Talk:Masonic Temple (Lahore)

[Untitled]
its sad and clearly the violation of civil rights —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.34.57 (talk • contribs)

sources and development
Much of the text in this article duplicates text at this Alberta, Canada webpage. There is a copyright violation to deal with by editing, assuming that the Alberta webpage is the source or that they are both copied from somewhere else. --doncram (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This page is over a year younger than the other, so the direction is obvious. rm'ed, and now there's almost nothing about the building in the text. MSJapan (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How do you tell the age of the Alberta webpage? And, MSJapan, given that you have prodded and AFDd this article and have a clear position opposing its existence, please do not edit the article to prove your point.  Please allow other editors to address the probably copyvio and other sourcing issues by normal editing.  I reverted your hasty edit.  It would be better to reword and cite the Alberta page, if that is an acceptable source.  Is the Alberta page acceptable as a source? --doncram (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the question on the age of the webpage, this person's main page about Lahore has a 2009 date. My guess is that MSJapan is assuming that the date applies to all the subpages linked from that main page. That assumption isn't necessarily valid, of course. --Orlady (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Alberta author (RNoor?) seems to have developed a useful list of "Lahore Sites of Interest" at . The author seems to be accepted as a source, at least in the form of an external link, in other Wikipedia articles such as Lahore Railway Station.  Does it seem the page is a valid source?  At a minimum, the author seems interested in developing the topic, and could be willing to share photos if contacted.  I don't think deleting the article is the way to make it better! --doncram (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We can't use personal websites per RS, and policy is also clear on copyvio. MSJapan (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Kipling
In the AFD discussion, First Light provides great connection to Rudyard Kipling and Kim. Quoting: "Needs more references for the content that's there, but it certainly looks like a historical and notable building, based on the sources already in place. Heck, it must be notable simply because the building is mentioned in the very first page of one of the very best stories ever written, Kipling's Kim. It's also where Kipling (a noted orator, among other things) gave his first speech, and it's mentioned in this biography of Kipling. First Light (talk) 03:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)"

I haven't looked at the other sources, but I think a quote, even a longish one, from Kim would be very appropriate to include in this article. I vaguely recall that mystery in the opening of the book; it is neat to learn here about the reality of the place. These are the kinds of connections that wikipedia is great about making. Thank you to First Light! --doncram (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As observed elsewhere this building was not built until well after Kipling had left India.
 * Freemasonry is a theme within Kim, and his fathers association with the craft is a component, however I would suggest that it's inappropriate to include a description from a work of fiction, that may have referred to a predecessor building in a different location from the subject of this article.
 * Actually, reading the source it's not clear that Kipling is actualy referring to a building at all. It seems more likely from the phrasing that he's talking about a travelling military lodge, associated with the Regiment that his father belonged to.  The pillars referred to are figurative in this context.
 * ALR (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Kipling never set foot in the building that is the topic of this article. The building was built in 1914 and Kipling had left India by then.  I am deleting the section as being irrelevant at best, and misleading at worst. Blueboar (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Freemasonry in Pakistan
I'm inclined to remove the various bits of rhetoric about Freemaosnry in Pakistan as it's not really all that important to this article, except insamuch as a single statement around the government nationalising the building in 1972. does anyone have any objections to that.

ALR (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the "Dismantlement of Masonry in Pakistan" section or something else? Silver  seren C 16:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Information on the history of Freemasonry in Pakistan is valuable context that is relevant to this article. However, the POV on the topic needs to be removed. (I removed the POV from the lead section.) --Orlady (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it looks fine now, with the extraneous information removed. Everything else in there now seems relevant to the topic. Silver  seren C 16:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the last of the noise is now out, there is still the paragraph alluding to the prohibition and the nationalisation of the building.
 * ALR (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sindhi/ Punjabi issues
Is there any way to validate some of this. Lahore is firmly in the north of the Punjab Province of Pakistan, but the building is claimed to be in use by the Sindhi government. Sindh province is at the other end of Punjab province so notwithstanding what the sources appear to say there is an intellectual point that doesn't make sense. Sources don't appear to pass a common sense test.

