Talk:Grand Lodge of Idaho

Notability

What makes this organization notable? According to WP:ORG (and specifically WP:ORG#Non-commercial organizations) we need reliable third party sources, and sources that are independant of the subject to establish notability. This means we can not simply assume that because it is a Grand Lodge it should be considered notable. We can not even rely on what the Grand Lodge webpage says... we need someone else to say that it is notable (or at least establish that there is something notable about it). Blueboar (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Last call for additional sources. Blueboar (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

NRHP listed lodge buildings

I see information about historic buildings is being added to the article. Why? These buildings are not owned by the Grand Lodge... they are purely local lodge buildings and really do not have anything to do with the Grand Lodge. Blueboar (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This comment is obvious. Question of association of the buildings is pretty clear in what is actually now in the article:

The Murray Masonic Hall built in 1884, the Coeur d'Alene Masonic Temple built in 1909, and the Hailey Masonic Lodge built in 1937, are listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. These buildings may or may not be associated with the Grand Lodge historically or currently.

"National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. 2009-03-13. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)

I am the one who revised the mention in the article to that, responding to another editor's having added an NRHP infobox for one. Seems like the comment is for the sake of argument? But, you don't know whether your assertions above are true. You don't know what their extent of involvement with the Grand Lodge is. I suggested at the first editor's talk page that he/she collect the relevant NRHP nom docs which would address that; you are welcome to, also. I don't think this needs to be resolved before the outstanding AFD is resolved, and may not comment further. Please don't delete positive material from the article while the AFD is ongoing; it just confuses matters when you have already taken a position in the AFD. --doncram (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly my point... we don't know whether there is any Grand Lodge connection to these buildings (although I can tell you from my own experience as a Mason that such a connection would be unlikely). And without a direct tie... and especially with an AfD currently going on... mentioning them appears to be attempt to improperly bolster the notability of one topic (GL Idaho) by piggy backing on the notability of another (NRHP listed buildings). To be honest... I don't think the fact that a few lodges meet in historic buildings is worth mentioning in any case. This is an article about an organization... in that context mentioning buildings is simply trivia. I am going to remove...if this survives the AfD, we can revisit. Blueboar (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I reverted Blueboar's edit, which had re-added inappropriate material and removed accurate statements. Others' views would be welcome. --doncram (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

First, what "inappropriate material" did my edit re-add? AFAIK, I only removed material. Second, I am not challenging the accuracy of the statement... I am challenging its relevancy to this specific article. Why would someone reading an article about a Grand Lodge need to know that two of the lodges meet in NRHP listed buildings? That information is trivia in the context of this article. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

My statements have been 100% clear: you re-added inappropriate material and you removed accurate statements. Look at the changes more carefully. My questions to you: 1) What part of "Please don't delete positive material from the article while the AFD is ongoing; it just confuses matters when you have already taken a position in the AFD." do you not understand? or do you mean to disdain that request, and if so, please explain why you feel that is necessary and supports the development of Wikipedia. 2) Are you are interested in expanding knowledge about the Grand Lodge in Idaho and/or the notable Masonic buildings in Idaho, or are you against that, and relatedly, do you want to just cause contention or do you want to build good information?

If you want to build good information you could obtain the free NRHP documents for each of the NRHP-listed buildings, per instructions I have personally given to you many many times, and which are recorded for you here. Obtaining those documents and finding out from them the facts that would allow for improved discussion of the relationship between the Grand Lodge of Idaho and those buildings, and for other development about the Grand Lodge generally in this article (as you know from other NRHP documents, there is often general discussion of history beyond description of the building, and listing of highly relevant sources such as Grand Lodge history documents which could then be obtained). That's a positive way forward. Your behaviors of deletion, responding to reversion of deletion, challenge by tags, arguing at talk page in an ultimatum type way, repeated deletion, etc. make for a much less positive way forward. If something matters so much to you, and there is a more positive way forward, then I think you are being unnecessarily disruptive in the sense described at guideline/policy wp:pointy. Please stop the behavior, or please discuss how you believe your behavior is better than getting the stupid information that is relevant. --doncram (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I will ask you again... what "inappropriate material" did I re-add"? I have made exactly two edits to this article... 1) I removed a short paragraph that I think is irrelevant to the topic... 2) when you returned that paragraph, I tagged the paragraph so others could know that it was challenged and under discussion. Neither of these edits were inappropriate. Neither re-added anything.

