the case for using www.nr.nps.gov as a proper citation to that source." To the contrary, it appears to me that Doncram has accepted the idea the NRHP wikiproject needs to find a better way to cite NRIS. (I have plenty of experience with Doncram being intransigent, but I no longer see intransigence on this particular point.)

MSJapan asked me to come here and elaborate upon my comment that said I agree with Doncram's statement under "Current issues." I'm afraid I don't have much to add. I've already discussed this topic at some length on the reliable sources noticeboard, and Doncram has written a long piece above, and I don't think there's a whole lot more to say. I'm happy that Doncram and I are in agreement (something that doesn't happen real often) and I think that the ideas discussed here and at WP:RSN have the potential to lead to long-term improvements in how NRHP-related articles are sourced.

I do realize that there's a perceived need to figure out how entries in this particular list-article should be sourced. I actually don't care. However, I am rather horrified to think that users are painstakingly looking up the NRHP entries for each of these "Masonic buildings" in order to give each entry its own citation. As I understand it, all that is needed for a building to be added to this list is evidence that it (1) exists (or formerly existed), (2) has some sort of connection with Freemasonry, and (3) meets Wikipedia criteria for notability. If (as in many instances) all three of those criteria are going to be satisfied on the basis of an entry in NRIS, I would think that a citation to the NRIS database (not to www.nr.nps.gov, but rather to the database) ought be sufficient. Since a reader could go to the database (if the database can't be downloaded, this can be done using NPS Focus or a third-party interface such as Elkman's tool) to verify the existence of an NRHP-listed property matching the entry, that ought to suffice for the purposes of this particular list-article. (But, then again, I don't think that this particular list-article has value...) --Orlady (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ALR

Given that the majority of the votes in the AfD were to keep this article we have to make the best of that. The rationale remains in question and I would suggest that implies a need for a high degree of rigour and clarity around sourcing. with that in mind I agree with Blueboar that there are two aspects to establishing a valid listing; building notability and clarity around the relationship with Freemasonry.

I'm prepared to accept the assertion that NRHP listing implies notability of the building with respect to US buildings. There is not yet agreement on comparable automagic assertions of notability for other buildings. I would prefer to see a reference to a specific record that establishes the existence of the entry. that need not be online but the reference pointer should be to a unique record, not just a general pointer to a database. I don't really think that any method of pointing to the database proxies meet the needs for rigorous referencing.

It appears that the NRHP listings do not act as an assertion for Masonic association and I would prefer to see something explicit. In particular I would like to see a definition of what constitutes Masonic significance, but there has been no discussion of that.

ALR (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by David Underdown

I've just come here from RSN, having belatedly seen the discussion. I've faced somehwat similar issues with other databases where I can't find any way to link directly to the information that's relevant to a particular article. However, I can describe a process that makes the result I obtained entirely reproducible (and thus to my mind verifiable). This I think is a key distinction between merely attempting to "cite" a Google search search result, and looking at the results returned from a specific database. Google searches are not (in my experience), reproducible, runnning the same search seconds apart is not guaranteed to return you the same set of results (the top few hits will probably be the same, but once you get down in the long tail, there can be all sorts of variances).

