Talk:List of Masonic buildings/Archive 6

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


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


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


 * Is there anything that corroborates that this body is actually masonic? I'm not finding anything more than business registrations for the organisation, and a mention in the Bessel site.
 * Given that there is already a Prince Hall meeting place I'm a little sceptical, although it's not out of the question that it's schismatic from PH. One of the reasons for my scepticism is that the photo of the altar shows it has a cross on the front.  The information about the remodelling isn't comprehensive and it's not out of the question that the altar space is related to some kind of church, given the photo that's a lot more likely than any form of masonic use.
 * Given the paucity of reliable information this listing looks a bit of a stretch.
 * ALR (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * RE the Sons of Haiti... given that they are listed on Bessel's webpage, I think we have to consider them to be, at least, an organization that claims to be Masonic. As for the cross in the picture... we know form the currently cited source that the Sons of Haiti rent part of their space to a church.
 * Orlady, thanks for posting the the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board document... the document makes it clear that the significance of the building is its history as a community performance venue, and not its tie to Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Bessel also lists both RGLE and Grand Lodge of all England. Both of which needed the office cat to Tyle.
 * And a point of detail - Rented, they no longer own the building and I'm left feeling that they're probably defunct.
 * ALR (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So the Sons no longer even own the building? That makes inclusion even more problematic... we have a case of a building that was originally built for a non-Masonic use... subsequently purchased by a Masonic group (although a Fringe Masonic group) and renovated for their use... but has now been renovated again for a non-Masonic use. Sigh... we really do need to come to some sort of consensus on inclusion criteria.  I really have a problem saying that this qualifies as a "Masonic building".  The current "if (at any point in the building's history) the building had any sort of connection (no matter how tenuous) with the Masons (loosely defined) then it qualifies" criteria just isn't acceptable.  Surely we can reach a compromise and agree on something that neither side of the never ending debate will love, but both sides can live with?  Perhaps we could get a neutral arbitrator to help us achieve this goal? Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's no more tenuous than some of the other stuff on this article. You're on a hiding to nothing trying to get any intellectual rigour or standards to underpin this article.
 * ALR (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Strangely that wiktionary entry doesn't include the most common usage, in that a proposal has no chance of success. An alternative may be flogging a dead horse.
 * In this instance we have no reliable sources to allow us to assure the statement that this building has a Masonic significance.  I've raised a number of questions about what the implications of a single statement might mean, but we have nothing to corroborate or inform our use of the statement.
 * I would remind you, yet again, that it's appropriate to comment on the content, not the contributor and I'd be grateful if you could comment on how we corroborate the single statement in an otherwise pretty comprehensive document.
 * ALR (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, i thought ALR's statement "You're on a hiding to nothing trying to get any intellectual rigour or standards to underpin this article" was a first salvo here, and that i was just replying in kind, pointing out implicitly the insulting nature of that comment. Maybe that was more general besmirching of other editors here.  I don't grok fine distinctions you might be trying to make, of when commenting on others amounts to personal attack and when it does not.  Maybe i should have just asked which editors specifically were meant to be addressed by the intellectual rigour comment, instead of taking offense myself.  ALR, who specifically did you mean to insult?  Or, would you suggest that it is a collective stupidity here, a function of the collective nature of editing and the presence of some legitimate differences in values, that results in unreasonable, poor outcomes, i.e. that there are no specific individuals at fault?  I rather thought you meant an insult directed at me and others whom you personally blame, and that you wish to hold yourself and Blueboar blamefree. --doncram (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a number of both systemic and specific weaknesses in the Wikipedia model that mitigate against rigorous quality assurance of article in general. Those apply to both the development of policy and guidance, and the mechanisms in place to support their adherence.  Specifically the  verifiability policy is a joke, as a concept that underlies all content we start from very shaky foundations as it essentially promotes the weakest available sources to a position of unqualified supremacy.   Notability is also extremely weak, as it essentially allows single sourced but widely duplicated trivia to be notable whilst more selective publication of significant information is not notable in Wikifantasyland.
 * The majority voting approach to decision making mitigates against policy and guideline improvement and has a corrosive effect on the support processes. Decisions based on voting don't examine the rationale behind a vote so we end up basing decisions on sheer weight of number, not quality of debate.
 * The corpus of material becomes dominated by badly written trivia with contentious topics becoming convoluted and unreadable in an effort to remain compliant with what passes for policy in an effort to please everyone.
 * I hope that clarifies, my issues with the approaches to content management are long standing and well documented.
 * ALR (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