Now... please discuss the issue at hand... In what way is the fact that two lodges meet in NRHP buildings relevant to a discussion of the Grand Lodge? Blueboar (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In contrast to Blueboar's statements just above, looking at the edit history I see 3 recent edits by Blueboar and at least 2 older edits by Blueboar (including one prod of the article). This edit by Blueboar added material and removed material. It re-added the NRHP infobox which a different editor had added, and it removed the sentences that I put in. I had removed the NRHP infobox in this edit with this edit summary "revise to provide a sourced statement about Hailey Masonic Lodge being NRHP-listed, without duplicating infobox that is at its article, which puts in automatic categories, etc." It is aggravating dealing with Blueboar now, as on other occasions, because it seems necessary to explain and re-explain obvious things that have been explained clearly. I clearly said: look at your edit and see what you readded. Did you look? Look again. See, you re-added the infobox. That is the material you re-added. How can i be more clear. About other demands/ultimatums/etc., I don't have infinite time and patience to keep explaining. Blueboar seems to be editing-while-angry and is not reading the edit history and/or is not reading the statements on this Talk page and/or is misunderstanding clear English. --doncram (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for finally giving a dif. now that I know what you are talking about, I can respond. Looking at the edit, I realize that the edit did return inappropriate material... all I can say is that I did not intend to do so. I honestly have no idea how the info box re-add got into my edit, but I apologize for the fact that it did. My intent was purely to add the relevancy tag. Blueboar (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have re-added the relevance tag as there is still dispute over the relevance of the paragraph (even with the sentence removal). My suggestion, since the tag is designed to create discussion, which both primary parties so far involved seem to want, is that we let the tag serve it's purpose - which is to promote a broader discussion so a consensus is reached. Hard to do that without noting that a discussion is taking place (hence the reason the tag was created), thus, I hope the tag is not removed again until a discussion with consensus is reached.

I am kind of curious though why the article was brought to AfD by an editor who is making edits in attempt to improve it. It's either non-notable ("Notability not established.") and no matter of edits will change that - or it's notable and should not have been brought to AfD for the reasons it was. So, on that matter I am confused. Should we close the AfD as an error?

Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 21:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing tags

Doncram... the point of tagging material is to let other editors know there is an issue. In this case it was to let other editors who come to this article (such as anyone who comes here due to the current AfD) know that the relevancy of a specific paragraph has been questioned and is being discussed. Standard practice is to leave tags in the article until the issue is resolved. I really must object to your removing the tag while discussions over the relevancy of the paragraph are on going. I am not going to let you bait me into edit warring ... Instead, I request that you return the tag to the article yourself, and leave it there until the relevancy issue is settled. Blueboar (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Has the relevancy issue been resolved by the removal of the last sentence in that paragraph ("These buildings may or may not be associated with the Grand Lodge historically or currently."), or is it the paragraph itself that the relevancy is being challenged on? If it was that sentence only, then it's removal would warrant the removal of the tag. If it's the paragraph as a whole, then the tag should go back in until discussion on the matter has concluded. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 17:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No... the issue is not resolved. It is the paragraph as a whole. I see no reason to mention buildings owned by the local lodges (whether listed on the NRHP or not) in this article unless it can be established that there is some relevancy to the the Grand Lodge. I repeat my request that Doncram (or someone else) return the tag. Blueboar (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know which Blueboar intended, necessarily, and I chose to interpret it as mostly questioning the 2nd sentence. The first sentence is entirely factual. I do believe that Blueboar has successfully, clearly raised on this Talk page the question of what is the relevance for this article of its mention of several notable buildings. I don't believe that it is necessary to mar the article with tagging to point out the obvious. I believe that it somewhat insults the intelligence of readers and editors, to point out in a heavy-handed way that the factual sentence about 3 NRHP-listed buildings does not actually itself explain the relevance. To be clear, as my 2nd sentence clearly stated, the connection is not clear. Even without my 2nd sentence or a tag, it is obvious that the connection is not clear.