If rather than merely linking to the search page (which I agree is not sufficient), full details of waht terms ned to be entered in which boxes are given - the result returned can be verified, and if necessary, challenged. David Underdown (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to David Underdown: This isn't a search engine-type database search -- not even vaguely close to that. This is a matter of finding a specific record (or group of records) in a formatted set of data. When I say that I have used Microsoft software to work with the database, I was referring to Microsoft Office Access. --Orlady (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree, it is Blueboar and others on the RSN page who seem to be equating the two types of search. David Underdown (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know I am supposed to keep my comments to one area... but I need to reply to this because we are experiencing a lack of communication as to what this debate is about. I think Doncam and Orlady are conflating two questions ... the first is whether we can use the NRIS database to obtain information ... the other is how to cite the NRIS Database. My concerns and objections have been centered purely on the latter question. Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if I have slightly misunderstood your concerns. It seemed to me from the discussion, that potentially there was a wider question as to how to cite information to databases or similar when it's not possible to cite to a static url. In particular, is the approach I've taken in St Lawrence Church, Ipswich in relation to ref 6 ("Database of historically important bells and bell frames") acceptable in your view? David Underdown (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Underdown, given the tensions here... I don't think we should get sidetracked into an issue that relates to some other article. This simply isn't the right venue. The right venue is WP:RSN. Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if I've contributed to confusion, but it has been my impression that Blueboar, Jayjg (at WP:RSN) and others have been saying that the NRIS database is not a suitable source for any content in Wikipedia (including this article) because the NRIS web interface will not produce a clean-looking URL link that points to a nicely formatted webpage about a specific listed property. Blueboar, are you now saying that you understand that NRIS is a stable and accessible information source, and therefore it would be acceptable to cite NRIS as a source? --Orlady (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I brought the other database up, if my approach is accepted as being verifiable, is there an equivalent route that can be used here? David Underdown (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Orlady's question... To be honest, I keep going back and forth on the "whether we can use the NRIS Database as a source" issue, depending on who I talk to (when I talk to Jay, he convinces me that the NRIS database should not be used... when I talk to you or Doncram, you convince me it should). So I have set that issue to one side as it relates to this article, and have been focusing on the issue of how to cite the NRIS Database (regardless of whether we should). What I have been objecting to is the use of www.rn.nps.gov as a citation to the NRIS Database. Pure and simple. I have preferences as to what should replace this citation... but I am quite open to alternatives that don't use www.rn.nps.gov Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, David Underdown, for bringing up that similar fixed/stable database example and your footnote to refer to it. That footnote is:^[1]

^ "Database of historically important bells and bell frames". Church Building Council (Church of England). 29 October 2007. enter "Ipswich St Lawrence" in the "Parish or Location" text box and click "Search the database" for details of the bells

I like the descriptive title given, "Database of historically important bells and bell frames". For the NRIS reference being discussed here, perhaps following that by using "National Register Information System (a database)" or "National Register Information System database of 3/13/2009" or something like that, would better identify it for some readers. I and other NRHP editors have meant the database itself when using the term "National Register Information System", but on further thought maybe that term is not specific enough, or should be understood to refer to the current live version that the National Register is updating every day (but to which we do not have access).

About the additional instructions in your example, offhand that seems a little unfortunate to have to include, but at least it is reasonably succinct and obviously meets your needs in dealing with other editors at that page, i guess. Here, with NRIS, there is no longer a National Register-supported interface, so there's no such instructions that could be provided. What do you think of the wording of the suggested NRIS reference in my Statement above? Thanks for sharing! --doncram (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking no stand on whether databases such as this are reliable or not (I honestly don't know)... I would find a citation along the lines of:

• Crane Hill Masonic Hall - National Register Information System database as of 1/13/09"

acceptable (we might have to tweak the exact wording, but I think the current dispute would be over)... The only hesitation would be factoring in WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT... have any of those who want to use the NRIS database as a source actually seen a downloaded copy of it? If not... then the citation would probably have to read something more along the lines of:

• Crane Hill Masonic Hall - National Register Information System database as of 1/13/09 - accessed through http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php"

or something like that. Blueboar (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are getting somewhat off-track above, but it has come to my attention that all the statements are complete. In the process, it seems we may have come to some sort of agreement without the need for outside help. If we have indeed come to an agreement that , and we have an agreeable way to cite it, I think we have addressed both aspects of our initial problem, and we can move on to the next step. If not, I will request further input. So, the simple question to BB and don is, have you come to a happy medium? MSJapan (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think so... but with two stipulations. First, I will not commit to saying that we can use the NRIS database as a source (I am still undecided on that)... but I will agree to saying that we can use it for now... pending further discussion, elsewhere, on that issue. The second concerns WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. I feel that if you are going to cite the NRIS database, you have to have actually downloaded and seen the entire database (or at least the entire database entry for the property listed here). If you got your information from Elkman's tool, then you need to acknowledge that fact in the citation. If others are willing to accept these stipulations, then I think we can move forward. Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agree that Blueboar doesn't have to agree that NRIS is a reliable source, as long as he agrees not to act on his disbelief by removing references or otherwise acting on that in mainspace. There is a vast consensus of hundreds of editors that NRIS is a reliable source.