My opinion at this point would be that since the Masons didn't build it, they don't currently own it, and lent little notability to it while they did own it, it shouldn't be in this list.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Per the above, I just removed it, but it was reverted by Doncram. Anybody else care to share their opinion? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already said I don't think it belongs... but despite what I have said above... given the current "any association with Freemasonry at all, no matter how flimsy or speculative" inclusion criteria, I would say we have to include it. There is an association with Freemasonry.  We just need to make the reader aware of precisely what that association is... ie we need to include explanatory text that notes how the building was originally built and used by a non-masonic (but fraternal) group... subsequently purchased and used by a masonic group... then sold again and is now owned by a non-masonic organization and used for non-fraternal purposes.  (this is something that will go in the Notes section when we convert to chart format).
 * That said, if you want to revisit the inclusion criteria.... I certainly would not object. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Per wp:BRD, I noted SarekOfVulcan's removal as a bold move, which i reverted, and now we are to discuss. Immediate re-removal is not part of BRD.  I'm not sure of protocol when BRD gets off-track, but I will return it now.  The previous discussion took place prior to  Articles for deletion/Sons of Haiti AFD process for Sons of Haiti which ran from SarekOfVulcan's nomination on October 7 to conclusion October 14 with Keep decision.  I believe that clarified that Sons of Haiti is a black Masonic organization.  Washington Hall is a notable building and provides representation for that organization here, just as the one building associated with Order of Women Freemasons provides representation here for that other Masonic organization.  I believe that including both enrich this list.  I believe also there are a number of buildings included here which were not originally built by a Masonic group, and/or which no longer serve as a meetingplace. --doncram (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The OWF Headquarters is currently, and has for some time, been home to a Masonic organization, so its inclusion is not at issue here. Washington Hall, as pointed out above, was not built by or for a Masonic organization, does not currently house a Masonic organization, and from all evidence we've seen so far, was never primarily known for its association with a Masonic organization. The Sons of Haiti AfD is irrelevant, because this is a list of buildings. Hence, I see no reason to edit war to include it in this list, unless you're trying to make a WP:POINT. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose this comes down to a simple question... is the association of the building with Freemasonry "significant"? (that is the word we use in the lede to describe our inclusion criteria). Understanding that "significant" is a somewhat subjective term, are there sources to support the view that there is a "significant association" between Washington hall and Freemasonry?  Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the building belongs on the list. Like WP:Notability, "Masonic" association isn't temporary.
 * Moreover, this building's Masonic association was not brief. Washington Hall belonged to, and was used by, the Sons of Haiti for many years (somewhere between 37 years and 52 years, depending on the source you choose to believe). Most people would think of 37-52 years as a long period of time. Additionally, it was largely during the Sons' ownership that the building's auditorium acquired its notability as a music venue (and possibly also as a center for African-American cultural activity in Seattle).
 * FWIW, I didn't think there was enough RS documentation of Sons of Haiti to support the article (YMMV), but it's clear that the Sons are a Masonic group, and there's plenty of documentation for this building. --Orlady (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the article, the Sons of Haiti bought the hall in 1973. Out of the three artists mentioned in the article, Duke Ellington died in 1974, Jimi Hendrix in 1970, and Billie Holliday in 1953. Martin Luther King and WEB Dubois, who both spoke there, have similar issues. Therefore, I don't think it was under the Sons of Haiti's ownership that it acquired its venue notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

HQ of the Order of Women Freemasons
this building is apparently Listed which automagically denotes notability. It's the HQ of the Order of Women Freemasons, so may potentially belong in this list. --ALR (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for suggesting that. This regards 27 Pembridge Gardens, an address in Notting Hill area of London.  I can't find it in Heritage Gateway searching for it though.  Can anyone else see if it is a Grade I, Grade II*, or Grade II listed building or find any other info about it? --doncram (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


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


 * The OWF web-page ;)
 * In the absence of the listing it's difficult to tell much about it. The OWF have been there for a long time so the listing probably post-dates any infrastructure work that they did.  It contains two meeting rooms for masonic purposes, although again it's not clear if one of those is set aside for other orders rather than craft use.
 * In those terms it has no more of a masonic connection than most of the entries on the page.
 * ALR (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Thanks ALR, Rod, and Peter I. Vardy for info. I used the links to make a short section about the building within the Order of Women Freemasons article, and created redirects 27 Pembridge Gardens and Headquarters, Order of Women Freemasons to that section.  I also added the whole article to Category:Grade II listed buildings in London.  I added it to this list of Masonic buildings, but don't see a list-article of Grade II buildings to add it to.  I think this is now done well enough, given the info available.  Thanks! --doncram (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Question... are "designated" buildings (or "listed" buildings... or what ever the correct term is) in the UK considered "inherently notable" the way NRHP listed buildings are in the US? If so, then I would suggest undoing the redirect, and creating a stub article for 27 Pembridge Gardens... (it would link to the OWF article and vise-versa).  That way we would avoid confusing the notability of the order with the notability of the building. (if "listed" buildings are not considered inherently notable, then we have a different issue to discuss).Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI... I have done this. Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Comments on chart