Also, I am mildly confused by Blueboar's statements on this Talk page that 2 of the 3 buildings are locations of Grand Lodge meetings. Which two? Blueboar, would you please now disclose clearly your source for that view? If Blueboar has such information from a source, then I would think that could be used to explain, in the article, that much of a relationship, while leaving further development for later. It can be clearly called for, on this Talk page, that additional clarification of relationship is still wanted.

Given that I never made the statements you attribute to me... I can not respond to your request. Are you confusing me with someone else? Blueboar (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No. Spell-ing it out in sim-ple words. At one point above Blueboar states: "I don't think the fact that a few lodges meet in historic buildings is worth mentioning in any case." This implies that Blueboar believes that a few lodges meet in historic buildings. Since he uses present tense, it seems he means that they meet currently, i.e. that he has different information than I would have put into any article about the buildings themselves. I don't know whether or not his statement and these implications are true. No statement about the buildings being current meeting places is in this article about the Grand Lodge of Idaho, or has ever been asserted by me.

At another point above Blueboar states: "Why would someone reading an article about a Grand Lodge need to know that two of the lodges meet in NRHP listed buildings?" That seems to imply he knows that 2 of the lodges (currently?) meet in NRHP-listed buildings.

Please spare us any accusations that these 2 quotes are out of context. They are exact quotes. Please see, on this page, where they are from.

Please spare us your accusations that what i said you said is not perfect. I do not apologize for my stating that i was confused about Blueboar's assertions on this Talk page that "2 of the 3 buildings are locations of Grand Lodge meetings". It would have been more perfect for me to say that I was confused about Blueboar's assertions on this Talk page that 2 of the 3 buildings are locations of lodge meetings. In the context of this Talk page with the statements right here on this Talk page, my question should be clear. Blueboar, do you have a source or not about the statements you made regarding 2 being meeting places (and implicitly that one is not). I do take it, at this point, that you do not.

I hope that this explains my question. It seems most likely now that it was your misstatements on this page which, naturally, cause confusion about what you know, and that I asked about. Please state if this explanation of your confused statements, and how that led me to ask what you meant, is too confusing to you. --doncram (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, from experience with Blueboar's behavior, I have every reason to believe that B's adding a tag to material in an article is a precursor of B removing the material a few days later, with or without further notice here. He has used tagging as a form of ultimatum upon other editors, to fix something which he deems necessary, or else. Here, he has a clear way forward to fix the information himself, namely to obtain the free NRHP nomination documents that would provide means for him to clarify the relationships he questions. I removed the tag in part towards heading that expected next behavior in a few days. If Blueboar would clarify here that he wishes to add a tag but promises not to remove the material until he has obtained the NRHP documents and shared information about them, then I would be more amenable to the tag being in the article. (However even then I would not think it necessary or helpful to have the tag in the article, besides for purpose of appeasing this one editor.) Blueboar, could you please answer the question in discussion section above, or this new question here: since it is your issue, would you please collect the documents that would resolve the issue? --doncram (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You are still missing the point... I am asking what the relevancy is... all you need to do is explain what the relevancy is. If you can do that, I will remove the tag. It's that simple. Please don't say "go look in the documents you don't have"... if you have documents that say these buildings are relevant, then explain to us what they say. Blueboar (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

NRHP buildings... still an issue

Given that my question as to the relevance of mentioning the three NRHP listed buildings was never answered, I removed the mention. Doncram has returned it. It now reads:

• At least three historic buildings associated with Freemasonry in Idaho, the Murray Masonic Hall built in 1884, the Coeur d'Alene Masonic Temple built in 1909, and the Hailey Masonic Lodge built in 1937, are listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.

