Talk:List of Masonic buildings: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →

SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs)

2 user groups
54,500 edits
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Misrepresentation of sources: comments on source
Line 759: Line 759:


I will assume good faith and assume that this misrepresentation was not deliberate. I am removing the statement pending further discussion. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 17:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I will assume good faith and assume that this misrepresentation was not deliberate. I am removing the statement pending further discussion. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 17:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
:On reviewing that article, I see that the Washington Monument had its cornerstone laid Masonically, and the White House had several blocks in it that has Masonic marks (presumably the Square and Compasses). Nothing to do with the architecture of the buildings. --[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 20:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:34, 30 August 2010

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


more to add

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noting that you've already tried to start a list article for AASR buildings I would suggest that is a tacit recognition that these probably don't belong in here. AASR is an appendant body to Freemasonry, and as such inclusion here should only be if there is verifiable evidence of Masonic significance, at the very least evidence of use as a Masonic meeting place.
ALR (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think i am responding now the 2nd time to an accusation made twice, but that is not correct. I have not tried to start a list-article for Scottish Rite-associated buildings. I think you refer to my having edited the Scottish Rite Cathedral disambiguation page, which is quite different. I don't think it would be easy to distinguish which buildings are Scottish Rite but which do not any other flavor of Masonic for a list of Scottish Rite only ones. And since there are only one or a few of these per state, it would seem best to me to list them in with the other masonic buildings in each state. --doncram (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ALR, perhaps you are not seeing the relationship between several dab pages Masonic Temple (disambiguation), Masonic Lodge (disambiguation), Masonic Building (disambiguation) and perhaps more dab pages which exist. Their contents probably all appear in this list-article. So the fact that some Scottish Rite ones are on a dab page likewise does not preclude their being listed here. --doncram (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i found a couple York Rite ones listed on the NRHP too:

and perhaps York Meetinghouse, in York, Pennsylvania, but maybe that one is a church instead. I'll start up York Lodge disambiguation page and plan to add these items to this Masonic buildings list-article. --doncram (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the above ones, except the few that proved to be religious buildings and except for the charitable hospital type ones, to the list article. I won't say this was "seeing no objections", but all objections here were answered, and it is my sense of the general discussions here and everywhere that these are compatible additions to the list. Eventually, if there is a lot more growth, it is possible that the Scottish Rite ones would be split out, but as I have noted above and as has been noted in discussion below for the Guthrie, Oklahoma one, there is no easy distinction between general Masonic vs. specific subtypes of Masonic, for many buildings. --doncram (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need to establish that the topic is notable