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


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


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


 * Clariosophic asked for it to be worked on somewhere public -- like here. Leave it for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Doncram, the only entry in my sample that does not have a citation to support the information is the building in Lahore... (and the only reason I did not include one is that I am not sure which of the several citations that exist at the main article would best support the information here).  Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is it written that each entry must be supported by exactly one citation? Cite several. --Orlady (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That works for me. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The current version of this table looks pretty good to me. Looking ahead, however, I am anticipating that we will have some difficulty figuring out what continent Bermuda belongs to. --Orlady (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been thinking about that... we have the same question with the Canary Islands (which are part of Spain... but not in Europe). My suggested solution would be to include them both in a sub-chart section entitled "Atlantic and Caribbean islands" (we don't have any entries for the Caribbean yet, but that might change). Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I've never been to the Canaries and I don't know a whole lot about them, but because they are part of Spain, I think they should be included in Europe. Bermuda, on the other hand, is not part of the United Kingdom, so your "Islands" category may work for it. --Orlady (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems like we have moved on from Asia. I have moved that section to the holding pen and I will post the Islands section so everyone can see what it would look like. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks ready to be moved to the mainspace. clariosophic (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

a question on implementation
From the comments above, I think we have a consensus approving of the idea of conversion over to a chart format (if someone disagrees, please do speak up)... the next question would be implementation. I see two options... 1) review and reach a consensus on the entire list, and then carry out the conversion en-mass ... or 2) review and reach a consensus on each "by continent" section, and convert each section as we go along. (If the latter, I would suggest we break up the review of the US buildings by state and convert as they become ready). Your thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say review each section first, then move it to a subpage here. When it's ready, move the whole table to the main article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean create something like Talk:List of Masonic buildings/Conversion to chart format to hold "approved" sections?... that would work for me. Good suggestion. Any objections? Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK... I have done this. Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

comments
Arrgh... I am trying to put a for the new section, so people can see that the material is properly sourced... it works fine in preview mode (ie it gives me the two references cited the new section)... but for some reason it does not work when go live and save it to the page (it repeats the references for the Asia section). Obviously, this will not be a problem once we convert on the main page (we will have one reflist for the entire article, as you can see at the Talk:List of Masonic buildings/Conversion to chart format holding pen). I think the glitch is just a function of breaking it down here (having more than one reflist on a page may confuse the software). I have made this work before, but I don't remember how. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's because there can only be one reflist on a page.clariosophic (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A solution would be to transfer Asia to the mainspace, so the reflist list wouldn't be a problem.clariosophic (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Resolved by using instead of Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