I am not challenging the accuracy of this information... I am challenging its relevance within the context of this article's topic. These buildings are owned and operated by local lodges, not the Grand Lodge. So, I ask again... what is the relevance of this information to the Grand Lodge of Idaho? Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I perceive the article to be a bit broader than just the organization/officers of the Grand Lodge itself, extending towards being about the history and extent and so on of Freemasonry in Idaho. Note there is a complete list of individual chapters, which are also not exactly about the Grand Lodge itself. It happens there are 3 NRHP-listed Freemasonry buildings, presumably all from chapters within this Grand Lodge; they are the tangible representation of the history of this Grand Lodge in Idaho. The relationship could indeed be described better if one would obtain the available NRHP docunents to be able to explain more. However i think what's there is a reasonable start, and its accuracy is not disputed. Discussion about who should get the stupid documents has gone on before, seems not too productive to continue. --doncram 14:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, then we need to have a more substantive discussion about the scope of this article... I definitely do see the focus of this article as being about an organization (that includes discussion of its development, history and structure, but is limited to the organization itself). The intent is not for this to be a broader article focused on anything and everything related to Freemasonry in Idaho (that would be an article entitled something like "Freemasonry in Idaho").

I would be happy to remove the list of lodges... although that list is appropriate because there is a direct organizational tie between the lodges and the Grand Lodge. I suppose it would be analogous to including a list of the fifty US States in the article on the United States Congress.... such a list could be seen as being directly relevant to the topic of the article. But the same is not the case with the buildings. The buildings are several steps removed from any tie to the Grand Lodge. To continue the analogy... We don't note which State capital buildings are on the NRHP in the article on the United States Congress. This is because the historical or architectural status of State Capital buildings are not relevant to the topic of the United States Congress. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

As we both know, I previously nominated this article for deletion and you prominently supported its deletion. So we're not the best two parties to expand or to enforce decimation of this article probably. I would tend to want to defer to editors actually working to develop the topic positively. Are there any Grand Lodge articles you do like and would suggest as models for how this could better be developed, though? --doncram 20:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we may be back to our old debate as to whether removing information can or can not be seen as a "positive" edit... as you know, I think it can be. I definitely want to avoid this turning into another "Blueboar vs. Doncram" head-butting contest... so I am very willing to defer to third opinions here. Perhaps we should formulate a neutral notice to be posted at both the NRHP and Freemasonry Project... notifying others that we can't agree on whether this info is relevant or not, and asking them to comment.

As for a model GL article... no, I can't really name one... I think most of them are awful (little more than stubs)... but I do see a few with potential... I like the over all structure of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts article (it needs more in the way of sourcing however)... Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania is well sourced, but it is focused too much on trying to prove that PA is "oldest" and seems to ignore most of what occurred after the GL was founded (a flaw that is common to many of the GL articles). Grand Lodge of Virginia is very a promising start level article, but needs expanding. I have worked on the Grand Lodge of New York article somewhat... but it is still in very poor shape (I keep meaning to get back to it and expand... for example, the article definitely needs to discuss the various times the Grand Lodge splintered into rival Grand Lodges and then came back together... it happened at least twice, and each schism impacted how the GL operates today). Blueboar (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the constructive tone. Here, we already did butt heads, and did already ask for community input, and neither of us has done significant work to develop the article. Neither of us has "earned" the right to getting a lot of feedback; there's not much for anyone to learn from wider discussion without anyone doing work. So i think this is not a good article to ask for wide input upon. We should leave it for someone positively interested in developing it, and save our request for community attention for some topic where creative ideas / good wording others might offer would help resolve something. And, this is a low priority, low profile article. I think the info is okay (and i think it is relevant, depending on how the article is to be developed) and the tag questioning its relevance is okay (reflecting a different view on how the article is to be developed). Let's just leave it at that.