About the specific form of reference to NRIS to appear in this page, I am inclined to agree to any format as long as Blueboar agrees it is for just this page, and that he will not make changes to the usual NRIS reference on any other page. Revision of the usual NRIS reference is necessitated by recent and apparently incomplete, continuing changes at the National Register, and will be handled by consensus decisions elsewhere, and then a big coordinated editing campaign, or a single bot run, will implement the change everywhere. I don't want to waste time on temporary small changes that would only cause more work, later. I made a specific suggestion in my statement above that would have sufficed. I don't want to quibble, but Blueboar's latest suggestion above is inadequate because it names a source that does not exist (the source we're talking about is the National Register Information System, not a source named "Crane Hill Masonic Lodge"). To keep this short, Blueboar and MSJpapan, could you agree that we each should make one more exact, complete, final proposal for the exact form of a reference to appear in this list article (until a new general NRIS reference is rolled out), and then let MSJapan pick one? --doncram (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will not agree to never discuss this issue again (which is what you are asking me to do), especially as it relates to Wikipedia as a whole. I will agree to use a set citation format in this article, and not change it until further discussion of the issue have been concluded in a more appropriate forum. I also agree to let MSJapan pick what that citation format shall be, and to abide by his choice. As to what I think that citation should be:

• My first preference is to cite the NPS Focus pages for each property (so for example, the one for Crane Hill Masonic Lodge would read: "Crane Hill Masonic Lodge, National Register of Historic Places - NPS Focus website, accessed July 19, 2010.")
• If that is not acceptable, I propose, as a second choice, to cite the NRIS database entry for each property directly, noting if elkman's tool was used... (in this case, the entry for Crane Hill Masonic Lodge would be cited: Crane Hill Masonic Lodge - National Register Information System database as of 1/13/09 - accessed through http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php")

I await your preferences... Blueboar (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ask Blueboar to never discuss this. By asking he avoid "mainspace" changes, i meant to prevent him from expressing his opinion indirectly by deleting or changing NRIS references in actual articles of the Wikipedia. I meant that he should be free to express his opinion in Talk pages and wp:RSN and wt:NRHP forums where consensus for a revised footnote to NRIS will be formed. Blueboar can participate in those discussions which will lead to an editing campaign or bot replacement of the usual NRIS reference. I do ask Blueboar not to go off on editing campaiigns to change other articles' NRIS references, outside of a new wide consensus, which would add no value and cause more work and confusion. If Blueboar has some valuable input to make in the general discussion, he should make it there.

Again, Blueboar's proposals posit the existence of a source named "Crane Hill Masonic Lodge", which does not exist. We're talking about a database named the "National Register Information System"! And, there is no support garnered by B's specific proposal here, and I firmly believe it would not be accepted if proposed in the central discussions about a future reference, though he is free to make the proposal. His concern towards showing a non-existent "page number" or otherwise pointing to a more specific place within the database is not shared by me and at least some others, and there is currently no good option that meets that. Pointers to NPS Focus pages are currently useless, effectively, as I explained above.

I'll say my first preference, mainly as an accomodation to B, here would be this reference:^[1]

^ National Register Information System, database edition of 2009-03-13. National Register of Historic Places. U.S. National Park Service. Database retrieved from the National Register on 2009-03-15. Information accessible through Elkman.net.

That is a further adaptation of reference i proposed above, dropping the download center's URL as it is apparently permanently offline. The source is off-line. (Note a future revision to the standard NRIS reference could include a link to a full copy of the database. Per discussion at wt:NRHP, a full copy of this NRIS database version can be placed in a publicly available internet archive, as the database is in the public domain.) In a bow to Blueboar, this includes a pointer to Elkman.net's copy of the database, although Elkman has not consented and it may not be possible to include such a pointer in future versions. Anyhow, this version could be used immediately in this list-article for now, until NRHP editors and others come up with a new version to be rolled out everywhere.

My second preference would be the usual NRIS reference:^[1]

^ "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. 2009-03-13.

The advantage of that is that it simply uses the standard reference and will lead to the least future work. Note there is no special reason why this list-article should have a non-standard reference, vs. >22,000 instances of the usual one.