After reflecting on the fact that the only listings for "Europe" at this time are in England, Scotland, and that one in the Canary Islands, I think it might make sense to step back from the idea of grouping the list strictly by continent. (What's the purpose of a "Europe" category if there are no entries on the continent of Europe?) Accordingly, I suggest (1) clustering the UK entries under either "British Isles" or "United Kingdom" (I think "British Isles" would be the better choice, both because it is a geographic grouping and not a political grouping and because it would be useful if it turns out that there are Masonic buildings in the Republic of Ireland or the Isle of Man; I don't know it the Channel Islands could also be included under "British Isles") and (2) retitling this new table to "Atlantic Islands" for now ("Caribbean" could be added later if there's anything in the Caribbean to be listed in it). --Orlady (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The 2-item chart for Bermuda and the Canary Islands looks very nice, but I'm not especially thrilled with "Atlantic and Caribbean islands" as a region designation. As has been noted, the Canary Islands are officially part of Spain, so by rights that entry belongs to Europe. Additionally, in spite of the scope of the title, the table doesn't include any properties in the Caribbean...
 * hmmm.... as for having a "Europe" header if there are no entries on the continent... Don't we assume that the list might grow and change? For example, I would assume that the Paris headquarter buildings of the three major Grand Lodges in France (the Grand Lodge National de France, the Grand Lodge de France, and the Grand Orient de France) would probably be notable (although that is just an assumption). Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe there are other notable Masonic buildings in Europe (you would be more likely to know that than I am). It just seems grandiose to create a list structure that accommodates elements that don't exist... --Orlady (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... that leads to another question... we don't currently have any entries from Africa, South America or Australia/New Zealand ... should we assume that there are notable masonic buildings in those locations, and create (currently) empty sub-charts for future entries? Or should we wait until we actually have an entry and then create a sub-chart for it. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't create empty tables. --Orlady (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional thoughts: The heading "Building's history" places unnecessary (and unreasonable, I think) constraints on the content of the notes column of the table. Change that heading to "Notes" -- that way, it could include information on the building's history, but it could also discuss topics such as architecture, unusual features of the building, predecessor buildings that were destroyed, etc., as appropriate for the specific entry. There's plenty of precedent for this use of the title "Notes", as it is used on featured lists of buildings (see, for example, List of tallest buildings in Minneapolis and List of castles in Greater Manchester). --Orlady (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't object to "notes"... but Clariosophic indicated a preference for leaving such details to the individual articles.  I think he has a point... We do need a column (whatever we call it) where we explain to the reader what the association with Freemasonry is (as an association with Freemasonry is the criteria for inclusion) ... but other than that, do we really need to duplicate details that can easily be found by clicking on the link to the individual articles? Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Gosh, I wasn't aware that Clariosophic owned this page -- and (based on my past interactions with Clariosophic) I have a strong hunch that Clariosophic also would not claim to be in charge here. Regardless of that, I also don't see any indication that Clariosophic directed that the last column must be title "Building's History", nor that the table must not include any nonhistorical information. Actually, what Clariosophic advised earlier on this talk page was that the column title be "Notes" or "Description," which is what I'm also asking for. I am not saying that all available information on the building needs to be included in the "Notes" column, but rather that there should be no preconceived limitations on what kind of information should be there. --Orlady (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've learned long ago that no one owns pages. I agree with Orlady on the Notes, etc. Perhaps add things that might intrigue the reader to go to the articles, e.g., a famous person or event associated with the place, etc. Right now I'm working on trying to expand the Penang article. clariosophic (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK... great... then unless anyone else objects (which I don't expect), I think we can say that there is consensus for the column header "Building History" to become "Notes" and that it be open to adding whatever details are deemed appropriate. I'll make the change (we can easily undo if someone objects) Blueboar (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This just leaves Orlady's question on the issue of where to place the buildings on Bermuda and the Canary Islands (which I tried to resolve by them their own "Atlantic and Caribbean islands" header). Again, the issues are 1) Bermuda is sort of off on its own and does not fit in any other classification. and 2) the Canary Islands are politically part of Spain and thus could go under "Europe", but geographically they are not really part of "Europe".   Any other suggestions? Blueboar (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I favor the geographical approach rather than the political. The Canary Islands aren't part of or adjacent to Europe. France also has overseas departments in the Caribbean and Oceania, which it considers integral parts of France. Obviously they are not parts of the continent of Europe. On another note, let's stick with Europe as a category and not get into the can of worms of UK vs British Isles. These are historic Masonic buildings in the Republic of Ireland. As noted above there are historic Masonic buildings in France itself. clariosophic (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Europe

