Talk:Masonic Temple

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, 26 June 2010, see discussion. Relist, 26 June 2010, see DRV. Delete, 24 June 2010, see discussion.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Freemasonry This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freemasonry articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to join us in our labors, please join the discussion and add your name to the list of participants. The "Top of the Trestleboard" section below can offer some ideas on where to start and what to do.FreemasonryWikipedia:WikiProject FreemasonryTemplate:WikiProject FreemasonryFreemasonry articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. ◆  WikiProject Freemasonry's "Top of the Trestleboard": Improve to Featured Article status Freemasonry Tracing board Isaac Newton University Lodge Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia Operative Masonry Primitive Scottish Rite Add content to stubs… Check recently changed articles for possible improvement, to remove vandalism, etc. Requests [Watch this list] Articles for all United Grand Lodge of England-recognized Grand Lodges (if notable) Participate in articles listed for deletion Need images Scottish Rite York Rite Sovereign Grand Lodge of Malta New Article to be created Adonhiramite Rite Portuguese Rite Brazilian Rite Irish Rite Moorish Rite Rite Français Moderne Rétabli

Archives

Archive 1

Creating article

• This page was a redirect to the main Freemasonry article... but I think it is necessary to create a stub "definition" article on the term... This is inspired by the fact that the NRHP Project feels it is necessary to have a disambig page for buildings are listed on the National Registry of Historic Places as:

  * "Masonic Temple (Anytown, State)".

  (that article is currently at Masonic Temple, but I am trying to get it moved to Masonic temple (disambiguation) Most of the buildings listed on that page are red links at the moment... but since they are on the NRHP, they supposedly have some degree of notability, and it is remotely conceivable that someone will write an article on them.

  In any case, if we must have a disambig page we probably need a main article to disambiguate against. So this is it. Blueboar (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

• Hmmm... I am under the impression (which i fully admit could be incorrect) that in England they do not use the term "Masonic temple" (using Masonic Hall or, worse, Masonic Centre instead)... thus, I have to question the the picture and caption that we currently use. I think it would be better to use a picture of a building that is clearly called "Masonic Temple". Blueboar (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I swapped it out... and added a second pic. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• All regular Masonic halls are referred to as Temples due to the fact that each Temple is situated in teh same fashion of the Holy of Holies int King Solomon's Temple, hope this helps. Hiram king of tyre (talk) 12:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that List of Masonic Buildings has been merged into this article... that is fine, but we still need to address a few fundamental issues that were under discussion at that article:
• Should red linked articles be included on the list?
• What makes a "notable Masonic Temple" notable? Is simply being an old historic building enough... or does the building need to be notable in terms of Freemasonry? Essentially: what is the criteria for inclusion in this list?
• The list is duplicative of Masonic Temple (disambiguation) and Category:Masonic buildings. Is it really needed?

  My opinion: 1) I think we should not include redlinks... 2) I think simply being old and on the NRHP is not enough. 3) I am still not sure what to do about the duplication between this page, the dab and the cat. But, given that we have both a dab page and a category... do we really need to include a list of notable masonic buildings in this article? Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh... Doncram has undone the merger... so we are back to square one. Blueboar (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes i certainly did. There is ongoing discussion of the structure of these related articles and disambiguation pages and categories at
  Talk:Masonic temple (disambiguation)#Requested move 2. Please discuss there. --doncram (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• These pages are involved:
  1. Masonic Building (a disambig page)
  2. Masonic Lodge (disambiguation)
  3. List of Masonic buildings
  4. Masonic temple (disambiguation)

  Masonic Temple (disambiguation) is a redirect to Masonic Temple (disambiguation).

  I have redirected

  Masonic temple to Masonic Temple. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Masonic Temple → Masonic temple

• And existing page
  Masonic temple to Masonic temple/version 2, to get it out from under incoming. There are many Masonic temples, so "Masonic temple" by itself is a generic and not a proper-name. But the only Masonic temple in Qwertytown may be the Qwertytown Masonic Temple. Here we seem to be running into "respectful capitalization" of classes of things and classes of people and classes of ideas which are important to particular people. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• What you're running into is a big ol' mess that has been going on for some time. See
  Talk:Masonic temple (disambiguation)#Requested move 2. Until that's taken care of pretty much everything is moot. But to catch you up things are leaning toward the use of Masonic Temple rather than Masonic temple. The big issue being that a Masonic Temple isn't a temple. PeRshGo (talk) 09:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Masonic buildings I am proposing a merge of List of Masonic buildings into this article. However, I see that the existing buildings list includes many red links as they are for buildings that do not have their own Wikipedia article.