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

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

RFC at Village pump

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

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

Refimprove tag

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

I removed the "refimprove" tag. There is not likely to be consensus soon on what this list-article should be, and what exactly sources should support. Tagging it just seems negative and tedious. I also even object to this discussion section, now number 80 or so in a long campaign to tar this and related articles and disambiguation pages. But, go ahead and discuss, if you like, what you want sources to show. However, don't tag the article while others are developing it somewhat positively. I thoroughly thoroughly get that you hate everything about this article, about Freemasonry, about architecture, about everything. There's no need to lay it on thicker. --doncram (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram: I think you are misinterpreting Blueboar's motivations. Blueboar appears to me to be very fond of Freemasonry, but not particularly fond of buildings as a topic. Regardless, I suggest that you try to focus on the content and not on the motivations of other contributors. ;-) --Orlady (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am replacing the tag... the issues I have raised have not been dealt with. I am also going to add the NOR tag since the definition of "Masonic buildings" in this list seems to be based on Original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 18:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the 2 tags (refimprove and original research) added by Blueboar. Blueboar, I have no idea what specific statement(s) in the article you view as original research. There may be stray remarks that could be questioned legitimately, but I have tried to use sources wherever making any specific assertion that would benefit from a source. It is not necessary to provide a source for very general statements that are obviously true. Please do identify and discuss any statements that you actually question on factual grounds here on the Talk page. But I believe there is no attempt in the article, as written, to define some new formal term ("Masonic building" or any other) as anything novel. "Masonic buildings" in the title of the article and in the usage in the article seems to mean buildings that have significant Masonic association (without defining what is "significant"). It does not seem to be necessary to define exactly what is significant enough, for development to proceed. Each questioning of a specific building, here on the Talk page, has led to a consensus decision to keep the mention of the specific building. You are welcome to complain further here on the talk page about the vagueness of inclusion criteria or any other matters, as you do. But if your complaint is the same old general notability complaint that you've raised in the AFD for this and several related articles, that's been answered in discussions on this page and elsewhere. --doncram (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram... I have already explained exactly and in detail why I added the tags, but I will do so again ...
  1. We need a source that defines the term "Masonic building", without such a source, the entire list is based on Original research. you note above that "Masonic buildings" in the title of the article and in the usage in the article seems to mean buildings that have significant Masonic association (without defining what is "significant"). That, right there, is exactly what I am challenging... I believe that this definition is Original research, and to show it isn't OR you need to provide a source for this definition.
  2. Each item listed needs a source that explicitly notes that the building is a "Masonic building", otherwise inclusion is based on an editors assumption that the building is a "Masonic building"... that too is Original research (we can not go by the name of the building... after all, the name Empire State building does not mean that New York is an "Empire").
If you remove the tags again, without at least making a good faith effort to provide the sources I am requesting, I will consider removal disruptive and take this to ANI. Blueboar (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight. The location where you actually placed a citation needed is following: "Numerous buildings around the world have significant Masonic association. This is a list of some notable Masonic buildings.[citation needed]".
Come on now! Do you seriously want to assert that there are NOT numerous buildings having significant Masonic association? Or to assert that there are no notable Masonic-associated buildings in this list?
I suppose you might want me or someone should make up some bogus Masonic building definition (i.e. indeed apply wp:OR, and then be stuck proving with sources that that exact term applies or not, when there are no sources applying that made up term. The term Masonic building is properly used here loosely as what it should and does mean: buildings having some significant Masonic association. Indeed, it is not exactly decided by the productive editors here what are the exact borders of inclusion/exclusion criteria. That means the list-article is not final; it does not mean that your adding random tags helps clarify anything or speaks to any general need. For you to protest continuously at every step of the way here, and to backtrack to questions decided by consensus to keep/not delete this article, is a waste of editors' time.
I'll pause with myself removing the petty tags you've added for the moment. Would anyone else care to comment and/or step in to fix this again now? --doncram (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll step in and restate a few questions from up the page that were ignored.
On the topic of notability of the topic, it's still not evidenced that Masonic buildings per se is a notable topic. I am aware that the majority vote in the AfDs was to retain the article, however we're now struggling with lax inclusion criteria.
You stated that it is obvious that some buildings should be included, which implies to me that obvious can be reasonably easily identified. Therefore I asked you:
In what way is it obvious? (tbh if I tried that in my real job I'd get sacked for gross negligence)
On the subject to notability of the building I'm content that those of you who focus on the NRHP see notability of the building being conferred by that listing. That's fine and it appears that listed status is assumed to confer notability in the UK. What I'm struggling with is how we demonstrate any masonic significance, rather than just vague association. What we have is a list of notable buildings that you think have an association with Freemasonry. What I think should be identified is how we substantiate and evidence that association.
At the moment this is turning into an indiscriminate list of NRHP listed buildings. That's fine if that's what you're after. To make it meaningful from a Masonic perspective then I continue to take the view that there should be something significant about it, otherwise it turns into a directory.
If we can identify inclusion criteria from a Masonic perspective, and if the evidence for meeting those criteria can be demonstrated then this whole thing can be simplified. The main reason for my objections at the moment are that non-masonic buildings are being included and that the main inclusion criterion at the moment appears to be opinion.
My main objection to the lack of inclusion criteria is that the list is being populated with buildings that you think are associated with Freemasonry. Many of the stub articles that you create are littered with speculative wording. You're also determined to force in buildings that are explicitly not masonic like Shrine buildings, I also object to the inclusion of AASR buildings as that is an appendant body to Masonry, not craft Freemasonry.
The basis of the list has no substance, therefore reasonably constitutes Original Research, and many of the entries have no evidence of any masonic significance, hence Synthesis.
ALR (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've changed what i said. I said before that NRHP-listed places named Masonic Temple or similarly are obvious candidates for inclusion in this list. They are. I have demonstrated that by developing articles about some of them, some extensively enough to make it clear to anyone. For example, the several virignia ones. It was proven that they were good candidates, because it turns out they have significant association with Freemasonry and they are notable, some highly so. Some articles haven't been developed so far. I can't explain that much more.
Now, I think you're misstating and/or misinterpreting what i said, and then getting angry at that. I stated only that these buildings are obvious candidates for inclusion, not that they absolutely must be included, no matter what is found out about them. I was the editor who pointed out, 30 or 40 discussion sections back, that there is one NRHP-listed place named Masonic Temple or similarly in Connecticut, which turned out to be NRHP-eligible for its being a synagogue building that has fairly completely renovated the building to eradicate any trace of prior, Masonic use, and to use decorations appropriate for a synagogue instead. I put that forward as one that I would agree should probably not be included in this list. It is an exception that proves the rule. I expect that 99% of NRHP-listed places named Masonic Temple will prove, as many have already, to be significantly associated with Freemasonry, and documenting the past wealth / status / influence physically and otherwise of Freemasonry in American hamlets, towns, and cities. --doncram (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not willing to spend a lifetime here, so I may or may not reply much further. This is a courtesy reply to ALR, who has several times asked me to comment. --doncram (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for finally taking some time to try to capture what your rationale is. If I might just read that back to be sure that it's come across as you intended.
As far as you're concerned the only notability that's significant is the listing in the NRHP? If the name suggests Masonic use then one might assume significance to the extent of inclusion?
Does that bring it down to the key points, or was there more?
ALR (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if you're trying to understand, or about to try to twist my words. I have asserted that NRHP listing establishes wikipedia notability, which is generally true (and early on it seemed helpful to identify that many of the places that were listed here are in fact NRHP-listed, which I took time to do). Don't you agree with that? Most AFDs on NRHP-listed places have failed with Speedy decisions to Keep. I have said that an NRHP-listed place named Masonic Temple is a good candidate for inclusion in this list, indeed a pretty obvious good candidate. --doncram (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally speaking I'm ambivalent about listing per se denoting some form of automagical notability, but as you indicate the majority of voters on these types of issues have indicated a tendency to keep the articles. What I'm trying to get to is a statement as to what the direction of this article is.
What I'm trying to get to is how we get beyond the assumption that the name indicates some form of association, and start providing an evidence base, particularly around Masonic significance.
There appear to be a couple of alternative ways to take this, one of which is re-titling the article to reflect the content. Indicate that it's a list of listed buildings with a (possible) association with Freemasonry, rather than masonically notable. I would hope you see why I make the distinction. My personal perspective is that would best be limited geographically to the US, as you have access to the source material.
The alternative would be to identify some form of Masonic notability, and use a converged set of historic/ architectural notability, along with masonic notability/ significance. I am conscious that probably doesn't meet your desire to replicate the NRHP list, as many of these entries have no real significance to Freemasons.
A third option would be to consider the suggestion made by Orlady below, change the emphasis of the list to be around Masonic Architecture, although to an extent I'm very wary of basing that on extracts available through Google as it's very easy to take things out of context.
How do you feel about which of those three would be the most beneficial way ahead to develop a meaningful article?
ALR (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above reference to "some sort of automagical notability", along with the suggestions that the scope of this list should be restricted to "listed buildings" or to "some form of Masonic notability" or to "a converged set of historic/ architectural notability", makes me think that the term "notability" needs to be explicated here, so we are all talking about the same thing.
Here at Wikipedia, "notability" is defined (at Wikipedia:Notability) differently than it might be defined in your real life. As that page states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity." The general notability guideline establishes a presumption that a topic is "notable" (and thus potentially eligible for treatment in its own article) if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (Read the guideline page for more information.) Listed buildings usually meet the general notability guideline, largely because the listing process ensures that the building will have received the necessary "significant coverage". However, it is a misconception to suggest that listed buildings are the only buildings that are notable -- there are myriad other reasons why a building might be notable, including (but not limited to) its height ("tallest buildings" are the topic of many lists in Wikipedia), its architecture, or the significant things that happened there. Additionally, it's a misconception to suggest that "notability" is something that Wikipedians should determine based on our own set of criteria for measuring characteristics like architectural value or importance to Freemasonry. --Orlady (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the GNG, and given the issues that we've had in flushing out further sources about a number of NRHP entries I'm unconvinced that it's a valid point. We've had assertions from a number of people that listing implies the existence of a range of sources, but nobody has actually offered any of those up. As I said, I'm content that the majority of votes in many of these assessments are to keep the entries. I've not seen any evidence to convince me that it's actually compliant with the GNG. I'm also aware that, as a professional in the Knowledge Management domain, most of the Wikipedia policies don't actually make sense... However that's all pretty peripheral to the point made.
With the GNG in mind the suggestion that this article is misnamed is probably most apposite. The list is not notable masonic buildings it's notable buildings that might have something to do with Freemasonry (or indeed some organisation that claims an association with Freemasonry). The buildings are notable by virtue of a majority opinion on their listing in the NRHP, that notability appears predominantly based on architectural or historic value. Indeed most of the stubs use phrases like assume, appears to be and similar suggesting there is an absence of evidence about Masonic use.
We have a significant difficulty reconciling two different views on how to populate this list. You've identified a number of times that it risks being an indiscriminate directory. What I'm trying to do is reconcile the evidence/ original research.
These are all options about how to make some progress. Once Doncram has indicated which option most reflects his view of this article then we can explore the implications of that in more depth.
Your own point below about using some reference around masonic architecture as a basis, as I identified in the third option above, is an option. Notwithstanding some concerns about how the sources are being represented based on de-contextualised extracts this is an approach that I think could have some mileage, but I am aware that some of the NRHP listed buildings would probably not meet criteria based on that. What I'd like to see is whether Doncram is content with that, since his focus is firmly on a comprehensive representation of the NRHP.
Of course all of the Wikipedia fantasy policies and guidelines can be applied either literally or with somewhat more pragmatism. If we take a very literal interpretation of the GNG then every masnoic building in Scotland would be notable as every meeting is reported in the local press. Very quickly one could work up multiple discussions, independent of the subject. I'm not sure if you think that would be sensible, particularly as you have repeatedly raised the risk with the current direction of the article becoming a directory.
ALR (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I have not ever advocated and do not want to make this into a list-article about NRHP places only. The list has become a list of nearly only NRHP-places, because there is relentless-seeming pressure to oppose everything and to reduce the topic, and I happen to know about NRHP sources and I am only able to defend those ones successfully (and I have mostly only been willing, myself, to develop those ones). I suspect that other Masonic buildings that were listed here by others, but which have not been defended, were/are probably notable. For one example of a non-NRHP-listed one which i did choose to defend, the Dayton Masonic Center is significant building and a huge monument to the influence/wealth/willpower/etc. of Masons in Ohio at a certain time. I think it is pretty obviously deserving of being listed in this article, as from its sheer appearance we can safely judge there will be plenty written about it, and the mere fact/story of its construction has some importance. (It turns out it is included in a NRHP district, but that is far less that being NRHP-listed individually; there is not a separate NRHP nom document for it and the historic district's importance probably has little to do with this one building being in it.)
From the individual articles that I worked on and read the NRHP nominations for, in VA, NY, DE, OK, especially, it seems to me that the built legacy of Masons in america is pretty striking. As on Oklahoma nomination states, the Masons were an important force in America, and in many Oklahoma small towns the Masonic building was a significant contribution to the town and remains a significant landmark, the same as I believe applies in many areas of the U.S. It may not be this way at all in the U.K., but in small towns in the U.S. I have personally observed the striking presence of Masonic buildings and Elks/BPOE buildings and similar. They show up as significant buildings in many NRHP historic districts nation-wide. I have myself noticed them in New York State, in Colorado, in California, and probably in other states. From what I see on the ground, I expected that there is some story to be told, and that fleshing out a list-article would eventually help to tell that story.
One part of the story to be told, is that the built legacy reflects the waxing and waning of Freemasonry influence. There are buildings in VA and elsewhere that reflect colonial era influence of masons. There are pre-civil-war ones; there are buildings which were subsequently lost from Mason ownership during/following the Civil War, and again later in the Great Depression. There is evidence in what was built in New York State of what was apparently an anti-Masonic period, in which building was rare. I just followed a link from the Freemasonry article to some description of a Morgan affair, which was rather a huge PR disaster for Freemasonry (involving a New York resident who was apparently killed by Masons) and caused or was part of pretty big reduction of Masonic presence/activity in New York State and elsewhere. One of the New York state NRHP nom documents refers to that. There is illustration in the built legacy of a boom period, ending in 1930, of Masonic buildings construction.
I am sure the surviving, NRHP-listed buildings that were built as Masonic halls are only a small fraction. Also there are significant other buildings like the DeWint House one.
I see some of the pieces of the bigger story, and see generalizations in the NRHP nom docs that could be used as quotes. But I think the general story outlines are better told from general architectural history or other general references that some have found and linked to in AFD discussions and this Talk page. The repeated claims of no sources being available, in the face of scads of sources being pointed to, and AFDs closed as keep on the basis of them, is just exasperating, cumulatively.
Also, it is not NRHP-listing that makes a place notable, but NRHP-listing is a strong indicator of notability of a place. And NRHP nomination documents are available for every NRHP-listed place. They're available on-line for NRHP-listed places in Alaska, Delaware, Virginia, New York State, Oklahoma, and some other states. --doncram (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure that really answers the question, although it may be that I'm just not extracting a clear position from what you've said.
In an effort to try to reconcile the issues around sourcing and defining this article do you have a preference from:
  • Retitle to reflect what the content is.
  • Try to find a way to evidence Masonic connections, rather than speculating on possible connections.
  • Work from the suggestion from Orlady below, that the focus could become masonic architecture and run with that.
Of course if you have any other suggestions that avoid the need for speculation and analysis then that would be very welcome as well.
ALR (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: To make this very very clear... Article tags alert editors to problems with an entire article, a problem that relates to more than just one sentence or paragraph. The reason why I placed the {{refimprove}} tag was to avoid placing multiple in-line {{cn}} tags. Every entry in this list needs to cite a source that establishes that the building is a "Masonic building". Only a few do so. I could have put a {{cn}} tag on every entry, but that would be considered pointy and disruptive. It is not one sentence or paragraph that needs references... references are needed throughout the article.
The {{Original research}} tag was placed because a) the definition of "Masonic temple" that is being used in this article is Original research (it is the invention of a Wikipedian or group of Wikipedians), and b) the individual entries are being added based on that Original research definition, and are thus OR themselves. This is another issue where a page tag is more appropriate than an in-line tag, as the problem affects the entire article and not just one sentence or paragraph. To resolve this issue, and remove the tag, we need a) a source or sources that define what a "Masonic building" is, and b) sources for each item listed that demonstrate that they fit a sourced definition. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: You don't own this article, and you don't get to judge that "Masonic building" must be defined in some formal way and that every entry here must meet whatever your foottnote standards are proving that it meets that definition for you. It is pretty obvious that there are many Masonic buildings having notability, and that many of them are listed here.
About the original research tag, I see no statement in the article that is original research. There is no definition of Masonic building in the article, and no particular need for one, I think. I suppose there may be a definition at the Masonic Temple article. Your concern might better be directed there.
About both tags, I see no purpose served by tagging the article. You are free to raise your concerns, as you do, here on the Talk page. Tagging the article just seems to detract from the readers experience, and does not provide any benefit in conveying anything new to editors. Other editors are fully aware of your views on this article, already. --doncram (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct... I don't own the article... neither do you. As for the rest, I am merely telling you what Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines tell us we must do. These are not rules I have made up just for this article... They are Wikipedia's rules, and if we want to contribute to Wikipedia we have to follow them.
And as for the Masonic Temple article... We don't have a source for the definition there either. I should know... I wrote it... I fully admit that that article is 90% my own Original Research that should be sourced or removed. Blueboar (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topic vs Content

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

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

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

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

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

Doncram reported at ANI

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

Violation of wp:canvass, of wp:NPA, and probably more. I replied there. Sigh. --doncram (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

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

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

Notability & inclusion ambiguity

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

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

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

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

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

This article clearly fails WP:LIST "If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list. " Active Banana ( bananaphone 23:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I have been saying for the last month. Blueboar (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and that is exactly the issue that we're trying to clarify. This article does not have explicit inclusion criteria, and there is a refusal, in some quarters, to engage in any discussion around what those inclusion criteria should be.
ALR (talk) 07:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orders that should not be included

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

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

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

Inclusion criteria

OK, I think it is clear that we need to agree on inclusion criteria, and to do that we need a definition of what a "Masonic building" actually is. Now, we could continue to debate our own personal views of what a "Masonic building" is... but frankly that is an exercise in Original Research (no matter which view we discuss). For our definition to not be OR we need to base our definition on a source that defines what a "Masonic building" is. That leads to a very simple questions... Does such a source exist? Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This book [1] seems to use "Masonic Building" to be one that has the Masonic Compass on its cornerstone. That type of designation seems to have been around for quite a while: [2] (originally published 1874). Using that definition, this would probably be an indiscriminate list. [3] takes a different view, in Masonic Buildings being those called "temples", but that may be a regional designation. This sources [4] indicates that Scottish Rite buildings would be included. The term "Masonic building" is used a lot, but I am not seeing any unified, identified, consistant scholarly definition. The Freemasons appear to have a definition [5] "Masonic buildings should be dedicated by the Grand Lodge" - using that definition, I suppose we would need to have some type of proof that it was "dedicated" before including it in the list? Active Banana ( bananaphone 14:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the last criteria is that it would also include the Statue of Liberty and a number of other major public structures. But having a square and compass as the cornerstone might be okay. The problem is how many records are we going to be able to find on that piece of data specifically? PeRshGo (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Grand Lodges do dedicate masonic buildings... which involves ceremonially laying a cornerstone... but they also dedicate other structures (such as the US Capital Building and the Statue of Liberty) using the same ceremony. As for the Square and compasses on the cornerstone, the Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry (the source you cite) actually says that a S&C on the cornerstone isn't a way to tell that a building is Masonic:

"In addition to their usually well-identified buildings, Masonic symbols are also common on other buildings. Since the Freemasons historically have performed the civic task of ceremonially laying conrnerstones (most famously the U.S. Capital, the Washington Monument and the White House), it's easy to find churches, courthouses, schools, and other buildings with the Masonic square and compass on their cornerstone.