Maybe the general question could better be asked for a Grand Lodge article where the corresponding NRHP docs for associated buildings are in fact available online. There would be more info for us to try to work with, and for other parties to consider whether it works or not. --doncram 21:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, feel free to look that up... but for me the issue is very clear cut... is one specific bit of information relevant or irrelevant to this specific article. I think there are enough people at the NRHP and Freemasonry projects who are familiar with both aspects of the issue that we can get resolution one way or the other... so I am going to ask for their opinions and see if a consensus can be formed. If that consensus is that the information is relevant, no problem... we keep it. If the consensus is that it is irrelevant, again no problem... we cut it. It really is this simple. Blueboar (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar removed the information (altho putting in a See also link to the state section of List of Masonic buildings list-article, following some See also type edits by me in some other articles) and I returned it again. In my opinion it is valid, relevant info for an article about the Grand Lodge of the state and/or freemasonry in the state, and it is slightly more developed and better than a mere "See also" link. Why list the chapters and not the significant buildings? Some lodge articles have lists of significant persons associated with the lodge, which is similar. I don't think it is worth getting a lot of others involved in this case, but I also think this is valid info and it hurts the development of the article for it to be removed. Again, neither Blueboar nor i have put a lot into developing this article. --doncram 15:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Why list the chapters and not the significant buildings? Because there is a direct organizational connection between the Grand Lodge and the Chapters, while there is no direct connection between the Grand Lodge and the buildings.

Could you further explain your objection to shifting this to a See Also link?... This seems to be how you like to handle similar situations in the other Grand Lodge articles, so why is this article different? Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Seeing a comment at the talk page of the NRHP wikiproject, I came to share my opinion. Not having read in detail the sections above here, I think the mention of the buildings kind of flows with the surrounding text, though I think the NRHP paragraph should be combined with the one before and the one after it to reduce choppiness, and I think the "related to Freemasonry in Idaho" bit should be replaced with something more specific.

Some questions:

1. Is there any other masonic entity in Idaho? If not, then I would think it is pretty obvious that these three buildings are associated with the Grand Lodge. As such, I would see no reason not to include the sentence about specific buildings listed on the NRHP. If there is another masonic entity, more research should be done to find out which entity these buildings were/are associated with.
2. Are you objecting to the mention of any buildings? If so, the paragraph before and the one after should be removed IMO because they deal with buildings at least indirectly by mentioning the number completed by a certain year. If not, what's the big deal about saying that three of them are listed on the NRHP? Many other articles do this, even if that tidbit of information is little more than an interesting fact.
3. Not really a question, but to further elaborate on the ties of the buildings in question to the Grand Lodge, the NRHP nomination forms should be acquired from the NPS. I do, however, feel that the WP:BURDEN of that falls on the editor that is trying to add the information to the article... that means you, Doncram. While Blueboar is perfectly capable of acquiring the documents himself, he is not the one trying to justify inclusion of questionable material. If you want to add the material and assert that the buildings are relevant, you must provide the sources for that assertion, or Blueboar has every right to challenge it and subsequently remove it if no substantive evidence is provided to support the questionable claims.

Not really wanting to get into a big drama-fest as these things usually turn out to be, I'm going to leave my comments at that, though I'll watch the page for a while in case anything happens.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Dudemanfellabra. I think both Doncram and I are trying hard to avoid turning this into a drama-fest. To answer your questions:

1. Actually, there are some 64 separate Masonic entities in Idaho... ie each individual Masonic Lodge (a lodge is what other organizations would call chapter). Lodges are independent entities that are united under a Grand Lodge. To give you a sense of how Freemasonry works... The relationship between Lodges and the Grand Lodge is analogous to the relationship between local municipalities and the State Government ... yes there is a relationship, but there is also a separation. Saying there is a relationship between the Grand Lodge and a local lodge building is like saying there is a relationship between the State government and the local town hall.
2. I think you misunderstand... The surrounding paragraphs are discussing Lodges not buildings. The term "lodge" in Freemasonry is analogous to the term "congregation" in religion... it applies to the group of people, not their building. As I said before, Masons use the term "lodge" the way other fraternal groups would use the term Chapter. That explained... and to answer your question... I don't object to mentioning buildings in this article... I would not object to mentioning a building that had a direct tie to the Grand Lodge... say a building that was constructed, owned, operated, maintained, etc. by the GL, or one where the GL historically met. I just object to mentioning buildings that were constructed, owned, operated, maintained, etc. completely at the local Lodge level. Just as it is irrelevant to mention a local town hall in an article about a State government... so is it irrelevant to mention a local lodge building in an article on a Grand Lodge.