I would like to see if there's consensus that the Notable Masonic Temples section in this article include the statement "The buildings included on this list are both actively used by Masons and are notable enough that they have their own Wikipedia articles." At present

This would allow buildings such as State House, Bermuda to be added to the temples list while excluding the red-linked entries.

Related to this is that at the end of the list of temples we can have a list of former temples. It would include buildings that are notable (having their own Wikipedia article), the Masonic connection is notable (either by it's name or it's documented by reliable sources), but it's no longer an active temple. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: what makes a particular "Masonic Temple" note worthy enough to be mentioned in this specific article? Take State House, Bermuda as an example... Is it an example of a particular type or style of Masonic Temple? Is it note worthy due to its role in Masonic history? Is it note worthy for some other reason? This is the question that the rest of us have yet to be able to answer. Blueboar (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria I'm proposing are 1) The building has a Wikipedia page. This means the building is notable per

WP:N

. 2A) That the building is being used by Masons or 2B) for buildings formerly used by Masons. For both 2A and 2B this use by the Masons must be reliably sourced.

I see that immediately after I made this proposal that someone moved the list out of this article and that is now at List of Masonic Temples. The proposal would apply to that list. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Blueboar had asked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Masonic buildings "In addition to Orlady's points, The problem I see with Marc's merger proposal is that we would still have the problem of defining what makes a particular Masonic Temple note worthy (and I use the term deliberately to distinguish from WP:Notable) enough to be mentioned? Is the criteria that the building is an example of a particular type or style of Masonic Temple? Is it because it has historic value to the fraternity (being, for example, the oldest Masonic meeting place in a particular state)? Is it because of its size and impressiveness? In other words... what makes a Masonic Building/Temple/Hall/Center/whatever note worthy (or for that matter, WP:notable) within the context of the article? Blueboar (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

In summary, a building needs to be notable per

WP:N

. I went one step beyond this and said that an article needs to exist. Technically this means we could use a category instead of a list but lists allow for more control over the structure of the list. The second criteria is that the building is either actively in use as, or was used as, a temple by the Masons.

Article content is by consensus. Thus we may run across a building that would excluded per the criteria and yet we feel should be included. No problem, we update the article per consensus and ideally include a note explaining what's so interesting about that building that it's on the list despite not meeting the basic criteria. We can do the reverse and not include buildings on the list and can include a note by commenting out the building's entry and having a comment explaining why it was excluded. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marc, perhaps you don't understand my question... so let me ask it a different way with a different example... what makes Masonic Temple (Kent, Ohio) worth mentioning in this article? Is it a good representative of a particular style or type of Masonic Temple? Is it culturally or historically significant because it is a Masonic Temple? Or is it something else? Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the NRHP they establish notability for a living. PeRshGo (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar, that example temple does not seem worthy of "mentioning" in the article but would seem to qualify for inclusion in a list of Masonic temples. The goal is to make it easy to locate the Wikipedia articles about individual temples.

A secondary goal is to merge the various lists as they seem redundant. At present we have

1. Masonic Temple#Notable Masonic Temples which is part of this article.
2. List of Masonic temples was short lived. I believe it was the same list as the one in this article.
3. List of Masonic buildings up for AFD. This presumably includes buildings other than temples but does not include this fascinating structure.
4. Masonic Temple (disambiguation) - no comment.
5. Masonic Lodge (disambiguation) - I assume the intent was to list lodges but each of the entries is marked "listed on the NRHP ..." meaning it's a disguised buildings list.
6. Masonic Building - no comment.
7. Masonic Temple Building - no comment.
8. Category:Images of Masonic buildings - Speedy deleted!
9. Category:Masonic buildings I'm starting to lean towards eliminating the list in this article and instead using this category. That would serve to remove the need for stating that the article must exist.