I have looked into this for two months now... and I have yet to find a source that tells us what a Masonic building is. I am beginning to question whether one exists. And if one does not exist, I don't think we can come up with a workable, verifiable inclusion criteria. Any definition we adopt will be based on Original Research. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From a UK perspective there are a fair number of sources that talk about temples, inasmuch as they focus on the decoration and furniture of the room within which ritual meetings take place. So they'll talk about the square pavement, the tessellated border, the tracing boards, columns, ashlars, jewels etc.
I know there are a couple that talk about the buildings of Grand Lodge in London, but that's very specific. It may have something in more general terms. There are also a couple that talk about the livery companies and their halls, that may have something in there given the likely origins of Freemasonry in the trade guilds.
That's about it as far as I can find, so not all that useful.
ALR (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I'd be uncomfortable about describing any of those extracts as substantive enough discussion to meet the GNG. They're very much mentions in passing with little about what the term means.
With respect to the Scottish Rite issue, if we restrict the article to US usage only, and remove entries on the Rest of the World, then I'd be comfortable that the SR Southern Jurisdictions own, un-reciprocated, claim to represent Freemasonry as a whole could be up for discussion.
And having read the synopsis of the Jeffer book I'm not convinced that it constitutes a particularly credible source on the subject, it looks to be fairly standard conspiracy theorist fare.
ALR (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statements like yours about whether or not an entity can "claim to represent Freemasonry as a whole" are the reason why I referred to the Roman Catholic Church earlier. Through history, certain Christian denominations (including the Roman Catholic Church) have represented themselves as the only true Christian church and have labeled other "brands" of Christianity as invalid -- or as heresies. I have formed the distinct impression that the same sort of situation exists within Freemasonry. Just as Wikipedia should not rely on the Pope as its authority on "who is a Christian", the fact that some bodies within Freemasonry do not recognize certain other bodies as "Masons" does not mean that Wikipedia should refuse to use the terms "Masonic" and "Freemason" when describing certain groups that consider themselves to be "Masonic" but aren't recognized by certain other "Masonic' bodies. --Orlady (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a side issue that we can deal with later... until we can find a source for a definition of what a "masonic building" is, we can not determine if SR buildings fit that definition. We are simply falling back upon our own OR definitions. Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you back to my comments above regarding your use of the RCC example.
ALR (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is possibly an alternative way to to approach this, although I am apprehensive about it. There appears to be a dearth of sources that talk about Masonic Buildings as a topic, largely because it's really not important in a Masonic sense. On the other hand there do appear to be a fair number of sources that talk about specific buildings, although that discussion does appear to be centred on issues that are tangential, or in many cases unrelated to the Masonic use of the building.
I guess it's possible that we could use those various individual mentions and build and argument for general notability around them. I have a feeling that this is the approach that Doncram has been arguing for, although as never actually articulated clearly, as a mechanism for supporting this article. It would be useful if he can state whether this is a fair summation, if we establish individual notability for a sufficiently large numbers of buildings we can infer a notability for the topic.
If that is the case then once we have a critical mass of entries then we could identify a number of common themes from the entries and use that to state what the inclusion criteria are.
With that in mind it may be useful to identify what a critical mass might be, and perhaps agree that we aim to identify inclusion criteria from an analysis of the entries at that point?
ALR (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No... that is OR. To say that there are common themes, we need a source that identifies what those common themes are. We can not use our own observation or thoughts on the matter. Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside whether it is OR or not, I'm trying to provide a vehicle for Domcram to articulate what his views on how to establish notability are.
ALR (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N tells us how to establish notability... through reference to reliable sources. Where are the sources? Blueboar (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my mind -- and coming around to the view that there is a notable topic here. The notable topic is probably most often called "Masonic architecture," which is a loosely defined term applied to the symbolism embedded in various buildings built by Freemasons, as well as to notions regarding the types of buildings Masons are thought to favor -- or have favored in the past. The roots and history of Freemasonry are closely connected with people who actually built buildings ([6]), and it's evident that Freemasons have built a number of important buildings worldwide (some for Masonic use and some for other purposes) that constitute an important contribution to the communities where they were built, as well as to the world's architectural heritage. A lot of the documentation of Masonic architecture has an anti-Masonic cast, but there is also some coverage that is neutral or that expresses admiration for Masons' contributions. For example, the American Architectural Foundation had an exhibit on the influence of Freemasonry on architecture: [7], this Texas guide has a list of Masonic buildings and calls them "anchors of small town architecture," and the proprietors of the Detroit Masonic Temple speak admiringly of the Freemasons who built it.[8] I am particularly intrigued by articles about a 19th century building at Knox College in Illinois that was decorated with Masonic symbols in spite of the school's hostility toward Freemasonry.[9] [10]. The 2006 book Masonic Temples: Freemasonry, Ritual Architecture, and Masculine Archetypes (excerpts available online in the U.S. at this link) discusses a "golden age" of Masonic architecture in the U.S. (from 1870 to 1930), the architectural styles of Masonic meeting rooms, temples, etc., built during this period, and the relationship of this architecture to the ritual and "symbolic vocabulary" of Freemasonry. It is this book (which was published by a university press), in particular, that makes me think that the topic of the architectural legacy of Freemasonry is a notable topic (and, indeed, a proud topic).

While I say that the notable topic is "Masonic architecture", I think that this topic might not be clearly enough defined to be the subject of a stand-alone article. However, a list of notable Masonic buildings (in effect, the list of examples for a future article on Masonic architecture) can be created without having the hypothetical parent article. Scope of the list should (IMO) definitely include all notable buildings that were built by Masonic bodies (to include all such bodies) for meetings and ritual use, whether or not the buildings also had public uses, and whether or not the buildings still exist or are still owned/used by Freemasons. Beyond that, I'm less firm on the inclusion criteria. I'm not sure whether it should include other buildings that have been reliably identified as having been built by Freemasons, incorporating Masonic elements, but not built for Masonic sues (examples are the American White House and that building at Knox College). I don't think it makes sense to list Shriners' Hospitals and other buildings built by Shriners or Freemasons for purely charitable reasons. Buildings built for some other purpose, but later converted to Masonic use, are another grey area. IMO, they should be listed if they are reliably documented to have a strong Masonic connection, such as significant Masonic elements in their current design or an important role in the history of Freemasonry (either globally or locally) -- thus, I probably would include Freemasons Tavern, Hove. --Orlady (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a step in the right direction... as it has the potential to be sourced based. Let's explore this further. Blueboar (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While still lacking in actual sources to support the language, but I think it may be possible to find them, I have added a draft of a lead for the article. Active Banana ( bananaphone 15:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is some potential mileage in this approach, as long as we can find a clear definition of Masonic Architecture, there is a risk that without that we could end up with quite a confused set of criteria. We may need to find a form of words that makes clear that we're talking about buildings, since many of the references that include the words masonic architecture will be talking in either a speculative or philosophical context, or potentially talking about the furnishings used within a temple. There is a likely crossover in the sources, as some architectural devices used in the ritual and in the temple are replicated in the building. Quite frequently the Left and Right hand pillars are represented at the door of the building with physical columns.
I am very comfortable with the idea that we evidence masonic notability, in accordance with the GNG, although clearly we need to explore in more depth what that evidence will look like.
ALR (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd note that Orlady's statement of a "golden age of Masonic architecture" coincides with the foundation of the Shriners (1872) and the expansion of Scottish Rite theater (Theater of the Fraternity is set dead on these dates), and I'd imagine that as "anchors of small-town architecture", they may have served as public meeting halls, and therefore that function was quite distinct from the Masonic purpose of the building. I'm not saying it's a red herring, but just as a caveat, to move in this direction will likely require backpedaling on our previous exclusion criteria. MSJapan (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady didn't coin the term "golden age of Masonic architecture". That's from the 2006 book "Masonic temples: Freemasonry, ritual architecture, and masculine archetypes" written by William D. Moore, who was the director of the Chancellor Robert R Livingston Masonic Library in New York City. The book is published by the University of Tennessee Press. The book focuses on Masonic architecture in the U.S. The introduction identifies 1870 as the date of the dedication of a Masonic hall in New York City, and it says that 1870 roughly coincided with Freemasonry's return to prominence following several decades of anti-Masonic activity. By 1930, it says that Masonic membership had greatly increased, and that year marked the dedication of a Masonic temple in Rochester, New York -- the last significant Masonic structure built in the state of New York before the Great Depression "transformed American society". The blurb for the book indicates that the book uses an inclusive definition of "Masonic"; it says "Four distinct sets of Masonic ritual spaces--the Masonic lodge room, the armory and drill room of the Knights Templar, the Scottish Rite Cathedral, and the Shriners' mosque - form the central focus of this volume." --Orlady (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MSJ - It's possible that the book has some form of definition that we can use as a working assumption to see whether this idea has any merit. But someone needs to take a look at a hard copy, not just cherry pick from extracts in google. I'm in London next week so may get a chance to drop into the GL library to get a look. the extract immediately above does suggest to me that the focus is on the architecture of ritual, rather than the architecture of the outer, mundane, shell.
The very broad inclusion concerns me, and suggests that it's likely to be a US focused volume, which brings us back to the issue of whether the article should be geographically constrained. I think we have a mild issue around understanding, it's clear that some don't appreciate that Freemasonry denotes some 500 different bodies that practice Freemasonry as well as a couple of thousand other bodies that practice work derived from Freemasonry and that's even before we start onto the corpus of material from the conspiracy headbangers. Note that I'm not distinguishing between Freemasonry and Atheist practices when I say Fremasonry to assuage any concerns by Orlady that I'm intentionally excluding the heretics ;) With that in mind it's going to be very difficult to find a working definition that encompasses Freemasonry, never mind all the hangers on that some would wish to include in this Directory.
I share your concern that small town architecture is more likely related to the hall as a social hub aspect, rather than temple as ritual space aspect, and that highlights an issue of treatment. Do we consider a town hall used for masonic purposes in the same way as we would a masonic centre used as a town hall when in practice they'll be pretty indistinguishable.
ALR (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Test formulations of potential lead / inclusion criteria

1) This is a list of Masonic buildings. The roots and history of Freemasonry are closely connected with people who actually built buildings, ([11]) and buildings around the world have been constructed by Freemasons. (add a source) The main list includes notable buildings that were built by Masonic bodies for meetings and ritual use, and includes the dates for when Mason activities took place within the building (when available) and in some instances descriptions of the use of the buildings when Mason activities no longer took place within the facility. List of buildings And as a sublist

Masonic influenced architecture

Numerous buildings have been built incorporating Masonic elements which were not intended for use for Masonic meetings. (source) List of these buildings with a source describing masonic influence