Any thoughts?

ALR (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the article you are looking it probably is discussing the Freemasons building in Karachi... --Orlady (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The most recent edits attribute the usage and renovation to the Sindh organisations.
 * I think you're probably right on that aspect.
 * ALR (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's right. The building we're talking about here is the office of the Punjab Chief Minister's Secretariat. The Dawn and Times sources are both referring to the Karachi Mason building. First Light (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Fundamental reading failure on my part on that Daily Times story. Apologies to all. There are enough real issues here without me introducing spurious ones. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think most of us have done something similar on Wikipedia. I know that I have :-) First Light (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, is it discussing the wrong lodge? Sorry about that. :( Silver  seren C 18:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Jeffers source
Has anyone actually read this source to be sure that it says what it's asserted that it says? The line referenced appears to be from something that Kipling himself wrote and it seems odd that it's in an expose type book.

ALR (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The article accurately states what is in the source. The source (the link in the footnote goes directly to the right page) has two excerpts, one from Kipling's Something of Myself and one from a letter by him to the Times of London. First Light (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Clearly region specific, all I'm getting is a synopsis that makes it look very dubious. So in practice the sources aren't the Jeffers book, it's the primary material written by Kipling.
 * ALR (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What's 'dubious'? First Light (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The tone of the synopsis leaves me uncomfortable about the emphasis and use of the primary sources. But if all we're using it for is as a proxy for what Kipling himself said then there are other sources that could be used.
 * ALR (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's just a proxy for what Kipling said, so other sources would work just as well - though I see nothing wrong with using Jeffers for this purpose, since he's a reliable secondary source. First Light (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Question re: lodge/hall conflation by Kipling
This is truly not meant to be a POINTy question but when Kipling refers to the Hall/Temple as "the Masonic Lodge" in Kim, does anyone have an explanation for his conflation of lodge and building? Is the strong distinction between the two that is being argued for a modern development or was Kipling, as a mason, just in error or not being precise? Abby Kelleyite (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to be rather common for people to refer to the buildings where Masonic lodges meet as "lodges". --Orlady (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Kipling describes a building, and we're using commentary on the story to infer that he means the Lodge, not the building. Reading the story itself the narrative isn't entirely clear as it mixes a physical building description with a more speculative description of boys potential initiation.  The description in the story is much more oriented towards the father being a member of a Regimental Lodge, rather than the Lodge that meets in the building described.
 * It's a fairly key plot element, the fact that Kim is a Lewis offers him certain opportunities, meaning that he makes certain choices at various points.
 * Kipling was quite speculative in his Masonry, the interleaving of literal and figurative is quite common. Which makes it very difficult to use his fictional work as a source.