 * Comment - Since the Canary Islands are part of Spain and Spain is a country in Europe, if there is going to be a Europe table, the building in the Canary Islands needs to be in the Europe table. (Similarly, if there are any Masonic temples in Siberia, they should be listed under Europe, rather than Asia, because Russia is considered to be a European country.) --Orlady (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The rest of Spain may be in Europe, but is it correct to say that the Canary Islands are in Europe? It is sort of like saying that that Saint Pierre and Miquelon are in Europe because they are part of France and the rest of France is in Europe.  Blueboar (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Question - What sorting principle was followed for arranging this table? I can see that England is before Scotland, but I can't perceive how sorting was done within England and within Scotland. --Orlady (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No sorting principle was used (yet)... I simply entered them into the chart in the same order that they were listed on the current bullet pointed list. Feel free to fix it your self... otherwise I'll do so later. Blueboar (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK.... now alphabetized by city/town. Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Yes, I have issues with it. The only issue related to the table structure is my contention that if the scope of the table is Europe, it ought to include Spain, namely the building in the Canary Islands. The larger issues have to do with content. First, there are images of many of these buildings (look for them in the articles about the buildings) that ought to be in the table. Second, the information in many of these notes is dull as dishwater. The factoid that a building was "Purpose built as a Masonic hall" may be the factoid that has led the Freemasons among us to accept that the building is a Masonic building, but it does not explain why the rest of the world would be interested in the building -- nor why it deserves to be discussed in an encyclopedia. I realize that Blueboar doesn't much care about the aspects of buildings that make them interesting to people, so I don't think there's any purpose in nudging Blueboar to write better descriptions, but the need for better descriptions exists... --Orlady (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK... I will hold off for a bit... Feel free to add information that you think is missing. As long as we explain the Masonic association (and thus why it is on this particular list), I don't really mind us saying more than that. Blueboar (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added a couple of clarifications around the schools, since the Masons is a meaningless statement. I've also caveated those that have no known or corroborated Masonic use whose place in the list is based on speculation.  I appreciate that it's highly likely that this will be immediately reverted because the absence of evidence is itself not evidenced, but I do dispute that these buildings even belong in the list at all so think that they should be caveated.
 * ALR (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Clearly there was an objection to placing a caveat around the former church in Rochdale.
 * It would be useful to find some way of caveating the inclusion, since we don't actually have anything that suggests that it is a Masonic building. we don't even have reliable speculation that it's Masonic, only a local newspaper report that it has Masonic symbols.  Given that even the Square and Compass aren't exclusive to Freemasonry it does strike me as a bit of a stretch to jump from a barely reliable source that asserts one thing to a conclusion that's only vaguely related.
 * As above, whilst the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence it is contrary to the Constitutions of UGLE to meet in a church.
 * ALR (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the building was built to be a church, it was not purpose built as a masonic hall... inclusion, therefor can only be justified under it having a "significant association"... I have to agree with ALR. I don't think the association is significant enough. However, I do understand that others might disagree.  Perhaps an RfC is in order to get a broader sampling of opinions? Blueboar (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


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


 * How about we try something along the lines of The church has never been used for Masonic purposes however a regional official for English Heritage has identified the decoration as historically significant?
 * My concern is that we've now degraded our standard for inclusion so far that we've now got a building that was privately commissioned by by a freemason and decorated according to his wishes. It doesn't have any association with any Masonic body, has never been used by a Masonic organisation and appears to have been funded on a private basis.  Given that set of circumstances I think we could work to find some way of presenting it appropriately,
 * We have one primary source stating that the decoration is significant, you're stretching the bounds of intellectual rigour and propriety to represent it as something it's not.
 * ALR (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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


 * Are you spelling Wickenburg correctly in your investigations? I ask because when I Google "Masonic" and "Wickenburg", I turn up lots of obituaries for men who were members of a Masonic lodge in Wickenburg (apparently the lodge there is Hassayampa Masonic Lodge 37). Then there's this list of Arizona Masonic lodges, --Orlady (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Orlady... This is getting interesting. So we know from the obits that a lodge did at least exist in Wickenburg at one time... and we have another local lodge's website saying it currently exists... however, the relevant Grand Lodge says it does not currently exist. As far as current existence goes, I would tend to call the Grand Lodge more reliable (as GLs are more authoritative and up-to-date.)  I am speculating here... but lodges do shut down and return their charters, and this may have happened with Hassayampa No. 37 (and if so, it would explain why the GL does not list it).
 * Now all we need to do is reliably tie Hassayampa 37 to the building in question (just to be sure that Wickenburg didn't have two lodges at one point... unlikely, but possible).
 * By the way, I just want to make it clear that I am not challenging the inclusion of the building in the list... I simply have questions about what we can reliably say about the building in the Notes section. In this case, the citation request is just that... a request for citations (and more information)... not a challenge. Blueboar (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * About the drafted Wickenburg description, that is unacceptable for various reasons, some previously discussed in this Talk page and its archives. For one it includes reference to private website "NRHP.COM" instead of NRIS;  NRHP.COM is just a copy of NRIS (see archives, see wp:NRHPhelp.)  The drafted description erroneously accepts from NRIS, then, that "department store" is a "current" use of the building, when the data NRHP.COM has copied from NRIS is from the date of NRHP listing, in 1986.  For another, it makes a negative assertion based on Blueboar's failure to find positive information about something;  that is unreliable and unacceptable as has been discussed for another research matter or two where Blueboar was unable to find any info.  For another, whether or not a Masonic Lodge meets at the place is probably not noteworthy in this list-article.  For another, these assertions are not made in the article for the place, where positive mention of a place being a Masonic Lodge meeting place  according to some Grand Lodge directory could possibly be acceptable.  To actually say something substantial, one approach would be to obtain the 1986-era NRHP nomination document, available for free upon request.  I rather assume no one will obtain that anytime soon, because:  I am not that interested, i am guessing that Clario is not that interested, and I think no one else participating at this Talk page has ever requested and obtained a NRHP document that is not available on-line.  Anyhow, there is no urgency to manufacture something to put in the Notes/description column.  It can and should just be left blank if there is nothing noteworthy to say yet. --doncram (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Doncram is right:
 * (1) NationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces.com is not a good source to cite. It is simply a private mirror of the federal government database (it is not a source in itself), and we have discovered errors in the website's rendering of some of the data.
 * (2) There is no need to fill in the "Notes" cell of a table row if there is nothing worthwhile to say at this time. It certainly is not a good idea to engage in original research simply in order to fill in a table cell. --Orlady (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't like NRHP.com... feel free to replace it with a better source. It was simply the only source I could find for what the current status of the building is.
 * I would object to leaving the Notes section completely blank (in the long term... I don't mind if it is blank temporarily, while we work on improving the chart)... we do need to justify inclusion (ie explain what the association with Freemsonry is). If we can't do that, then we should remove the entry.  We can always re-add it when someone manages (or bothers) to come up with a source to support inclusion. Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