Um... could you give an example of a building incorporating "Masonic elements" that was not intended as a Masonic meeting place? Blueboar (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One particularly interesting example is the "Old Main" building at Knox College, whose architect (Charles Ulricson) has been found to have quietly incorporated many Masonic symbols and elements into the building, apparently in defiance of the college's leadership, which at the time was overtly hostile to Freemasonry.[12][13] Another example that I cited above (based on one of the sources I found) is the American White House. --Orlady (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you got any idea what flavour of Freemasonry those are supposed to have come from? In view of your statements regarding the GNG above are we considering one book as multiple? It's an interesting hypothesis, but it would probably need a bit more evidence to substantiate the assertion.
As I recall the White House foundation stone was laid with masonic ritual, something that was quite common for public buildings at the time. Is there more about the whole architecture being influenced or inspired by Masonry? I do remember seeing one foundation stone ritual, a memorial with the Lodge being one of a number of local organisations that was involved in the whole project.
ALR (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the "flavour of Freemasonry" make a difference in determining whether the topic belongs in Wikipedia or not? That might be an interesting detail, but it's not necessary that an article to contain all potentially interesting details in order to be included here.
As for the White House, I invite you to read the source (which I cited in one of my earlier comments) that discussed the role of Freemasonry in that building. I have no interest in becoming an expert on the topic of that building nor on Masonic architecture in general; I merely named it as a possible example. --Orlady (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really just curious. I'm a pretty experienced Freemason, I'm also a member of a range of other orders and I would say that many of the assertions that those articles attribute to the book are, to say the least, unfamiliar. I'm interested in where it's supposed to have come from. It may be something that I can explore further, it may be some obscure appendant body that I've never heard of. Further light is always valuable.
I had read that page that you linked although personally speaking I didn't take the same conclusion from it. The to mentions are pretty incidental, are you suggesting that individual masons making their marks on the stones used to construct the White House may have been organised and co-ordinated?
ALR (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I hadnt even looked at the source, I was just trying some sample wording to see if there might be something potentially approaching or that would be a starting point to reach a consensus, whether on part one or part two.Active Banana ( bananaphone 22:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was aimed at Orlady and the assertions about the White House :)
I'd like to see Doncram engage with this discussion though, his buy in to the implications is essential.
ALR (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the article on the building at Knox College... what the author says is Masonic symbolism... simply isn't. Lots of people claim to to see "hidden masonic symbols" that don't exist (square and compasses in the street plan of Washington anyone?)
We have to be very careful when it comes to symbolism ... a) not everything that some uninformed author says is a Masonic symbol actually is Masonic symbol (for example lots of non-masons think the Pyramid is Masonic... it is a popular claim made by conspiracy fans... but the pyramid isn't part of any masonic degree... it simply isn't masonic)... b) not all branches of Freemasonry use the same symbolism. (Continental Freemasonry uses very different symbols and emblems than Anglo-American Freemasonry)... and this is especially true when if you toss Pseudo-Masonic groups like OTO into the mix... c) Many symbols used by the Masons are not unique to Masonry (the all seeing of God or Eye of providence is a good example). I don't think this makes a good criteria for inclusion.Blueboar (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you are suggesting that Wikipedia should reject statements by architectural historians, published by scholarly publishing houses (the publisher is the Northern Illinois University Press [14] in the case of the book about the Knox College building) because individual Wikipedia contributors who are Masons say that those sources are wrong? I don't know what's true in this situation, but I do know what Wikipedia policy says on the matter -- and due to that policy you are going to have a very hard time convincing Wikipedians to reject reliably sourced information in favor of your personal knowledge. --Orlady (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, verifiability, not truth. Although I remain concerned about single sourcing, so it would be useful to have corroboration. And I'd make the observation that he's a Philosophy professor.
From my perspective, it's not a question of wrong, but given that it's completely unfamiliar I'd prefer to see some more detail. Of course given the highly profitable write garbage about Freemasonry industry it's reasonable to be a little sceptical at times.
An alternative approach may be to caveat the claims by direct attribution to the individual, which is a fairly common way to deal with this type of issue.
ALR (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a risk around a section on architecture that may have been inspired by criteria. We need to find reliable sources that demonstrate a causal link, which is a challenge. When we think about the period when a number of these buildings were built we also need to think about context. Freemasonry was one of a number of fraternal societies, many of which shared symbolism, regalia, emblems and the like. So a lot of the symbols were merely fashionable. An example of an unrelated organisation is the Orange Lodge, something started by a number of former Masons, and they adopted symbolism that they were familiar with. Orange Lodge buildings are frequently decorated in a similar manner to a Masonic Lodge, but I would challenge any assertion that they are masonic buildings, although I'm sure that my position will be challenged on my challenge! At this rate we could probably call the Vatican a Masonic Building somehow as I'm sure it has mouldings of the sun and the moon, perhaps the stars somewhere :) It may even have some columns, perhaps an altar...
The pub that Orlady identifies is quite a useful example as well, the sources don't identify any clear Masonic use. It's not out of the question that there was, as it was built in a period when most masonic meetings took place in public houses, some of which started to adopt the furnishings in their decoration. Most towns and cities in the UK will have a Freemasons or Masons Arms pub, many of which claim to have been Masonic meeting places at some point in their history. We really need to start thinking about how we evidence justification, was that pub actually used for masonic purposes, or was the decoration added by an overenthusiastic mason on a personal basis. Was it just a marketing theme at some point, to build on the name? My gut feel is that there is probably something that could justify it, but in the absence of evidence that's original research.
If we can find clear evidence of inspiration then that's reasonable, if not then I would suggest that inclusions may fail verifiability and original research policies.
ALR (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The vagueness of the language put forth is inviting a problem. There's very little architecture that is "Masonically influenced" in terms of the outside of the building. I think the intent is to get at things like Lodge rooms, because a Lodge room is "Masonic", but it's inside the building, and has little to do with the building itself. If items in the lede are not making definitive, conclusive, and easily verifiable statements, we should not be considering them at all, because vague statements will lead us right back to problems with inclusion criteria.
I'd also like to touch on "causal link", because that's a huge problem here. We know for a fact that many fraternal organizations, philosophical groups, religious organizations, and even benevolent societies used Freemasonry as a model, directly or indirectly. That's problem one. Problem two is that sometimes it goes the other way - I heard an anecdote recently about a very small side order in Freemasonry that took everything it does out of an older military context that had nothing to do with Freemasonry. Problem three is that from the perspective of symbolism, Freemasonry adopted a lot of universal things into itself (as was mentioned). Much of this is not apparent, and a lot of scholars who poke at such things don't have the Masonic knowledge to really do a solid job of proving their point, or if they do, they see a similarity and run with it to the bitter end, and the result is a lot of weak conjecture (Margaret Jacob) or outright pseudohistorical nonsense (Knight & Lomas). It's published, it's verifiable, but it's not factually accurate; other scholars have easily discounted them. So let's stick to what we can prove with multiple reliable sources without resorting to questionable linkages. MSJapan (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite of introduction

I did a fairly extensive rewrite of the introduction in an attempt to create and describe what I think will be a defensible set of inclusion criteria. As defined, this is a list of buildings that are notable as buildings and that were either built by Masonic groups for Masonic use or are otherwise strongly associated with Freemasonry. In almost all cases, the notability of the items on the list is not derived from their relationship with Freemasonry, but is derived from their importance as buildings. The primary charter for the list is "built by Freemasons" or "extensively used for Masonic activities," but there is a sub-list for "Other buildings thought to be 'Masonic'". This is provided so that buildings like the one at Knox College can be discussed without saying that they are "Masonic" buildings.

The introduction isn't done, and the list needs a lot of work, but I hope that this is a step toward creating a good encyclopedic list. --Orlady (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely disagree with your rewrite, as it does clarify some things, but it seems to me that the connection to Freemasonry is basically secondary if we go this route; notability does not hinge upon a Masonic connection, and the level of connection is very wide-ranging. So I would posit the following question: Objectively speaking, in the scope of this list, is the Masonic connection important, or is it merely a trivial connection these buildings happen to share? I ask because the tone of the lede seems to imply the latter (I get the sense of "notable buildings" being much more important and solid than the rather more vague "some sort of actual or purported Masonic connection"), which calls into question the encyclopedic value of the list as it is titled. MSJapan (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think MSJ has a point... and a possible solution. A renaming and slight refocusing of the list may resolve a lot of the problems with this list. The current title implies that the buildings' Masonic associations are what make the building notable. Thus my insistence that we find sources to substantiate that idea. However, I think what actually makes the buildings in this list notable are their historic associations. If we make that clearer with a new title, we might end up with a more clearly defined criteria for inclusion. Potential titles might be: List of historic buildings with a Masonic association, or the narrower List of historic buildings built by Masonic organizations. Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... It may be useful to remember that the title of a Wikipedia list article does not need to provide a complete definition of the list's inclusion criteria. Some do, but there are many featured lists whose titles do not fully explain their contents, such as List of Chicago Bears seasons and List of sister cities in Maryland. Another good example (but not a featured list) of a title that does not fully explain its scope is List of bow tie wearers. The scope of these and other lists is documented in the lead section, not solely in the title. An additional point to keep in mind is that not all of the buildings that "should" be on this list are notable as historic buildings -- indeed, not every building on the National Register of Historic Places is there as an historic building.
I wonder if your concerns could be mitigated by changing the title from upper-case "Masonic" to the lower-case "masonic". I think the upper-case version might be what implies an official connection with Freemasonry, whereas the lower-case version does not imply an official relationship. --Orlady (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, lowercase indicates no relationship at all. "Masonic" with caps is a proper noun referring to the fraternal group, and I don't believe it has common usage otherwise. Also, I think the two list titles you give as examples do explain their contents - I expect List of Chicago Bears seasons to be exactly that - a list of the seasons the Bears have played, with probably some records and stats, and a link to a larger article. Sister cities in Maryland I expect to be a list of cities in Maryland that have a sister city relationship with some other city in the world. The title may not explain fully, but it is still giving the reader some contextual clues.
I think the crux of the matter is still "Is the Masonic connection really important?" I know we have had instances where the building is on here, but was not listed as a current Masonic meeting place. However, the problem still remains that we don't know what the nom papers say about those buildings; it's possible that the listing could care less and there's nothing notable about the Masonic connection other than a footnote in the building's history. Conversely, it could be the main historical factor in the listing. So deciding whether that aspect really matters seems to be key to figuring out what to do with this list, and to figure that out, we really need the full NRHP documentation for each building. Otherwise we are making a lot of assumptions for which we have no sources to support or disprove the assumption. Are there any of these sorts of building lists (meaning NRHP buildings by purpose or association) elsewhere on WP? MSJapan (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you don't see the analogies to those other article titles, I guess I need to explain my thinking. Regarding "Sister cities in Maryland", note that the list includes some non-cities (e.g. regions) that have "sister" or "twinning" relationships, and thus are not explicitly identified in the title. Thus, the use of "Sister cities" in the title is analogous to the use of "Masonic buildings" in the title of this article, in that the title does not comprehensively and precisely describe the scope of the article. Regarding "List of Chicago Bears seasons," although the scope may be apparent to you, I don't find it obvious. Similarly, the scope of "List of Masonic buildings" might be apparent to many readers of the encyclopedia, even though it is not apparent to you.
When you ask "Is the Masonic connection really important?", I believe you are confounding "importance" with "notability" again. Using the analogy with List of bow tie wearers, the fact that a person is known for wearing a bow tie is not important, but the fact that this phenomenon has been documented by numerous reliable sources makes it notable. We can argue until the cows come home about whether the fact that buildings were built by Masons is important, but since this relationship has been documented by multiple reliable sources, it's notable for the purposes of Wikipedia.
You question whether the word "masonic" has meaning without the initial uppercase "M". I looked it up in several dictionaries. While some use it exclusively with the uppercase "M", this is not universally true. Since my print copy of the Oxford English Dictionary is one that includes the lowercase "m", I believe there is a sound basis for Wikipedia using it with a lowercase "m".
As for other lists of buildings, I know there are examples, but I need to sign off on this comment now... --Orlady (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the request for other lists of buildings, here are a few analogous examples:
  • List of Woolworth buildings - Note that this is not a list of every Woolworth store ever built (only of stores notable for some reason), and it does not include a detailed exegesis of each building's relationship to Woolworth.
  • List of Coca-Cola buildings and structures - Similar to the Woolworth list, but with more details.
  • List of Crusader castles - Note that "Crusader castle" is broadly defined here. Otherwise, this is a topic that assuredly could be a far more complex intellectual exercise than a discussion of "Masonic buildings".
  • List of grain elevators - Note that this list includes active grain elevators, as well as some buildings whose current use has nothing to do with their history as grain elevators.
People who like lists of buildings probably could give you more examples. --Orlady (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly the rewrite deals with some of my concerns about this article, although I remain concerned that the initial sentence glosses over the fact that we're discussing up to four classes of building; Masonic, appendant, associated and assumed to be associated.
I would prefer the article were retitled to reflect that, whilst I acknowledge that the title in Wikipedia doesn't always reflect the article content, the potential to re-title has been raised by a number of editors not actively involved in this article as a way to break through the concerns expressed on all sides of this debate.
There is a globalisation issue, inasmuch as most of the sources do seem to be US focused, unless some of the androgynous or atheist bodies have something.
ALR (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the issue from a sourced based perspective