If I'm missing any of the lists of Masonic structures then please feel free to add them to the above list of lists. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the entire "Notable Masonic Temples" section, because the information is duplicated verbatim in

You deleted something that is currently in debate. Basically you've walked into a huge mess that's in the process of being worked out. There is a big push going on right now to get rid of the List of Masonic buildings page right now because the term is overly broad. This is one of many possible replacements. There was also a List of Masonic Temples page but that got deleted by another person who came in to an ongoing debate and just started deleting randomly. PeRshGo (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for that, then. The disambig pages, however, are clear-cut. They need to be deleted. It seems pretty obvious to me, however, that

talk 00:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Well the issue the move and pruning of information from List of Masonic buildings to Masonic Temple took place before the AFD listing, and the fact that a better and more accurate list exists on Masonic Temple is a part of the grounds for the AFD. See this issue started because of the lack of definition of what a "Masonic building" actually is. For example the base of the Statue of Liberty could be considered a Masonic building. I personally would like to see List of Masonic Temples revived, List of Masonic buildings axed and Masonic Temple exist as a description of what a Masonic Temple is and commentary on Masonic architecture. The problem is someone killed List of Masonic Temples without understanding the discussion and threw everything back into chaos. PeRshGo (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i think deleting the duplication of List of Masonic buildings that was put into Masonic Temple and then into List of Masonic Temples is appropriate, or moving them to a User page or to a Talk subpage would also have been good. Pershgo, the List of Masonic buildings was and is a valid article. Your points should have been made in discussion there. Also it would have been appropriate for you to build an alternative version in your user space or at a Talk subpage such as Talk:List of Masonic buildings/AlternativeProposal to support discussion. It is okay to construct an alternative for discussion, but I think it is actually not correct to do that in mainspace. I do appreciate you are being constructive in trying to develop a specific alternative.

The disambiguation pages are 100% okay and correct dab pages of article topics sharing a given name, and are irrelevant to discussion about the list-article(s). --doncram (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have bad luck with userspace articles. It seems like the only way to keep people from stonewalling is to just go out and do it. And honestly if anyone had gotten a chance to see what I did I think people would have seen it as a good compromise. PeRshGo (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, again, I apologize for speedily deleting the

talk 01:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

You are correct about the disambig pages though. I didn't realize that the temples are all actually named "Masonic Temple", and I think it's not clear to other uninvolved editors. Perhaps you should add a note in the disambig page, such as "Masonic temple may also refer to buildings named 'Masonic Temple' in the National Registry of Historic Places" or something similar to that. I'm going to withdraw and close the AfD's.