 * ALR (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The "clearance-certificate" is "a receipt from a Masonic Lodge", and enables Kim to attend the Masonic Orphanage, though in the story he declines so he can attend a better school. The "Regimental Lodge" apparently describes the Masonic Lodge that members of that regiment belonged to, for clearly Kim's father was a member of that Masonic Lodge. It's an important story point, in an important story, by an important author, so it's certainly notable for this article. First Light (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is an article about the building, built in 1914. Well after Kipling left India.  It's not an article about the story that he wrote.
 * Kipling was a member of the Lodge that built that building to replace the one built in 1856, that Kipling would have had responsibility for as Secretary.
 * Having just read the first page of the story again I'm even less comfortable, although I'll need to reread the whole story. We're using a one liner from a commentary on Kipling to state that he a very brief description of a building meant Kiplings own Lodge.  There are a number of potential issues there, not least because the wording is such as men practiced....  He then goes on to describe an initiation based around a Regimental Lodge.  At the time Regimental Lodges were peripatetic, they didn't have a building but met as and when they could and where they could.
 * The Regiment is Irish and as a result their warrant would have come from Dublin, not London.
 * Notwithstanding the fact that we're now padding the article with peripheral information there are too many potential issues to state this with any degree of confidence. We could of course attribute the opinion that the line refers to the building demolished before the one that the article refers to.
 * ALR (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As noted at the AfD, this article is about both the lodge and the building. The two topics are intertwined. The lead section includes both topics. IMO, the article deserves to be renamed, but that should not be done until the AfD is over. Please don't eviscerate the article just because the content is broader than its title. --Orlady (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * ALR, of course you are right about the building, so the two Kipling/Kim sentences should focus on the Lodge. As Orlady points out, the history of the Lodge and the building(s) are intertwined. First Light (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally I remain unconvinced that the Lodge is notable, since it fails to meet the demands of the GNG being dependent on a single source. I also remain unconvinced that the few sources we have about the building meet those demands either, although I do recognise that most editors apply a fairly lax threshold for non-trivial treatment.  Notwithstanding that the AfD votes mean that we end up keeping the topic.
 * Conflating the two in order to pad out the content is, in my opinion, intellectually fraudulent, but we have to make the best of the standards that others apply.
 * My interest is accuracy, clarity and the avoidance of Original Research, which this section feels like at the moment.
 * ALR (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Charing Cross (Lahore neighbourhood)
Whilst fooling around with this topic, I discovered (and linked to) Charing Cross, Lahore. That article needs work, too. It turned out to be a copyvio of the article Transformation of Urban Open Spaces of Lahore: From Charing Cross to Faisal Square, so I deleted most of the Wikipedia article text. However, that source has a lot of good content that can be used in writing an acceptable Wikipedia article about Charing Cross, as well as documenting this Masonic building (referred to in the source article as "Masonic Lodge") and other notable buildings of Lahore. --Orlady (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Anarkullee
Sources indicate that the first temple was at Anarkullee. This name appears in a lot of 19th century British accounts of Lahore. It appears to be an historical spelling of Anarkali, and thus might be related to Anarkali Bazaar in Lahore. Google Maps shows an area of Lahore called Anarkali that is about 2 km northwest of Charing Cross.