According to Peoria #31's "Golden Scroll":
 * Bagdad merged with Hassayampa Lodge No. 37 in 1993 and Hassyampa merged with Peoria Lodge No. 31 in 2005.

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


 * Thanks Sarek... that helps with the end of the story (logical assumption: during one of these merges the building was sold). The next thing is to try to find out the beginning of the story... whether the building was purpose built as a Masonic hall, or whether it was something else before the Masons had it. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * woops... Huston, we have a problem... I used Wayback to access the GL website from 2005 (here)... which lists Hassayampa Lodge No. 37 and gives an address of 470 Rose Ln.... However, the NRHP says the address of the listed Masonic Hall in Wickenberg is 108 Teneger... This could be either North or South Teneger St.... while N Teneger does intersect with Rose Lane... 108 is no where near that intersection. This means that Hassayampa Lodge may not be the lodge after all (or it could mean that they did meet in the historic building at one time... at some point moved to Rose lane... and then in 2005 merged and closed shop).  Two steps forward... one step back! Blueboar (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Some thoughts: While Peoria is a suburb of Phoenix, Wickenburg is NOT. See [Google Maps] and you'll see there is a lot of empty desert between Phoenix and Wickenburg, which is almost on the county line with Yavapai County. See also the  NRHP Nomination Form for Wickenburg MRA] under the topic Social there is a discussion of the social and fraternal history. The only other Masonic related body mentioned  is a Shriners group. At the time of listing in 1986, the building was not being used as a Masonic hall. I find it unlikely that Wickenburg had more than one Masonic lodge. The low No. 37 would indicate it as one of the earliest in the state. Bagdad Lodge No. 54 was in Bagdad, which is in Yavapai County. clariosophic (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary to delve into the history of Masonic lodges in Wickenburg. Since the place was a boom town at one time -- in an era when freemasonry was more popular than it is now, it's entirely possible that it had multiple lodges in the past. Regardless, that Wickenburg MRA is a good find. It provides (on page 18), ample information to document that the Masonic Hall was built for Masonic purposes. It states:
 * A popular gathering spot which functioned as a sort of gentleman's club around the turn of the century was the old barber shop... This early informal clubbing gave way to organization of the Knights of Pythias Lodge and Free and Accepted Masons. A 1917 newspaper article chronicles the need for a two-story business block because both fraternities charters called for meetings to be held on the second floor, and none was available. The call was met soon,after, however, with the construction of the Masonic Hall building (1-15) on Tegner Street, now [this would be 1986] the location of Montgomery Wards. This building is also noteworthy as a rare local example of the concrete frame with brick infill method of construction.
 * --Orlady (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