Hope this clarifies my concerns. Blueboar (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Dudemanfellabra has it basically right, that the information seems related and works. I think the article can usefully be about freemasonry in Idaho; it seems unhelpful to restrict the scope of the article narrowly and then eliminate information that is in the broader part of what is covered in the article. In particular, I don't suppose you'd support a Freemasonry in Idaho separate article, would you? If not, then it's fairly obvious we should let the broader topic be covered in this one combined article, in which case these most notable surviving historic buildings are clearly relevant. I don't happen to support creating a separate article on Freemasonry in Idaho, and would prefer it be covered in one combined article here, but there are sources which would support that as a notable topic.

At the opposite extreme, you could try to rule out any extra information about the individual lodges, such as their numbers and their founding dates and their locations and so on, as that info is not strictly necessary in an article about the Grand Lodge per se. I don't happen to think narrowing the topic of the Grand Lodge itself is helpful; it disconnects the topic from history and place and tangible things like buildings. Indeed, I do think, Blueboar, that you would still wish for deletion of the entire article. Is restricting the scope narrowly part of preparing for a new AFD, to be argued on the basis that there is too little to say to merit an article?

Note one source "History of the ancient & honorable fraternity of free and accepted..." by Stillson and Hughan, "Grand+Lodge+of+Idaho"&hl=en&ei=gpWzTPXqMMmongeasrH2BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q="Grand Lodge of Idaho"&f=false here, provides an encyclopedia-like entry for "Idaho", not one for "Grand Lodge of Idaho" though it covers that topic, and covers the first building, the first unofficial lodge and the first building, and various other lodges and a notable 3 story building at Salmon River, etc., as well as some Grand Lodge history. It's a good encyclopedic example to follow. --doncram 01:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean, Blueboar, about distinguishing lodges from the buildings in which they meet or have met, and I think the local/state analogy is kind of fitting, but I disagree with you that the mention of a local government building is not worthy in an article about state government. If there is a section in the state government article talking about collaboration with lower-tier governments, I think it would be completely relevant to mention that some of the buildings or former buildings were deemed historic enough to be listed on the National Register. In much the same way, this Grand Lodge article has a small section – the paragraph(s) that I see you have now combined – that talks about lower-tier entities (local lodges), so I believe it is perfectly acceptable to mention the fact that some of the buildings in which these lodges meet/have met are listed on the register. It may seem a bit WP:UNDUE at the moment if for no other reason than the article is still underdeveloped, but as the article grows, I believe these sentences will fit in reasonably into that section.

I don't think, however, that this is means to include anything and everything about freemasonry in Idaho; I never said that in my comment above. I think the article should stick to its title and talk about only the Grand Lodge, but if some other facts like NRHP-listing or perhaps some event at or in one of the local lodges are sufficiently noteworthy, there's no reason why these can't be included.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It's trivia, for the simple fact that the Grand Lodge does not and never has owned the properties in question. The association with Grand Lodge is strictly in the fact that the Lodges which meet in the buildings are subsidiary organizations of the Grand Lodge. The buildings would be more properly associated with the towns in which they are located. To place it here is like saying that a individual McDonald's franchise is worthy of being mentioned in the main article because its location is an historical landmark. The building has nothing to do with the contents - the McDonald's could vacate, and the building would still be historic. The same distinction needs to be made here. MSJapan (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it is fine and good to include links to these buildings and other NRHP-listed historic sites in articles about towns. It's not trivial trivia to mention them here; these are among the most historic, notable buildings associated with freemasonry in the state.

This article broadly can be about freemasonry in Idaho, although it is currently titled "Grand Lodge of Idaho". This is another source (perhaps already used in the article) which is titled Freemasonry in Idaho. So there are several sources on the topic.