Ok, lets talk sources...

The closest I have come to a source for this topic is Will Moore's "Masonic temples: Freemasonry, ritual architecture, and masculine archetypes" (which I re-read yesterday). I say "closest" because the book is not really about the buildings... it is about the concept of the "Masonic Temple" in a symbolic context.

The book does not define what a "Masonic temple" is... but it does note the symbolic origins of the term. When Masons meet, they form a ritualistic space that is a symbolic representation of King Salomon's Temple. it notes that a Masonic temple is not a physical space... but a conceptual space... not dependent on location. The book then goes on to discuss (in some depth) the how this conceptual space influenced the design of Lodge meeting rooms.

The second part of the book discusses the same topic as it relates to the appendant bodies (York and Scottish Rites)... how their symbolic concept of the "temple" was slightly different from "craft" freemasonry, which resulted in the need to develop different rooms with a different configuration. The third part talks about the same development as it relates to the Shrine.

The final chapter is the one that most relates to this article, in that it focuses on buildings as opposed to rooms. It notes how Masons originally met in taverns, and discusses why lodges found this less than ideal for their ritualistic needs. It notes how lodges moved from taverns to rented rooms that could be permanently configured as a lodge room. It notes how in the early and mid-nineteenth century, many businesses (Banks and Opera companies especially) saw the opportunity to make money by renting rooms to Masonic lodges... so they designed lodge rooms into their buildings, which they could rent to the local lodges. (it is important to note that, at this stage, these rooms were built by the commercial establishments, not the lodges. We are not yet at the stage where we have purpose built "Masonic buildings"... merely commercial buildings with Masonic meeting rooms in them)

The chapter goes on to discuss how in the 1870s, laws began to be passed that allowed fraternal and benevolent societies to own property (apparently they were not allowed to do so before). It describes how the Masons saw an opportunity ... now, instead of paying someone else to rent their lodge room... they could own the buildings and rent to commercial entities to help pay for the upkeep of the meeting room. Some lodges purchased a pre-existing commercial building (or bought out their previous landlords)... others were rich enough to build a new building of their own. Where they build their own, they built to attract tenants... which meant they built impressive structures. (We still have essentially commercial buildings with Masonic rooms in them... but now owned by the Masons).

However, not all lodges liked the idea of having commercial space share the same building as the lodge (they saw the fraternity as being above "base commerce"). Some wanted their rooms to be located in more "sacred" space. These lodges purchased buildings with a different purpose in mind... many lodges were now approaching their hundredth anniversary, and they wanted buildings that proclaimed their tie to the community. These lodges purchased buildings for their historic value (typically old schools, churches, and the private homes of community founders).

Thus Moore identifies two types of "Masonic buildings" (although not using those words)... 1) impressive buildings that are designed for mixed use... partly commercial and office space... partly lodge meeting space. and 2) historic buildings that were purchased by the Masons and converted into lodge meeting space.

If there is a commonality to these buildings, it is that they contain rooms configured for lodge meetings... rooms in which a lodge can open their "temple". This is, I think, the closest we can come to a sourced based definition. A Masonic building might be defined as any building that contains a room or rooms configured for Masonic meetings. Moore does not say this explicitly... our saying so does require a degree of interpretation on our part (which WP:NOR forbids)... but that is the closest to a source based definition that we can come. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for that informative (and interesting) summary, Blueboar. Your comments explicate a few puzzling things that I've come across in my investigation of the topic, which investigation has admittedly been pretty superficial. (It's superficial because I have little interest in either Freenasonry or old buildings. I am participating mostly because I am interested in achieving resolution of contentious discussions about seemingly minor issues.)
I think we can all agree that "Masonic building" is not a formally defined term with a standard definition. However, lack of as standard definition does not necessarily prevent Wikipedia from using a term in an article title. The theme (not necessarily a "topic") that I see emerging in this list-article and the various publications we are discussing could be described as "the legacy of Freemasonry in the world's built environment" (in simpler words, "how Freemasonry has contributed to shaping the world of buildings") with "Masonic architecture" being a shorter and somewhat imprecise descriptor of that theme. I believe that most of the items that might be included in the list are more noteworthy as elements of the built environment than as elements of Freemasonry.
How does this accord with your views? --Orlady (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with "how Freemasonry has contributed to shaping the world of buildings" is that Freemasonry hasn't "contributed to shaping the world of buildings". Masons have rented buildings... they have purchased buildings... and they have caused buildings to be built... some of these buildings are large and impressive looking... others are small and unimpressive. Some are historic buildings... most are not. There is no commonality to these buildings as far as architecture goes. There is no single style that can be called Masonic architecture... The only thing common to all these buildings is that there will be at least one room in the building that is set up as a lodge room (consisting of a) chairs or benches along two walls, b) other chairs set in specific locations within the room for the officers and c) open space and a table or altar in the center of the room). That's it. That is all that is needed for a building to be "Masonic". Blueboar (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


That's pretty much the main thrust of the point I've been making for some time. If this article is about a subset of notable buildings then I'm more comfortable. There is an issue with the standard of evidence around inclusion in that subset, but my main objection to the article at the moment is emphasis.
As I've articulated elsewhere on this talk page in the last couple of days there are concerns around demonstrating membership of the subset; casuality, reliability of sources and indeed actual association with Freemasonry but gaining agreement from Doncram that the focus of the article would be a significant first step towards resolution.
ALR (talk) 07:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I too would be much more comfortable if the article was re-worked so it was about a clearly identifiable sub-set of notable buildings as opposed to the current "notable examples of an ill-defined group of buildings". It would not resolve all issues, but it would resolve many of them. This might be done with a simple name change... For example: List of NRHP listed buildings with the word "Masonic" in their names would turn the list into a clearly identifiable sub-set of NRHP (ie notable) buildings. I am not sure that the overall topic would be any more notable (we would have to work on that)... but it would be a step in the right direction. It would certainly make the inclusion criteria clearer. Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion at WT:N