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

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


 * Wow, that is definitely an issue!
 * In my experience, the National Register listing names often are not good names for articles. The NRHP listing may have been done 10, 20, 30, or more years ago, and the listing name often is no longer the most common name, if indeed it ever was. This is the clearest case I've ever seen of a building whose article name should not use the NRHP listing name. The NRHP listing was done in early 1989 before the new El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium building had been completed, so the name was valid at that time, but that is no longer the case. IMO, the article should be renamed to Polly Rosenbaum Building without further ado, and the article and this list should both discuss the previous name and the history (as discussed at this source), including the fact the Shriners have a new auditorium that uses the same name. (BTW, the building is named the Polly Rosenbaum Building, according to this source. The fact that it houses the museum does not necessarily make the museum name into the name of the building.) --Orlady (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree it should be moved, and have made it a formal RM request at the talkpage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

comments on Arkansas buildings
As you can see, I some questions regarding the Masonic history/connection of some of these buildings... Hopefully someone will be able to come up with the answers. Blueboar (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see that you have inserted far more information in this list than exists in most of the individual linked articles about the buildings. (Ideally the articles should be more informative than the list, not the other way around.)
 * Also, I find it odd that while the most salient fact in most of the articles is that the building is listed on the National Register, but that's nowhere mentioned in any of your propsed list entries. The fact of National Register listing is not wildly fascinating (IMHO, anyway), but it seems more encyclopedic than "purpose built as a Masonic hall" or the fact that the Masonic lodge met on the second floor... --Orlady (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So fix it... That's why we post it here first. The reason why I add the information about the building being purpose built as a Masonic hall, etc is to substantiate that it meets the inclusion criteria.  I have been focused on substantiating why the building qualifies as a "Masonic Building"... The information that I put in the notes is what I think needs to be stated in order to do that.  I agree that it isn't very interesting, but I think it is necessary. (without such substantiation, we might as well rename this List of buildings that are listed by the NRHP with a name that includes the word 'masonic')  If you or other editors want to add other stuff, fine.  That is how we end up with a good article. Note that no matter what we do, it will be an improvement on what the list currently has.   Blueboar (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Arkansas state agency: Here is the NRHP page for Arkansas Historic Preservation Program. Click on Search the National Register Listings in Arkansas, then choose the county and wither enter city or name. When the building comes up click on its name to get the full listing clariosophic (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added refs for the first and last ones in the table. Some agency in each state reviews the NRHP nominations before they are sent to the NPS. Some states, e.g., South Carolina, have put on the net extensive pictures, text and a copy of the actual NRHP nom. form for each property in their state.clariosophic (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Searching for Arkansas properties may be easier just by pulling up the whole county. Unfortunately not all listings have more than a squib. The Yell one for instance is not clickable. It does give an alternate name for the building. clariosophic (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Clario... those are good additions. Blueboar (talk) 00:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

NRIS references in Masonic buildings articles
Working from the index of Masonic buildings in this list-article, Blueboar started on a new editing campaign to change the standard NRIS reference in Masonic buildings articles, in about 20 so far. I asked him at his Talk page, i hoped politely enough, to stop. He has now agreed to stop.

The topic has been discussed abundantly in the archives of this Talk:List of Masonic buildings article. Various alternatives have been discussed which are better than the way Blueboar has edited these (notably he deletes the mention of the National Park Service as publisher, and he drops the cite web formatting). The leading replacement candidate, as i recall, was something like simply dropping the url given in the cite web reference. B did open a thread recently at wt:NRHP, about new instances of NRIS footnote, which did not get any response. Could editors here please consider contributing to that discussion (at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places), now to expand also to address old instances of the standard NRIS reference? --doncram (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Suggest that this be moved to wt:NRHP, since the edits in question were not made to this article. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

drafted tables
I removed to Archive 6 the drafted tables and some discussion from November, all older than the 30 day or whatever Mizrabot archiving set for this page. Perhaps Mizrabot can't archive a section that big.

There was some good development in those drafted tables which is worth capturing in articles. I notice many footnotes developed with sources about particular places that are not included in their individual articles.

Also, there were multiple other assertions in those drafted tables, like that places were "purpose-built" (not an English language term with which i am familiar) that are not supported by their articles.

Overall, i don't think the drafted tables were or are ready to be considered as a proposal to be brought into this list-article, because of those mis-matches between articles and what is said in the tables. The table descriptions should not contain anything not supported in the individual articles. That is one of several criteria previously discussed for developing tables to be included in the list-article. That specific problem could be addressed by a lot of editing in the individual articles (and by removal of assertions about "purpose-built"ed ness). I would support the articles being improved. --Doncram (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That reminds me that I need to continue the project of conversion to the tabular format. Got busy working on other things. Blueboar (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