One way to resolve this disagreement about covering some notable buildings or not, is to move the article to Freemasonry in Idaho and reduce the info about the Grand Lodge of Idaho to one section. Note the current article has a section on "Prince Hall Freemasonry in Idaho" which is also not about the Grand Lodge, and would more naturally appear in another separate section in the Freemasonry in Idaho article. --doncram 13:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"Direct connection" is the key... it is appropriate to mention the fact that the Grand Lodge of Idaho recognizes various Prince Hall jurisdictions, because that recognition was done by a vote of the Grand Lodge... there is a direct organizational connection. But there is no direct connection between the Grand Lodge and these buildings. The Grand Lodge has nothing to do with these buildings.

I strongly object to turning this article into a broad scope article about "All things relating to Freemasonry in Idaho"... This article was created to be, and should remain, a narrow scope article about a specific organizational body named "The Grand Lodge of Idaho". If something does not have a direct connection to the Grand Lodge, we should not mention it in this article. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Don, you're treading on other WikiProjects here, and what you are suggesting contravenes the way the Freemasonry WikiProject has operated for years. It is therefore not within your right to unilaterally decide that an article should cover things it never has without seeking a consensus first. "Freemasonry in X" articles should not be talking about buildings; they should be talking about the history of the organizations in whatever "X" is. You are attempting to create a focus on buildings relating to Freemasonry that doesn't even exist within the Fraternity itself. Grand Lodge articles should be talking about the history of the Grand Lodge in question and minimally about the premises in which it is headquartered. Moreover, on state-by-state basis, there is really very little that could be contributed non-trivially to such an article without sole reliance on primary sources held by the Grand Lodge, which focus on the actions and meetings of the Grand Lodge, not an individual Lodge. MSJapan (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I could reply ping-pong like to your every statement, but will reply briefly on just one point: Two sources, this Eaglerock19.com one and the Stillson and Hughan book's section on Idaho Stillson and Hughan's "History of the Ancient and Honorable Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons, and Concordant Orders", of 1891 are both seeming-to-me-to-be encyclopedic articles about Freemasonry in Idaho, and both include discussion of buildings as evidence of activity or otherwise. So it seems there is at least arguably sufficient justification for an article on that topic, including coverage of notable buildings, if some relevant info on the most notable buildings of the organization is not "allowed" here. Freemasonry Wikiproject members, of course, have no monopoly over editing of this article and what should be allowed, but MSJapan, could you clarify if you wish for two separate articles or just one, including some mention of the most notable buildings? --doncram 20:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither of the two sources you list discusses any of the three NRHP listed buildings we talk about in this article. I have no objection to discussing buildings in this article... as long as they have a relevance to the Grand Lodge... My objection to discussing buildings that have no relevance to the Grand Lodge. Blueboar (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

scope

...begging the question, WHY do you object to the article being about freemasonry in Idaho more broadly? And, what is your view about there being a separate article on that topic if this is not the place for anything but the narrowest treatment of the Grand Lodge as an organization? (Note if a separate article were created, i would propose a merger of this article into that broader topic, as the Grand Lodge could be easily covered within it.) --doncram 14:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Because "Freemasonry in Idaho" isn't a notable topic... Freemasonry in Idaho is essentially no different than Freemasonry in Montana, or Freemasonry in Florida, or Freemasonry in any other State in the US (and only marginally different from Freemasonry in England or any other "regular" jurisdiction). We already have articles that deal with the topic of Freemasonry in broad scope (the main Freemasonry article, the History of Freemasonry article, etc.) We simply can not justify a separate article for every US State ... that would be extremely repetitious.

Grand Lodges (as organizational bodies) however, are (sometimes) considered notable topics. As you know, I don't actually think this particular organizational body is all that notable, but an AfD indicated otherwise. The comments at that AfD talked about the subject as an organization... so it is the subject as an organization that is notable... not some broad scope concept of "Freemasonry in Idaho".