Just so no one gets upset ... I have asked a question at WT:N that was inspired in part by the debates over this list (it was also inspired by some comments at the AfD on list inclusion) Note, My question is meant to be general and not specific to this list (the specific question is: how do we resolve conflicts between project SNGs?). You can find my question at WT:N#When notability guidelines collide. Please feel free to participate. Blueboar (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a person who is responding to that request, and having looked briefly over the article, I can say that seeing the NHRP listed next to all of the buildings makes the list very cluttered. I can see the desire of the masonic project not wanting buildings simply because they are old on the list. I can also see the NHRP wanting them on there, because they are notable. So why not have two list that reference each other? List of Masonic buildings dealing with Masonic buildings that are notable by Masonic standards, and List of Masonic buildings on the NRHP dealing with buildins on the NRHP?---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am so sorry that you got dragged in by yet another call by Blueboar at random notice-boards, asking new editors in to rehash many of same questions resolved several times over in 40+ discussion sections on this Talk page alone, now many archived, and in related articles talk pages and in noticeboard discussions at wp:RSN and elsewhere. . The "NRHP-listed" next to many items here is indeed not really appropriate, but was inserted by me to resolve previous unreasonable efforts to delete places which are known / knowable as being notable places. The NRHP editors involved here, me included, do not want an NRHP-only article; it just starts to look like one because of unreasonable efforts to delete all entries, and my efforts to defend the NRHP ones as being more successful for the time being. Eventually this will even out and include non-NRHP ones internationally and in the U.S. --doncram (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coming here from WT:N and knowing how this list has sparked the issue, let me try to see if I can offer a suggestion.
As I understand it:
  • Those editors coming from Freemasonry project believe that the use of a building by the Masons for a temple or whatever immediately qualifies it as a notable building. There may be notable buildings where it just happens to be a Masonic temple or the like.
(typo? I think it should read "... from Freemasonry project do not believe that...") Blueboar (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those editors coming from the NRHP project believe that any building on the NRHP is notable, including any building affirmed to have been used by the Masons (and thus putting them in this list).
Based on that premise, what it seems is that this list is set up and geared towards detailing with a topic that is primarily in the area of Freemasonry and just happens to overlap a bit with the NRHP project. I would have to agree on the Freemasonry project that this list is relatively unnecessary for their project due to the arbitrary nature of "Masonic buildings".
That doesn't mean this can be fixed. Actually, I think, and there's work needed on this idea, that if this was was instead geared towards the NHRP aspect, specifically focusing on buildings that the Masons were involved in (through sourced info, of course). It is probably easily established that the Masons has a significant hand in constructing buildings that would qualify for the NRHP, so if the list was instead gears to reflect that aspect, taking it out of the prospect of the Freemasonry project (though still a part of it) and more about the influence of the Freemasons on architecture in the US or the like. This is only an idea but flipping it around would seem to take a lot of the issues that I believe I am reading away. --MASEM (t) 22:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that you too got dragged in here by the unhelpful call to yet more editors to come into this contentious article. This is approximately discussion secition #85 or 90 or so, of discussion sections opened by Blueboar. The effect is to keep splitting and undermining discussion.
Of course there are many Masonic buildings that are not NRHP-listed which are notable. For one example, there is a significant Masonic building in Pasadena, California which was actually determined to be NRHP-eligible, but where the owners chose to object to, and hence effectively veto, its NRHP-listing. NRHP status can only apply for U.S. sites and for buildings that are more than 50 years old and that have gone through a somewhat burdensome application and review process. The NRHP editors, me included, do no want this to be an NRHP list. It's unclear what the Freemasonry project editors want; they are not one monolithic force. The main goal that i see present is a wish by some to create contention and to use tags and forcing actions to force others to do the productive work of creating material that is useful in developing and shaping a reasonable article here. Opening a new discussion at wp:N, given many past and current discussion sections open on the topic of this list's notability, seems unhelpful. I resent the explosion of Talk page discussion to an amount vastly in excess of actual editing work in mainspace. It's a shame especially because sources are readily available for development of articles on many notable Masonic buildings. --doncram (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Put your money where your mouth is. You keep claiming "sources exist, sources exist, sources exist," but you won't personally go out and get them. You expect others to do the work for you for some reason (and with no guidance from you), and then when we can't find them, you find some other reason not to go and get these innumerable sources that exist. The burden is unequivocally on you to find the sources. Therefore, if you say these sources exist, and yet will not produce them, are you also saying you're withholding them for some reason? Frankly, don, I think you have an ego problem, and some need to be "the savior of this article" - therefore you build yourself up by claiming you know all this stuff exists, but when you can't produce proof, you instead denigrate other authors for wasting time by getting outside opinions that funnily enough, don't match yours. Wikipedia has no place for egos, so produce usable concrete sources for this article, or go elsewhere. MSJapan (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you are thinking MSJapan. I have been developing articles about the NRHP-listed places in this list-article, at a certain pace, and adding NRHP nomination documents and sometimes other sources to them. I've added some of those sources directly to this list-article too. For example a long time ago now i developed the Virginia ones here somewhat to provide a model, because I knew the NRHP noms were available for those, and then I went on to other states. In the archives(!) here you can see I participated for a long time in explaining to others how to get those documents, and fixing up the general guide for doing that at wp:NRHPhelp, and so on. At one point I recall Blueboar exclaiming something like "now we're getting somewhere!" at being shown how to access these documents, but then neither he nor anyone else besides Orlady ever proceeded with any of that, AFAIK. Please take a look at the Alaska, Delaware, Virginia, New York, Oklahoma articles that have been moving along somewhat.
Also there are general sources in the form of Google books or other which have been found and linked to in the AFDs and in Talk page sections above. I don't know why others have not chosen to develop from those.
I have repeatedly suggested that editors devote some portion of their time to actually developing material and adding sources. I have the impression that the most prolific commentators here have done almost zero such development. --doncram (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram... let me try to explain the issue here through an analogy... lets say we created an article entitled: List of US Presidents who like broccoli. Every item (person) listed would be notable, and we could provide sources to demonstrate that notability. But... we would still need to establish that the topic of "Presidents who like broccoli" is notable... we have to establish (through sources) that liking broccoli is notable within the context of US President (or that US Presidents are notable within the context of broccoli), and then we would need to supply sources that verified that each President listed actually did like broccoli.
In this list... Every item (building) listed is notable, and you provide sources to demonstrate that notability. But... we still need to establish that the topic of "Masonic buildings" is notable ... we need to establish (through sources) that Freemasonry is notable within the context of buildings (or that buildings are notable within the context of Freemasonry)... and then we need to supply sources that verify that each building actually is "Masonic". Blueboar (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Telling others to go and do something you started on your own when they are unwilling to do so is not "developing" an article. The only source you had added was established to be a TOC page for the primary NRHP documents, which cannot be accessed digitally brecuase they haven't been digitized. You assumed that because a building came up on a search for "Masonic Temple" it was notable and worthy of addition.
When you did check records, you accessed them through a third-party tool here on WP, which we cannot use in the article per the author. My searches indicated that the Masonic Building in CT was in fact a synagogue, and a few others had been repurposed. Therefore, its addition was not necessarily a "Masonic" connection at all. You have ignored this point repeatedly in your additions, because you're not actually doing any work of substance on the article. You are apparently unwilling to get paper copies of the documents (as you have not done so), and I'm certainly not going to do it, because it's not in my area of interest. You are only going and "finding" superficial sources ("Here's the DB with the records; go look at them", "here's a Google link, go look at it"); the fact that you are saying you have all sorts of links and such is a clear indicator that you're not actually looking at the sources, but merely considering the existence of links that seem pertinent as proof of existence of a usable source. Whether they are or not is something you expect others to do. If you had actually looked at the sources, you would have no reason not to cite them, unless in fact they are not pertinent at all, in which case you are misrepresenting your "search" as legitimate, when it is in fact not, and contributes nothing of value to the article. Hence I indicate that you have a problem where you need to be seen as the savior of the article, without ever having done anything to merit the appellation. I would therefore unequivocally state that if indeed you have "repeatedly suggested that editors devote some portion of their time to actually developing material and adding sources," that you might want to take your own advice, because you've done nothing of substance in those areas. MSJapan (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's just wrong. You haven't looked at the articles in states that i've pointed you to, in order to see the NRHP nomination full documents included in them. It is true that I also created a good number stub articles using just the NRIS database source, as part of previous effort to address arriving editors' confusion about redlinks being present. But there's no excuse for your level of confusion. --doncram (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also you're just wrong that you cannot access the documents. Did you read the discussions previously about how to get and use the NRHP documents. Please see wp:NRHPhelp. You have been misled, I suppose by the ridiculous previous brouhaha about the fact that a standard footnote to one database source, the NRIS one, had a URL included in it that turned bad. That NRIS database is essentially just a spreadsheet with some summary fields about NRHP-listed places, and you don't need any access to that at all. The real main material on NRHP places is the NRHP nomination documents and accompanying photosets, which are often prepared by architectural historians (e.g. the Scottish Rite one in Guthrie, see section below) and other professionals. They range in length from 4 or 5 pages to 80 or 120 page documents. I have explained, in sim ple words, how to get them for all cases. And I have included direct links to many of them. For those, you have to click to see them though! :) --doncram (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I reiterate, "then do the work." You are the one claiming Masonic notability for buildings, yet you have shown nothing by way of concrete evidence that would address the inclusion criteria, not one single "I have found thus and so". Since you are so gung-ho on this, it is up to you to do the work, not for me to go and do the work for you. I really don't know why you just do not seem to understand that. Also, your re-characterization of the NRIS item as "one URL gone bad" grossly understates the issue in your favor. Clearly, there is absolutely no reasoning with you. So, do what you want, and if your articles are garbage, that's your problem. I'm not going to waste my time and effort trying to work with someone who doesn't want to be worked with, but rather for. MSJapan (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, I'm looking at this article and I personally think it is a mess. It's hard on the eyes, inconsistent in formatting, etc. I have a proposal that I think might help satisfy both camps and make this a more attractive article. By using a sortable table, you will be able to put everything onto one large table. Include pictures for each temple. Make it sortable by country, state, year built, and even whether or not it is a National Historic Site. Here is an example of what I was thinking.

Image Building name Country State Year Built Known for National Historic Site Reference
Montreal Masonic Memorial Temple Canada Quebec 1929 Beautiful architecture NHSC [1]
Zetland Hall Hong Kong 1949 District Grand Lodge of Hong Kong and the Far East [2]
Chicago Masonic Temple United States of America Illinois 1892 One of tallest buildings in Chicago until demolished in 1939 [2]
Detroit Masonic Temple United States of America Michigan 1922 World's largest Masonic Temple NRHP [3]
  1. ^ "THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA COMMEMORATES THE NATIONAL HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MONTREAL MASONIC MEMORIAL TEMPLE". Parks Canada News Release. Government of Canada. 14 October 2006. Retrieved 2009-01-07.
  2. ^ a b History of Zetland Hall, Zetland Lodge website, accessed July 23, 2010
  3. ^ Alex Lundberg, Greg Kowalski: Detroit's Masonic Temple, Arcadia Pub., 2006.