I would accept MSJapan's choice among these alternatives. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a solution to the NRIS cite which seems to be in a state of transition to "focus" would be the private site National Register of Historic Places, which accessible by state , county, parish, etc. and a direct cite can be made to the page where the building in question is actually listed. I know some will object that it is not an official site, but at least it gives you more than a cite to a search page, which may or may not be working.clariosophic (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC) For example the New Masonic Building and Oriental Theater will be found on it at [2] clariosophic (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The possibility of citing that site has been discussed at some length at WP:RSN, on this page, and I think also at the NRHP Wikiproject talk page. Unfortunately, that site does not parse some of the NRIS data correctly. Some time back we discovered that the acreage values given on that site are off by a factor of 10, and Doncram reports that its listing dates do not distinguish between different kinds of listing events (most importantly, it does not distinguish listings from delistings). It's not a reliable source. --Orlady (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues with this being on the list... First, there is no indication that the building is notable... either as a building or because it is Masonic ... the Wikipedia article is about a building that no longer exists (torn down) while the website cited talks about the "replacement" for that building (which happens to be called by the same name)... however the replacement is not even at the same location as the original. Why is this building listed? Blueboar (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that Zetland Hall is the name of the three buildings that have (in succession) housed almost all Hong Kong Freemasonry activities since 1846. (It's clearly the name of the second and third of these three buildings, anyway). Therefore, it looks like the Zetland Hall article needs to be expanded to cover all buildings by this name. As for notability, lots of Freemasonry websites tell about Zetland Hall as an important entity in the history of Freemasonry in China. Also, both the second and third Zetland Halls seem to be (or have been) landmarks. I found an article from a Hong Kong newspaper about a coffee-table book on the history of China whose author "reckons there were just three outstanding Hong Kong buildings: the old city hall (pulled down after becoming dilapidated), Beaconsfield House (disappeared probably during World War II) and Zetland Hall (``a beautiful classical building now the site of a power station)." --Orlady (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links Orlady... having read up a bit more... the current Zetland Hall houses the "District Grand Lodge of Hong Kong & Far East" (part of UGLE). In its function, it is similar to a Grand Lodge building for Hong Kong. So its Masonic tie is clearer. And from the article, it does indeed seem that the old Zetland Hall building was notable as a building. The only question I now have is whether the current Zetland Hall qualifies. Do we have a source that discusses this newer building? (note... I am not ruling out listing the older one... if we determine that the list should include buildings that no longer exist).Blueboar (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Between the two Zetland Halls, I'll wager that there's enough notability for one article. ;-) --Orlady (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably... but notability for an article is not necessarily note worthiness in context of another article. That's what I am asking about. I think the first Zetland Hall meets the note worthy as a building criteria, but not the note worthy in Masonry criteria... while the second may not be note worthy as a building, but is more note worthy in Masonic terms. So, when we list Zetland Hall, are we listing the first Zetland Hall, the second... both? Blueboar (talk) 03:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are listing both. Two different buildings named Zetland Hall have hosted Freemasonry in Hong Kong (currently some 27 to 29 lodges meet there, according to various not-real-reliable sources) for almost 150 years. The one article is about both buildings, and the entry in the list-article also could cover both. --Orlady (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I am not happy about that. First, I don't think we should list buildings that no longer exist (or if we do, they should go in a separate section)... Second, I think the buildings we do list need to be both note worthy as a building and note worthy in Masonic terms (i.e. both at the same time). What we are dealing with here is one building that was note worthy as a building, and a different building (in a completely different location) that is note worthy in Masonic terms. I think it wrong to conflate the two into one entry. I suppose this is symptomatic of the underlying problem with this list... when there is no clear criteria for inclusion, and no clear definition of what makes a building "Masonic"... just about anything can be made to fit. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concern about the scope of this list. However, if this list is going to exist, it looks to me like Zetland Hall is an excellent example of what belongs on it. It's noteworthy as a building (at least the original one was) and it's a notable location in Freemasonry. As for the fact that the original building no longer exists: Landmarks don't stop being potential encyclopedia topics when they are destroyed by fire, bombing, bulldozer, or other causes. --Orlady (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Landmarks don't stop being potential encyclopedia topics when they are destroyed by fire, bombing, bulldozer, or other causes... I agree... but we are not talking about whether no-longer-existing buildings are encyclopedic (ie worthy of having an article about them in Wikipedia), we are talking about whether they should be listed here, in this list article. I suppose I am questioning whether such buildings should be considered within the scope of this list. That is something that needs to be determined by consensus. In some ways, this question is similar to the question: "should we list red links or not?". There is no set rule on it... it is up to consensus. My personal opinion is "no... the scope should be limited to existing buildings"; but as an alternative, I could see having a separate section for such buildings. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]