By the way... I would also question the relevance of these building in a broad scope article... To say they were relevant to "Freemasonry in Idaho" we would need to show that they played some sort of role in the broad history and development of the fraternity in that State. Did something important happen in those buildings? Did those buildings impact the fraternity in some way? The fact that the buildings are listed on the NRHP is nice... but in order to mention this fact, we need to show the significance of that fact in terms of the article topic? If there is no significance, then mentioning them is nothing more than trivia. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Umm, to state the obvious, Freemasonry in this state is not the same as in another state because it involves history of specific people and dates and buildings and individual lodges and the involvement of various Grand Lodges, that is not the same as the history in some other state. And, the building of major, notable buildings is a tangible demonstration of wealth and power and impact of the masonic groups involved. How could you fail to see that the massive Detroit Masonic Temple, for example, shows something about the past scale of freemasonry there? And likewise how could you not see that the scale of the major masonic monuments in this state (large or small) would show something about the past/current importance of the organization here? I think it's obvious these artifacts are informative about the organization.

About the AFD, it was closed upon my withdrawal of nomination, and the comments there shouldn't be overly weighted.

I'll grant that i am not eager to see Freemasonry in STATE type articles for every state. In general, I don't like to see article topics manufactured out of the intersections of states or time periods or other arbitrary divisions of the world, crossed vs. a general topic. It can seem like mass-production of topics, when really none are valid. I've seen this in a different context.

But here, given an article about the state-wide-scope organization, it seems that the article can usefully include illustrative other information about freemasonry in this state a bit more broadly. I don't know that it would have to set some major precedent about article notability that yields bad general outcomes, for the scope of this article to be a bit broad. I rather think, if there is going to be an article here, it would be better for having some coverage of tangible representation of freemasonry in the state, in terms of covering a few notable buildings. Again, another option if you won't let go of this, is to create the Freemasonry in Idaho article which I think would be defensible as a separate topic, given a couple sources available on the topic.

I also thought you thought you had means to obtain clear opinions of many others, so far not apparent. I don't encourage you to readvertise, but maybe we need to recognize there will not be a clear consensus obtainable on the subject of this article. Again, i note you are not really working to improve this article. Leaving info in is best for providing options and room to some future editor who would like to seriously improve this by use of real library or other research. As i have offered in other situations, i would tend to want to defer to the judgment of someone actually doing positive work, say to develop up a Good quality or FA type article. --doncram 22:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Why would I need to re-advertize. I posted my request for comments at the relevant project pages only two days ago... We have had two people respond so far... two comments in two days is not bad for an obscure topic like this... give it time.

Also, do me a favor... please drop your "I will defer to someone doing positive work" line of reasoning... it assumes bad faith. Removing irrelevant trivia from an article is positive work. Doing so improves the article. Blueboar (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

NO, I won't drop that offer, and sarcasm or criticism of it is not needed. I don't claim to have done majorly positive work with this article, but I will repeat that you have not either. I happen to think my expansion of the buildings info (which another editor had started with originally) is a minor positive contribution. Sure, i accept you believe that your removal of that info would be a "positive" negative contribution, though i disagree. But, i think it works well if less-involved editors agree to defer to more-involved editors actually expert or seriously interested in a topic who do the work to collect materials and to write. I wish you would agree to that.

I was not trying to be sarcastic... I absolutely think that trimming out irrelevant trivia is a very positive way to contribute to an article... its called editing (ok... that last was a bit sarcastic... but I do have a serious point... contributors to Wikipeida are known as "editors" not "writers"... so editing out material we don't think belongs is a fundamental part of working on Wikipedia). And given the number of edits we have both made to this article... I can not think of two editor who are more "involved" than we are.

By the way, i've added some info about the Hailey Masonic lodge group to the article about the Hailey Masonic Lodge as a building. I hope you won't battle there to restrict that article to be about one or the other. It seems better to have it be about both. Likewise, here, it seems best to have the article be about both the group and about evidence of its activity, such as its notable buildings. --doncram 14:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I will take a look at it. In an article about a building, I certainly would expect to find some info on the people who built it...... so I don't object on principle (without seeing what you added). Blueboar (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC) (Addendum: And having looked at it, I don't have any major issue with what you added.) Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)