There might be other fields that you want to include, but I present it as a proposal that might satisfy everybody and make this a nicer list.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Balloonman, This certainly is a nicer and prettier format... but it does not resolve the fundamental disagreement here... is the TOPIC notable? We still would have the disagreements over what a "Masonic building" IS, what makes one of them notable and another one not notable, and what the criteria for inclusion should be. Blueboar (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is the building notable for any reason? Check---then it is notable. Is it/was it identified as a Masonic building? If yes---then it counts as a Masonic Building. No one project has dominion over the content of the project. Using the box as described would allow you to differentiate, to some degree, why the building is there. Eg is the building notable because it is important to the Masons or is it notable because it has been deemed a National Historic Site/building. Why does a Aretha Franklin song go through my mind "R*E*S*P*E*C*T"---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point. The debates at this page are not over whether the individual buildings are notable... the debates are over whether a) the topic of this list is notable (ie is the topic of Masonic buildings notable), and b) the items listed qualify for this specific list. It is possible to create a non-notable list filled with notable items. Every item in List of US Presidents who like broccoli would be notable (since every US President is notable... but the topic would not be (since the fact that a President likes broccoli is both unverifiable and trivial). The issue we are grappling here is similar... we are debating whether the fact that a building has some sort of ill-defined connection to Freemasonry is unverifiable and trivial. Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A possible solution to that has been raised several times. Is the list of notable masonic buildings or notable buildings with a potential association with masonry? At the moment the implication of the title and topic is that it's the former, when the sourcing, such as it is, evidences the latter.
Many of the buildings noted are in the register for historic and architectural reasons and there appear to be few, if any, sources demonstrating notability in the masonic context.
ALR (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly more readable, and the inclusion of a column on rationale does force us down the route of actually having a clearly defined inclusion rationale. If we could resolve the issue over what the article topic is then it's a direction to take.
ALR (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a table format generally like that would be good. --doncram (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Balloonman. It seems clear to me that this is a list of otherwise notable buildings that also have a Masonic connection. Notability of the individual building can be readily established and sourced and notability of a Masonic connection can be readily established and sourced. So, then the question seems to be whether a Masonic connection as a subset of notable buildings is notable enough to warrant a list. Is that right? I get the whole List of Presidents who Eat Broccoli not being notable, but there's not a large, thriving wikiproject of "people who eat broccoli", while there is one about Freemasonry. Just the fact of the existence of such a project would, to me, justify the notability of Masonic buildings as a subset of otherwise notable buildings. I'd have to say that it does seem kind of obvious to me. If the buildings are notable, and the Masons are notable, then Masonic buildings are notable. Lvklock (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the issue is that any masonic significance is turning out to not be particularly easily evidenced. Doncram is making assumptions of association based on the name, it's been demonstrated in a number of cases that is not a reliable indicator. I've raised an example in discussion above of pubs in England. There are a great many Masons or Freemasons arms that have no evidence of ever having been a masonic meeting place.
That aspect isn't the no brainer one would like to think it is.
The other aspect is the question of whether the topic itself is notable, in other words are there multiple, substantive discussions in references independent of the topic. That is something that we're also struggling to evidence. You may note from discussion above that the main reference that has been used to justify this article doesn't in fact have much content around buildings but instead concentrates on Masonic Architecture as a philosophical and allegorical tool. so not only is it a minor part of the book, we're reliant on a single source as well.
From a notability perspective the challenge does appear to be compliance with the GNG.
ALR (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me see if I can rephrase the question to see if I am getting the gist of the debate. We have a building "Goodwill Catholic Church." Now, we have a list for Catholic Churches, so the assumption would be that Goodwill Catholic Church should be on the list. Unfortunately, Goodwill Catholic Church is not a Roman Catholic Church---it's a Protestant Church or potentially a Sede Vacantist (church that rejects the pope.) As such, it is not a "Roman" Catholic Church despite the name. In a similar vein, I suspect that there are buildings out there that have the word Mason/ic in them that are not Masonic in the traditional sense. In these cases, they would not belong. Another common scenario that I can see, Goodwill Catholic Church was a Catholic Church originally, but due to hardships and a changing demographic, it was sold to a protestant denomination. The Protestant Denomination decided not to change the name because the Church was a historical landmark, thus even though it is now a protestant church it still has the old signage outside reading "Goodwill Catholic Church." Again, eventhough the building was originally a Catholic building, it ceased to be when it was sold. HOWEVER, in scenario 3, Goodwill Catholic Church was a Catholic Church until 1980, when it was taken over by the ABC Historical Soceity and turned into a museum as a historical church. In this case, even though it is no longer being used as a Church, it is being preserved because of it's historiocity. In this case it would be eligible for the list. I guess to me, the key is who owned it last? If it is/was owned by the Masons, it remains such. If it was turned into a museum or somebody assumed responsibility for it because it was a historic place, then it remains what it was. If somebody comes in and turns it into a night club. Then no, even though it might have been a Church for 120 years, it no longer remains such. Is such a list a valid list? Sure why not? It is not a random collection of trivia, it is the perfect topic for a list. If done right, I could see this topic becoming a featured list! Are the subjects worthy of inclusion? Well, if there is enough for an article, then definitely, but even if there isn't, being on a National Historic Registry is enough to warrant inclusion on this list. Even if there isn't enough to write an article on, doesn't mean that they aren't important. I don't know if I would argue that every NRHP deserves an article, but I would argue that they reach the level for inclusion on a list. The above are my two cents worth from a person who until yesterday never visited this page.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC) One other point, the notion that the Masonic buildings have to be notable per people from the Freemasonry Project is a POV. There can be notable massonic buildings that are notable in spite of masonic wishes. EG a hall/temple/lodge that became known for some act of violence/crime would still be notable, even though the Masons may wish otherwise. The point is, that we cannot cater to individual POV's, if a building is notable for being what it is, then it is notable for being what it is. If it is a Masonic building, then it is still a Masonic building.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very logical analysis... and I more or less agree with it. But we still have a problem... your analysis of what makes a building "Masonic" is essentially Original Research. It is one Wikipedian's view of what makes a building Masonic. What we need is verifiability... ie a source that tells us what a Masonic building is. Blueboar (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I take serious objection to the "notable in spite of Masonic wishes". These are public buildings with rentable space, not hideouts for a secret cabal, and it is grossly inappropriate to frame the dispute as an agenda to keep the buildings' existence secret (that's POV argument too, BTW). If they were to be secret, they wouldn't be publicly accessible cathedral-sized buildings with giant emblems on them, entries in the phone book, and entries on web sites.
The contention is that the initial additions were made because the building had the word "Masonic" in it (which is demonstrably true), and that just having the name "Masonic" isn't an automatic notability pass (it implies inheriting notability from the organization if we have no other criteria, and we can't do that). Some of the buildings listed have not had a Masonic connection in some time, and in fact are no longer called "Masonic buildings" - the hits were on former names of the building. Therefore, the "name alone" criterion is flawed. Therefore, we need some other means to classify inclusion, and that is what we do not have. MSJapan (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my post? My post explicitly explains why the name only notion isn't valid. The hypothetical Goodwill Catholic Church is not a Catholic Church in most of the above scenarios, despite it's name. Similarly, if Goodwill Catholic Church were part of a strip mall, it would not be a Catholic Building. CINO (Catholic in Name Only) or MINO (Mason in Name Only) is not sufficeint cause to be considered a Masonic Building. A Temple/hall/lodge/etc that is principly used by the Masons and/or owned, however, is... and if the building is notable, it does not matter if it is notable because it is on a national registry, a mass murder, a significant event, or in the eyes of the Masons.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you are correct as far as establishing that the building is notable enough for Wikipedia to have an article on it is concerned. However, that is not the same as establishing that a building belongs in this list. As you correctly note, there is a difference. We need to establish that "Masonic buildings" is notable as a topic. Then we need to clearly define what is and is not a "Masonic building". And finally we need to establish that each building fits that definition. To do all of this we need sources. THAT is what is behind the entire debate. No one is able to come up with sources that do any of these key things. Blueboar (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at wp:flc? If some of those topics can be Featured Lists, then I can't see why this couldn't be as well. Honestly, I see a lot of potential in this page becoming a featured list! It just needs somebody to work on it. Hell, I'm going to ask one of the people who is heavily involved with Featured lists (dabomb) to take a look at this and see what he thinks. Right now, this page sux, but I honestly think it could be made into an FL!---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Masonic Lodge No. 32

I've started up an article, with NRHP nom linked, for Warren Masonic Lodge No. 32 in a small hamlet in New York State. The building is significant for its architecture and for its role in social history of the area. The NRHP nom cites a book titled History of Freemasonry in New York State by Ossian H. Lang (1928, published in New York by Grand Lodge of New York), that would likely be a good additional source for this article and others. Does anyone have access to a library that might have that? Would there be any other sources. Help would be appreciated in developing this article from the NRHP nom, too, which has a lot of good information.

Also, by the way, I wonder if WikiProject Freemasonry editors would like to include this article, and others on specific Masonic buildings, in their project? --doncram (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem again - "look what I found, didn't really look at, and now somebody else can go do the rest." You have basic info off the DB page of the documentation, and that's it. I can't even get to the page in question from the generic URL you are using. If you're not interested in doing the work yourself, stop creating articles on them, because it's not proving anything in your favor other than you're stubbing a lot of junk. MSJapan (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. I included in the article a properly formed reference with link to this NRHP nom document for the place. For this New York State one, I am sorry the NYS system is a little wonky and the document may display well only using MS Internet Explorer. Please look at that and also the photos document also linked in the article. --doncram (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will be happy to see if there is a copy of the book at the Livingston Library (the Masonic library attached to Grand Lodge here in NYC) the next time I am downtown (in a few weeks). Is there something specific you want me to try to find out? Blueboar (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry... I am showing my age again... No need to go downtown to see if they have the book... I just checked the library's on-line catalog... and they do have the book. So, again, is there some specific information you want me to look up... or some specific question you want answered? Blueboar (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Rite Temple, in Guthrie, Oklahoma

I wonder if other editors could help develop Scottish Rite Temple (Guthrie, Oklahoma). This one is interesting perhaps because, as its NRHP nom states

The Scottish Rite Temple of Guthrie is architecturally and historically significant because it is one of the best examples of large scale, Neo-Classical Revival style in Oklahoma; it is the largest, most elaborately designed and constructed Masonic Temple in the state; and because of its importance historically to the Masonic fraternal organization in Oklahoma.[1]: 6 

Also it is self-described as "one of the world's largest Masonic Centers".[2]

Also "it has been recognized as the center of state-level Masonic activities since 1923, when first used even before completion. It is ... the site of the Mason's statewide functions...."[1]: 6 

  1. ^ a b John R. Hill (October 24, 1985). "National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination: The Scottish Rite Temple" (PDF). Oklahoma Historical Society.
  2. ^ "Guthrie Scottish Rite Welcome". Guthrie Scottish Rite.

I think this one might be a good example that separating out Scottish Rite ones from the rest of Masonic buildings is difficult. But, mainly i would just like some help developing the article and interpretations of its example vis-a-vis list-article policy could /should be considered later.

Can anyone help describe the design of the building and how it serves Masonic purposes, working from the linked NRHP nom or other sources? --doncram (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are missing basic information, the article should not be in mainspace. MSJapan (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to know where you stand. Well, also if very little is yet known/developed about many/most obvious candidates for permanent inclusion in this list-article, we should not be wasting time debating final criteria for inclusion or other aspects of fine-tuning. :) This article was started by others, by the way; i just added the NRHP nom, which is written by an architectural historian. I think my edits to the article have contributed positively. Anyhow, would anyone have access to any libraries relevant for this one, perhaps a book covering history of Masons in Oklahoma? If there are Freemasons present who could possibly ask another one in Oklahoma to go get a pic, or otherwise contribute, that would be super, too. --doncram (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, when will it finally dawn on you that you are doing Wikipedia more harm than good (not to mention creating a lot of bad feelings toward you) by your persistent habit of creating content-free stubs, disambiguation pages, and lists of National Register properties about which you have no information other than an NRIS entry? Today at User talk:Polaron I took you to task for your dog in the manger behavior regarding piece-of-cr*p stub articles of yours that you have neither edited nor discussed in nearly a year, but that you insist must be allowed to exist in that cr*ppy state in which you last left them. It is very difficult to take you seriously as a contributor when you behave the way that you do. --Orlady (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thot it should be helpful to turn people's attention to the actual subject of the list-article, the masonic buildings, for a change. Orlady, I do appreciate that you have participated constructively here and for the most part provided a voice of reason. Your insulting the articles and your insulting me does not seem consistent with helping, but it seems to be part of the price, for me, of your participation. Thanks anyhow.
About the Scottish Rite Temple in Guthrie, don't you agree that it seems pretty clearly an important Masonic building, while up to now its importance has not much been recognized? --doncram (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we accept the assumption that NRHP listing meets the demands of the GNG then it seems fair to list it, although I would be very wary of using the web site of the building management organisation to assert much.
In terms of sourcing masonic significance or detail you might find substantive mention in whatever masonic or appendant body journals published in the state. Equally any masonic history societies that may have articles on it. As I recall Oklahoma is SR Southern Jurisdiction so you may find something in the Scottish Rite Journal published in Washington. I've just had a quick search of the web page and can't see anything but perhaps if you get in direct touch they could help.
I hope that provides some direction about where to look to flesh out the article from its current condition.
ALR (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

doncram reported to ANI once again

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

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

Rename?

I suggested this above, but I think it deserves its own section. Would renaming this article resolve any of the difficulties we are having? The current title implies that the emphasis of the article is on the masonic nature of the buildings... that the buildings are notable because they are Masonic. That requires a) establishing that being Masonic is a notable attribute for a building to have and b) substantiating that the items listed are known for being Masonic... both of which are problematic. However, I think we all agree that the buildings listed are notable. The question is "what are they notable for"? I would contend that they are notable for being on various historic building registries. This implies that the attribute that makes them notable is their historic nature, not their Masonic nature.

So what if we changed the title to something along the lines of List of historic buildings with Masonic associations or the narrower List of historic buildings constructed by Masonic groups (I would be open to other suggestions)? I think this would shift topic away from the problematic "Masonic buildings that happen to be historic (ie notable)" to the potentially more justifiable "Historic (ie notable) buildings that happen to be Masonic".