talk 01:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

(ec, not responding to SnottyWong's comment other than thank you) I think some "compromise" is possible. One data point for your information is that there is one Masonic Temple in connecticut which is, according to its NRHP nomination, notable mainly for it being a Jewish synagogue and associated with that congregation, i.e. an example of a place named "Masonic Temple" hence appearing on the dab page of such, but I would agree it is not known for its Masonic building association and hence should not be included in a list article of Masonic buildings. All the AFDs and so on should be closed, and a comprehensive solution worked out at the "central discussion". Or a new central discussion. It is too confusing to have 16 TAlk pages and AFDs going on. --doncram (talk) 01:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Will everyone agree to the creation of List of Masonic Temples out of the current list on Masonic Temple, the deletion of List of Masonic buildings], and everything else being allowed to exist? PeRshGo (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Just hold your horses. This is what got you into trouble the first time. There is an ongoing AfD for
  talk 01:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• And if
  talk 01:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Well Doncram is here and the fact is he's the only person who was interested in keeping List of Masonic buildings. So if I get him to agree we effectively have consensus. The AfD was silly to begin with. As for recreating the page. Is there anyway I can get a copy of the original back? As for the second suggestion I already did that with the move to Masonic Temple so we can see the list the way I intend it already. Adding another tag and waiting longer just encourages more outside interference. PeRshGo (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think "outside interference" is a good way to think about it. It will be better for you in the long run if you get consensus of a lot of people. Otherwise, if you only get consensus with one other person, then you run the risk of people discovering what you've done later and deleting/changing it all because it doesn't represent the consensus of WP as a whole.
  talk 01:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Thanks, Snotty, yes. And, there is an ongoing discussion, which was supposed to be the central discussion point, on exactly the question of the move that Pershgo would like to request anew. The requested move is already open! And it addresses other related questions too. It's now at Masonic Temple (disambiguation)#Requested move 2. If another requested move gets opened separately i will certainly oppose that further split / duplication of discussion, already too fragmented. And, by the way, there's a Freemasonry wikiproject person trying to help develop List of Masonic temples, speaking up at the wikiproject Talk page, too. There are / will be multiple people interested in helping develop a list-article over time. --doncram (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link: he likely meant Talk:Masonic Temple (disambiguation)#Requested move 2. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Yea, that guy's me, and I made it. Now I guess the discussion comes down to whether or not I can re-make it without it getting the axe. PeRshGo (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I meant User:Avicennasis, who started up a draft list-article and draft articles for some of the individual buildings in his/her userspace, helpfully. :) --doncram (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar, you are making disruptive edits to this article in bad faith. Changing the article from "Most Masonic temples were built..." to "A few Masonic temples were built..." is not helpful, is not backed up by any sources, and is an obvious attempt to make the article look bad so that the AfD you just started on it has a better chance of succeeding. Similarly, adding comments such as "Some are buildings of historic significance (most are not)." is extremely disruptive and clearly shows your motivations with this article. If you think the article should be deleted, then argue your point on the AfD. Then let the community read your points and come to a decision on whether it gets deleted or kept. Don't intentionally make the article worse so that it will get deleted. Please also read the comments I've left on your user page and take them to heart.

I am sorry you think Wikipedia's WP:V policy is disruptive. I challenge the accuracy of the statement "Most Masonic temples were built..."? Per

WP:BURDEN it is now up to you to provide one, or the statement will be removed. Blueboar (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Don't try to hide behind policy when your actions are clearly transparent. PeRshGo (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who's hiding? The statement had been tagged since May (and I will note that I was not the one to initially tag it) over two weeks is more than enough time to find a source for a single sentence. I don't think the statement is accurate... I have challenged, and removed it. If you wish to return it, fine... but do so with a source. That's how Wikipedia works. Blueboar (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't insult our intelligence. You're in the middle of an AfD that you nominated, and you're making changes to the article that make it look bad. Please just let the AfD run its course without further disruption.

talk 03:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Please assume good faith. I could say essentially the same thing about your reverts... that you want to keep dubious, unsourced information in the article in order to make it appear more notable than it is and thus affect the AfD in your favor. Take a step back and look at the actual situation... there are thousands of Masonic temples in the US... The oldest date to the 1700s... the newest were built as recently as this year. So what supports saying that "most" of them were built during a particular 50 year span? Blueboar (talk) 02:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also question the sentence about the notable architects... I am not challenging the fact a few Masonic Temple were built by notable architects ... but do challenge the way the sentence was worded... it made it seem as if having a notable architect design the local Masonic Temple was a common occurrence, when in fact it was and is extremely uncommon... I suggest it would be more accurate and more neutral to note which specific Temples were designed by which specific architects (all properly sourced, of course.) Blueboar (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will be helpful to start a centralized discussion limited to the issue of the redundancy present in many of the article relating to Masonic buildings. There have been some recent AfD's started on many of them, and most have closed and/or are winding down to a No Consensus result. While there is no consensus to delete any of these articles on their own when judged in the vacuum of AfD, there is an obvious redundancy between these articles which must be addressed. The articles in question are:

1. Masonic Temple - currently has a brief section on usage of the term, followed by a list of notable temples
2. Masonic Lodge
   - definition of the term, discussion of different types, discussion on how a lodge becomes a lodge
3. List of Masonic buildings - much longer list of buildings associated with freemasonry and a lot more redlinks. Inclusion criteria unclear.
4. Masonic Temple (disambiguation) - disambig page for buildings that are actually named "Masonic Temple".
5. Masonic Lodge (disambiguation) - disambig page for buildings that are actually named "Masonic Lodge"

I will submit my proposal(s) for a solution below. Please indicate whether you support or oppose it. If you have a proposal of your own, feel free to create a subheading to start your own proposal. Let's try to keep this discussion organized and focussed on how to resolve the redundancy in these articles in a general way (i.e. try not to stray too far from what each article should generally cover... we'll get into the details of each article later once we have consensus on what the general purpose of each article should be). Thanks.