table-izing in list-article
In these edits i converted the Virginia section into table-ized format. If this is okay, i may proceed slowly to table-ize other U.S. sections into one big U.S. table. Please note: Comments welcome. --Doncram (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The table format follows format used in List of Elks buildings and a number of other list-articles.
 * The format is basically what i suggest now for application in the entire U.S. section. The first column shows # signs for now, is meant to show a numbering of rows as in the Elks building list-article eventually.  When there are more states included in the table, the "city, state" column entries will be modified to use template:sort so that the column can be sorted by state then city.
 * The edits basically did not add any new assertions, but rather moved text already in this list-article, which had sources and has been verified by many editors' cumulative scrutiny, into the table format. All assertions are sourced by inline references.
 * The edits did add coordinates from the corresponding articles. I think the coordinates do not need separate inline references, as being factual and non-controversial.
 * The edits added, in a dates column, year built and (where relevant) year NRHP-listed. These are factual and are taken from the corresponding articles;  i don't think separate inline references are needed.
 * I started with this section because it was relatively well-developed already and was not already drafted by Blueboar's drafting of sections.
 * In going forward to other state sections, I would plan to edit to only include information already in this list-article plus information supported by inline references that can be taken from individual articles indexed. Where there is already a section drafted by Blueboar, I would first try to capture any new information in Blueboar's drafts to put that into the individual articles, then proceed in the same way.  If there is no sourced information in good form to use, i will leave a description blank.


 * At a first glance it looks good. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, good. I further tackled Alaska and Alabama which are easier in some ways and harder in others, adapting from Blueboar's drafts for those, and in the process editing the corresponding articles to capture information in those drafts.  Applied some other copyediting.  I hope/think these are okay and reflect only supported info now in articles.  Unless there is other feedback, i will plan to work along slowly this way. --Doncram (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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


 * Thanks Robert for commenting. They do appear to be good candidates to add.  I see the German wikipedia article is here.  And it has external links to:
 * this blogspot.com webpage that includes multiple photos and more information, and
 * this stlouis.missouri.org webpage about the history of the Lindell neighborhood (the above-posted info is copy-pasted from there, as Robert notes)
 * I think it's enough info to add them to the list here, although actually starting separate articles should perhaps require a bit more.
 * Further, i note this waymarking site suggests the New Masonic Temple is a contributing property in the NRHP-listed Midtown Historic District (St. Louis, Missouri) (currently a red-link). NRHP nom doc for that district would be one source to get.  And this postcard calls it "magnificent", and i agree!
 * That's a very good start for us, thanks! -- do ncr  am  23:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The articles we need, i think, then are:
 * Scottish Rite Cathedral (St. Louis, Missouri)
 * New Masonic Temple (St. Louis, Missouri) (or New Masonic Temple?)
 * Moolah Temple of the Mystic Shrine
 * Help developing these would be appreciated. -- do ncr  am  13:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Articles started. -- do ncr  am  15:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


 * Anyhow, while I am sure someone could craft something better still, the description "Library, museum and administration building whose dedication was asserted to be 'the most important event in Iowa Masonry' during the 20th century!" is IMO pretty obviously more interesting than "Library, museum and Grand Lodge administration building I think the assertion is interesting, even if it is puffery.  But, what event in Iowa Masonic history of the 20th century does anyone possibly think was more important?!?! -- do  ncr  am  02:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it is obvious that two editors disagree with you. so is there a compromise we can reach?
 * As for what might be considered more important than the dedication of the building... I think the 1944 centennial celebrations of the founding of the Grand Lodge would be a good candidate. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


 * That's a good point that the U.S. list is now a large majority of the article, and splitting by U.S. vs. non-U.S. will leave the U.S. chunk still very large. But at least it is developed out, and won't grow too much more, too fast.  The non-U.S. portion could grow by expanding out into tables with pics and descriptions and so on, as Blueboar was developing in draft form.  So splitting U.S. vs. non-U.S. does make some progress at least.
 * Thanks, that's a good suggestion about how to do the split, with attribution in the edit summary. Another consideration, come to think of it, is that there are dozens of wp:ANI and wp:3RRnb and other discussions that link to here or to archives of this Talk page, and avoiding breaking all of those links is desirable.  I don't mind leaving all that behind, in my going on to continue to develop a newly splitoff article of the U.S. list. -- do  ncr  am  14:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, good point. Thanks. Leaving it here would be better, then. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So the suggestion is now to split off the non-US buildings? What would we call that article? Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That was my suggestion, but I withdrew it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah... OK... then what is the suggestion?
 * I do have to at least make an alternative suggestion for people to think about ... We could bring the list back to a more manageable size if we narrowed our definition of what constitutes a "Masonic building"... limiting it to those buildings that were/are purpose built to house Masonic bodies, as opposed to those that are/were built as something else and are now merely occupied by the Masons. (I am not trying to re-open old debates here... just making the suggestion). Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)