If somebody sorts this out with reliable sources, maybe the location could be clarified in this article. (Until then, it will remain a mystery.) --Orlady (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * datapoint from Dawn newspaper story (citing Lahore Recollected: An Album by F. S. Aijazuddin as a source for some of its information: "the old one on Lodge Road, where today stands the Lady Maclagan Government High School"). Abby Kelleyite (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC) The school is in Anarkali if Google maps is telling me true, so your surmise appears to be correct. . Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * These two non-RS masonic sites give the location of the original lodge as being in "Arnakali, Lahore, India" and "Anarkali, Lahore, in Northern India that is now Pakistan". And these Google search results confirm that Arnakali is and was part of Lahore. First Light (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Two buildings... not one
I attempted to clarify in the lede that this article is really talking about two buildings, not one. We have the 1850s building that Kipling wrote about, and we have the 1914 building that currently stands on the site. What links them is that they were both occupied by the same Masonic Lodge. My edits designed to make this clearer were unfortunately undone. I don't mind discussing both buildings in the article... but I think it is very important to be clear that we are talking about two distinct buildings. To conflate them is a misrepresentation of the facts. And given that my attempts to clarify were undone, I have to think that this misrepresentation is deliberate. Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead paragraph makes it clear that the article is about two things: A building, Lahore Masonic Temple, and the Masonic lodge associated with it, the Lodge of Hope and Perseverance No. 782. Every mention of the previous building associated with the lodge makes it clear that it is not conflating it with the current building. In fact, it does a good job of integrating it into the lodge's history and the fact that the lodge had a previous building, without confusing it with the current building: "The first Masonic Temple of the Lodge of Hope and Perseverance...", "The current Masonic Temple was built in 1914...", "Kipling references the original 1859 building...", "In 1914, long after Kipling had left India, the lodge demolished the building...". Now, it could be made even clearer that the history of the lodge shows that they were in a previous building, located in the Anarkali section of Lahore, etc. As a neutral outsider to Masonic articles, I find the article's current approach to be clear and natural. First Light (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you are going one step too far in the chain of connection. We have a building... we have a group of men associated with that buildings... and then we have a man who is associated with the group.  However, the man is not associated with the building.  There is a disconnect in trying to link all three things together in one article.  It is sort of like quoting George Washington talking about the Presidential Mansion in Philidelphia in an article on the White House.  I just does not fit.  It would fit in an article about Presidential Mansions in general... but not in one centered on the White House.
 * Now... I see two ways to resolve this... 1) make the article purely about the lodge... and include a section on "Places where the lodge has met". It would be appropriate to discuss both buildings in such an article (this assumes that an article on the lodge would pass WP:N) or 2) broaden the article so it is about two buildings.  Then Kipling can be used as a note worthy reference in discussing the the older building.  But as things stand, trying to mix all three ends up confusing the reader and misrepresenting the facts.  Blueboar (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I still disagree. The history of the Lodge is absolutely entwined with Kipling, the older building less so, but still so. I certainly wasn't confused reading the current version, so assuming that readers will be confused is a wrong assumption, imo. Also, I see no misrepresentation of any facts, since everything is quite clearly explained. First Light (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we will have to disagree then... because when I read it, it definitely seems to imply that the new building is notable because of Kipling. I would not be so concerned if this were not the case.   Blueboar (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * At the moment the wording reflects the paucity of sources. I would agree that it somewhat overplays most of them to imply some form of independent notability of the topic, however abuse of weak and trivial sources is endemic across Wikipedia.  In my opinion a large part of that is the assumption that media sources are inherently reliable, which flows through to notability based on peripheral treatment or sources that are assumed to be reliable, rather than assessing the source as an individual entity.
 * I would suggest that if it were not for the assumption of inherited notability derived from Kipling this article probably wouldn't be close to retention.
 * Lets facer it, Wikipedia is chock full of abject sh!te. This article, weak as it is, isn't at the bottom of that pile.  Whilst it's based on pretty questionable foundations it's adequate.  What would concern me is that it becomes treated as precedent for conflating buildings and lodges, something that's already happening.
 * We don't know what Royal Arch, Mark, Mariners or other orders met at the building. It's not out of the question that there would have been Scottish and Irish lodges meeting there as well as the one discussed, along with their appendant bodies.  I have a feeling that the US editors haven't picked up on the fact that it's only in the US where the appendant bodies have significant infrastructure of their own, and HRA, MM and MMM were all prevalent in British India.  I've been having a dig around for that but I suspect I'd need to add to the Original Research already in the article to bring much of that in.
 * Notwithstanding all of that this dead horse is in need of no more flogging.
 * ALR (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar has also gotten feedback on this exact topic at User talk:Orlady and at Articles for deletion/Masonic Temple (Lahore). It is an article about a building and an organization, and all other editors agree that is reasonable. There is apparently little more than a date available about an earlier building at a different place. I don't get why this is so hard to understand. There is no support for "making the article purely about the lodge" or to "broaden the article so it is also about two buildings". I don't understand why Blueboar wants something different. I don't suppose it is either a pro-Masonry or anti-Masonry position. Is it a position simply against? Anyhow, the decision seems settled. --doncram (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No I do not have a pro-Masonry or anti-Masonry position... and no I am not simply against. I am for an article that is about two buildings and the lodge that is a link between them.  Believe it or not... I am actually trying to improve this article.  Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Confused
OK, given the most recent edit, I am quite confused... was the building owned by Albert Victor Lodge ... Hope and Perseverance Lodge... both? (and if the last, at the same time or at different times?) Please enlighten. Blueboar (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OK... I have found out a bit... it seems Prince Albert Victor Lodge was a "lodge of Past Masters" (an archaic term for a research lodge) that was founded in Lahore in the 1890s. They apparently did meet in the building.  Blueboar (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)