1. Masonic Temple - Delete list of notable temples and move remainder to Masonic architecture, an article on the architecture and history of notable buildings (temples or otherwise) which were built by and for the freemasons.
2. Masonic Lodge
   - Keep as is.
3. List of Masonic buildings - Clarify inclusion criteria per WP policies on lists, such that list elements are only notable buildings. Perhaps organize list by "Masonic temples", "Masonic lodges", "Other Masonic buildings".
4. Masonic Temple (disambiguation) - Delete and merge into the new "Masonic temples" section in List of Masonic buildings.
5. Masonic Lodge (disambiguation) - Delete and merge into the new "Masonic lodges" section in List of Masonic buildings.

I think that the

Can you possibly please build a list of closed discussions and open discussions about these topics? This new discussion request is itself a fork of what i hoped to be kept as "central discussion" at Masonic Temple (disambiguation)#Requested move 2, where there were some comprehensive proposals i think (now maybe outdated). There are also comprehensive proposals labelled Proposal A, Proposal B-1, and Proposal B-2 within the ongoing AFD on Masonic Temple. Quickly about your new proposal here, I think it won't work because you wish to eliminate disambiguation pages which are not articles and which are technically necessary, not really negotiable. Also there have been AFDs about 2 of them already, opened by you, right? And closed with speedy Keep. And, your proposal would redirect the disambiguation page topics to the List of Masonic buildings article, in which inclusion criteria are up for debate now and forever. It simply won't serve as disambiguation for wikipedia articles/topics (bluelinks or redlinks) named exactly "Masonic Temple" if you yourself want to delete some of them as not being notable enough. Surely the criteria there will change over time. Consider the place named Masonic Temple which is mostly known for its later history as a Jewish synagogue (it belongs on disambiguation page because that is its name; its inclusion is debatable for the List of Masonic buildings). Just give up on getting rid of disambiguation, please. Disambiguation is needed and you can't do anything about it. Same about Categories, by the way. Also, it would be a horrible constraint on the List of Masonic buildings article if it had to stay organized by arbitrary name, rather than by geography or age or other approach that makes sense, just so the disambiguation pages could arguably be deleted. It would always serve less well for disambiguation of each term, than having the disambiguation page on that term separately. Think of disambiguation pages as cheap, like redirects, and not as articles; they are not articles / there is no redundancy to worry about with them.

And, could you please perhaps help collect competing comprehensive proposals together rather than split discussions? I wouldn't mind if all the other discussions were closed with a pointer to here or a new central discussion place, though. Could you perhaps list them, and then post a request to close at each one of them in favor of here, and if not opposed, then close them literally by puting a closed archive box around each of them, with pointers to here. But otherwise if there are 20 or more discussion sections open, at WikiProject Freemasonry, at Wikiproject Disambiguation, many other places, you can't expect this new discussion section to attain any real consensus. I'll help identify open and closed discussion sections if you want to do this and take the lead. --doncram (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PeRshGo's Proposal

1. List of Masonic Buildings. Masonic architecture, should be a section within Masonic Temple
   - or spun off if enough sources are found.
2. Masonic Lodge
   - Keep as is. We need some place to explain what a Masonic Lodge is, and more importantly how it is not a Masonic Temple.
3. List of Masonic buildings - Clarify inclusion criteria per WP policies on lists, such that list elements are only notable buildings. Different From Snottywong's Proposal, I would say to continue to organize them geographically but as Masonic Temples, Halls, and Buildings are all the same thing they should be in the same group. But perhaps you may want to separate museums, monuments, memorials and the buildings built solely for appendant bodies such as the shrine.
4. List of Masonic Buildings
   .
5. List of Masonic Buildings
   .