(note... I still have questions as to whether a name change would result in a topic that is notable enough to pass WP:N... and I have asked about this at WT:N... but I do think the name change would result in a more notable topic that might pass WP:N)... inclusion would certainly be more verifiable.) Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those suggested names don't work for me, but I have an alternative that I think might address your concerns.
As I discussed above, it's useful to remember that the title of a Wikipedia list article does not need to provide a complete definition of the list's inclusion criteria. Some do, but there are many featured lists whose titles do not fully explain their contents, such as List of Chicago Bears seasons and List of sister cities in Maryland. Another good example (but not a featured list) of a title that does not fully explain its scope is List of bow tie wearers. The scope of these and other lists is documented in the lead section, not solely in the title. This article also does not need to fully document its inclusion criteria in its title.
An additional point to keep in mind is that not all of the buildings that "should" be on this list are notable as historic buildings -- indeed, not every building on the National Register of Historic Places is there as an historic building.
I wonder if your concerns could be mitigated by changing the title from upper-case "Masonic" to the lower-case "masonic". I think the upper-case version might be what implies an official connection with Freemasonry, whereas the lower-case version does not imply an official relationship. --Orlady (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that does not work... the lower case "masonic" as an adjective refers to stone masonry, not the fraternity (it is always capitalized when referring to the fraternal order). My concern is more over the fact that the current title implies that adjective "Masonic" is the primary attribute for the list, when it should actually be a secondary attribute. What makes the items that are listed notable is not their connection to the fraternity, but their inclusion in some sort of heritage/landmark registry (where they are listed for their history, architecture, or any number of other reasons... but not listed due to their connection to the fraternity). I think that this is one of those situations where the title needs to be clear as to what is intended. The fact of registry is what is important, and needs to be noted in the title. Perhaps Landmark building with a Masonic connection (which would allow for buildings that are on the registry for other reasons than history, but would make it clear that the fraternal connection is secondary to their status as a landmark).
In fact... now that I think about it, it might be best to expand this beyond just buildings associated with freemasonry... what about Landmark buildings associated with fraternal orders? This would add landmarked Oddfellows Halls, Elks Lodges, Knights of Columbus buildings, etc. to the list (and would make the entire "are the shiners Masons?" debate irrelevant). Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to several of your concerns in greater detail in the above section Rewrite of introduction. (Like Doncram, I'm getting rather fatigued with the idea that every discussion needs to be conducted in several places at the same time.)
As for lower-case "masonic," the Oxford English Dictionary uses it in the lower case as a adjective referring to freemasonry. To my mind, if it's in the OED, it's part of the English language for purposes of Wikipedia.
As for your theory that all of these buildings can be properly labeled "landmark buildings" in an article title, that's totally unacceptable because most of these buildings have never been designated "landmark buildings" (and in some cases haven't been called by that name in any published form). Note that being listed on the National Register of Historic Places does not indicate that a building is a "landmark" --even less than it indicates it to be "historic." --Orlady (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My preference is for ...with a masonic connection or association. It makes clear that the notability is with the building for architectural or historic reasons. The latter part allows for the very weak association buildings and the non-masonic ones.
I wouldn't object to the fraternal orders suggestion as that mitigates for my concerns about pseudomasonic orders being included.
ALR (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another suggestion: Let's rename it "List of masonic buildings" and remove it from WikiProject Freemasonry so that you Freemasons won't have to look at it any more. --Orlady (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be quite happy to have this article as disassociated with Freemasonry as possible. Unfortunately since everyone knows what Freemasonry means we'll fairly quickly end up with some wag adding stuff like the Skull and Bones Hall as the Skull and Bones are masonic symbols and I'm sure you could find sources that claim that it's a masonic building.
ALR (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How a list focused on landmark status, and expanded to all Fraternal Orders might be structured

Running with the idea of focusing on Landmark status, and opening it up to all Fraternal Orders ... and incorporating the structure suggested by Balloonman... I could see the revised list taking the following form:

Image Building name Location Landmarking body Fraternal Order
Montreal Masonic Memorial Temple Montreal, Quebec, Canada NHSC<citation establishing listing> Freemasons<citation establishing association (might be the same as landmark citation)>
Odd Fellows Building San Deigo, California, USA NRHP<citation> Oddfellows<citation>
Detroit Masonic Temple Detroit, Michigan, USA NRHP<citation> Freemasons<citation>
New York City Center (originally Mecca Temple) New York City, New York, USA NRHP<citation> Shriners<citation>

Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, your concept of "Landmark status" would be a Wikipedia neologism -- and thus is unacceptable. As for scope, there may be some value in a List of Odd Fellows buildings, although I believe the history and nature of these buildings is rather different from that of masonic buildings. More significantly, this list of masonic buildings is inherently plenty long enough without adding the topics of Odd Fellows, Elks, Moose, etc. Thus, if those lists are created, from a practical standpoint they need to be separate.
Aside: I presume you aren't thinking about including university fraternity houses in your list, but I have a feeling you would have a hard time explaining why they don't belong. --Orlady (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further ruminations... A further concern I have with your nice-looking table is that the proposed table's emphasis on which fraternal order a particular building is associated with would only encourage the misconception that the building's notability is derived from its connection with that fraternal order. --Orlady (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just use listed buildings and identify what's meant by listed in the introduction.
Notwithstanding the inevitable resistance to expanding the scope of the bodies that might be appropriate that column does provide us with an opportunity to identify whether the building is Masonic, Appendant, Associated etc.
ALR (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The term "listed building" has essentially the same issue as "landmark status." "Listed building" has a specific and definite meaning in the United Kingdom. If this same term were used by all jurisdictions that maintain heritage registers, then it might be appropriate for Wikipedia to use it for all buildings that are listed on heritage registers, but it isn't a universal term and it would not be appropriate for Wikipedia to use it for buildings that are on heritage registers that don't use that term. Furthermore, not all notable buildings within the scope of this article are on heritage registers (for example, Zetland Hall is not, and Masonic Temple (Chicago, Illinois) was torn down before heritage registers existed).
PS - As persistent as the Freemasonry editors are in fighting the perceived misuse of the word "Masonic," I hope that you appreciate that there are contexts outside Freemasonry within which the definitions of terms need to be respected. --Orlady (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Can you come up with a suggestion that encompasses what we're trying to say?
How about we just say notable?
ALR (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By convention, Wikipedia lists such as this one do not use "notable" in their titles. That is a given -- but it typically is stated in the article's lead section. To see what I mean, look at List of bow tie wearers and List of grain elevators -- two lists that include only notable examples of the topics named in their titles.
IMO, the title List of masonic buildings (note lower-case m) works well. --Orlady (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a person unfamiliar w/ masons, and writing 1 handed due 2 feeding a baby, i think the order idea has some merit, but not as proposed. but first, do these different orders exist outside the u.s./canada? eg throughtout asia/europe/etc? if so, then rather than having a column, use different orders to break up table into smaller more manageable ones. a table for Odd Fellows, Elks, Moose, etc.... tables if applicable for Masonic, Appendant, Associated etc. tables for historical ties. i'm not sure of how to break it down, but the breakdown could be done in a manner that helps solve the question of defining what is/isn't masonic. there could then be notes added to each table not references, but notes similar to those found on here. The notes might be usable to clarify issues. EG a hall that was an Odd Fellow for decades, but has now become an Elk. Or a Masonic Hall that belongs to a group that has been "excommunicated" or "broke away" from others. again, tryin to think outside the box to find a viable solution for all.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NRHP proposal

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

Congrats for typing so well with a baby in one arm! I don't believe that this proposal would resolve any of the issues here. Not only is the list scope broader than the U.S. National Register (there are buildings in Canada, the UK, Hong Kong, Bermuda, and other places, as well as buildings that aren't listed on any heritage register), but the Freemasonry editors appear to object to any use of the term "Masonic building" in any article title, except possibly in a directory-type list of buildings where meetings are currently being held. --Orlady (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a suggestion that has merit, although I'm not sure it's easily extensible as the buildings projects in the main don't appear to break down in that way. What it does do is capture the notability rationale easily in the title and then sub-categorises according to that. In an effort to broaden the on an official list of important buildings notability criterion away from the NRHP list there have been a couple of suggestions above, but there are objections to having that clarity in the article title. If you've got any thoughts on how to capture that nuance in the title that would be useful.
Unfortunately the issues around this article are as much around evidence and indeed what the sub-categorisation is. There is an assumption that Masonic Building is an adequate proxy for four sub-categories; Freemasonry, Appendant bodies that have their own infrastructure but meet in a ritual format, non masonic bodies that have some form of association (however tenuous) and other buildings that a source claims is Masonic.
Personally I think a list of Masonic buildings should only talk about Masonic buildings and if we're going to talk about the other three categories then the article topic and title should reflect that. A fairly simple matter of clarity and accuracy. I can see an argument for conflating the first two categories, particularly if the article was made US specific as that's where the 40 or 50 appendant bodies are consolidated into two overarching administrative structures and have their own infrastructure. The latter two sub-categories are starting to develop a very weak association with Freemasonry.
ALR (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preference for Neo-Classical?

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

Touché! That sentence is not a finished product. My introduction was, to a significant extent, a framework for future content. Much needs to be filled in -- hopefully by people who know (and care) more about architecture than I do. Material I have read (but not noted down, because I had no intention of writing this article) has led me to understand that various observers have linked Freemasonry to architectural revivalism in various forms (ostensibly related to a reverence for great achievements of the past), including use of Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Moorish designs and design elements. The point to be made in this article is not that Masons like neoclassical architecture (or Egyptian Revival, or any other particular style), but that observers have attributed some sort of relationship between Freemasonry and architectural style. I believe that the fact that various experts have claimed to to define "Masonic architecture" is a significant source of notability for this list article.
When I was trying to put together the intro, I read a review Curl's book (I have not seen the book, but it is quoted and discussed in the review at this page) and concluded that it helped to support a statement about the fact that some observers have ascribed various characteristics to "Masonic archicture," and I focused on Curl's claim of an association of Freemasonry with neoclassicism. (Confession: Architectural history isn't my expertise, and when I wrote that I forgot that Egyptian motifs, which are also mentioned in the review of Curl's book, are not included in "neoclassical".)
Consistent with your comment that the association with neoclassicism is due more to the fashions of an era than to Freemasonry, I note that Curl's analysis seems to have been focused on the late 18th century, when neoclassicism was in vogue. Indeed, the review that I read takes issue with Curl's analysis, saying (in part): "Curl concludes by positing a Masonic style, a way of seeing and expressing built upon the fraternity. Its 'stylistic aspects,' he asserts, 'depend on nuance, on hints, on feeling, and on mood as much as anything' (p. 226), and can be seen in Mozart's Symphonies Nos. 39-41, the late eighteenth-century utopian neoclassical architects who stressed geometric purity, and the United States Constitution. 'A Masonic style is an amalgam of many things, but it has a distinctive flavor that is instantly recognizable once the subject has been studied and understood' (p. 229). This argument is difficult to evaluate...."
Upon reflection, that review is a better source for this article than Curl's book, although I think that someone should get hold of Curl's book and cite it, too. --Orlady (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will respectfully request that you not cite books you have not read. I am going to remove the statement. It is clearly your own OR based on what you hope the source says rather than what it actually says. Blueboar (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation of sources

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

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

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

On reviewing that article, I see that the Washington Monument had its cornerstone laid Masonically, and the White House had several blocks in it that has Masonic marks (presumably the Square and Compasses). Nothing to do with the architecture of the buildings. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F381942318