There is obviously going to be redundancy with my proposal but the important thing to me at least is that it is cleanly organized. PeRshGo (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. This is fine about the organization. I'd further note that within the Masonic Lodge article, per ALR's comments in the Masonic Temple AFD, it would help to drop most/all of the pics of buildings. Also i think the 2 disambiguation pages mentioned are clean, don't have anything needing deleting, but as a policy i agree that non-"close variants" should be pared off. Also i don't think Masonic architecture is a distinct style of external architecture; from what i see of the NRHP-listed ones there are Masonic buildings of Italianate architecture, Colonial Revival architecture, Egyptian Revival architecture and many others. The Masonic buildings notable for their architecture seem to be substantial buildings put up, with plenty of money and often with design by an architect who is also a Mason, in the prevailing styles of the day. --doncram (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a fundamental problem. It is almost entirely based on my own

Good point. /cue wikipedia article overhauling montage PeRshGo (talk) 08:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... I should have written an article based on what sources actually say, rather than writing what I "knew" and trying to find sources after the fact. Time for an overhaul. Blueboar (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I have done a major rewrite, based more on what sources say than my own OR. In doing this, I have focused more on the development of the term "Masonic Temple" and slightly shifted away from focusing on the structures called "Masonic temples" (this is where the sources led me). I have left the last few paragraphs from the old article since they were sourced... but they don't really fit with the revised theme of the article. Please take a look and comment. Blueboar (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem I see is that we may need to more clearly separate the physical and ethereal Masonic Temples. It seems to bounce around a bit right now. A part of me is even inclined to separate articles. PeRshGo (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the idea of separate articles... because the sources indicate that two concepts are directly connected (certainly Moore indicates this). But I am quite open to suggestions on how to make this relationship clearer. Blueboar (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a different note... the article is now very US centric (because the sources I have primarily talk about the US). We should see if there are non-American sources that we can use to balance that. Blueboar (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may be difficult. It’s just an issue of numbers. The vast majority of originally built Masonic Temples can be found in the US. Michigan alone has bulldozed more Masonic Temples that most countries have ever built. I have found sources that deal with individual Masonic Temples such as the Tokyo Masonic Temple but any source that deals with the subject of Masonic Temples will invariably focus on the US. PeRshGo (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I think I misread the info on the Masonic Temple name. I'll correct that information. PeRshGo (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed PeRshGo (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... that better fits what Mackey says. thanks. I tweaked it a bit to make it even clearer. Now it seems to echo what was said in the History and development section. Question... are we just repeating ourselves? Do we really need the "Terminology" section? Blueboar (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of the "Heyday and decline" section definitely needs to be reworded and referenced. It uses words that are way too POV-ish to me. (Other than that, the rest of the article is great though.) Silverseren^C 16:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"However, the good times were not to last. The Great Depression hit Freemasonry as hard as it hit the rest of the world, and both local Lodges and Grand Lodges turned away from erecting buildings and towards helping those in need."

Those two sentences, specifically, seem to be written in a POV style, in my opinion. And, of course, the entire paragraph desperately needs referencing, as it makes statements that need to be backed up with a reference. Silverseren^C 18:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

	An image used in this article, File:Detroit Masonic Temple - Detroit Michigan.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot -- talk) 23:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply ]

	An image used in this article, File:Detroit Masonic Temple - Detroit Michigan.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot -- talk) 10:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply ]

I have removed the section because it is incorrect due to source misinterpretation. To paraphrase the source used, "the Lodge meets in a place representing King Solomon's Temple." Therefore, the Lodge is not the place in which it meets, and thus, there is no origin of a Masonic building within the ritual. The Lodge is a term for the group, not the place in which the group meets, and to claim that any place that a meeting is held is a "Masonic Temple" is erroneous.MSJapan (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except... I know of at least one jurisdiction where the brethren are enjoined to "form the Symbolic Temple" at the opening of every meeting. They rise and arrange themselves into a rectangular configuration around the altar, thus forming the "walls" of the Temple with their bodies. Yes, this is symbolic and not related to a physical building... but it happens regardless of where the lodge meets. Thus, every meeting does take place in a Temple (all be it a metaphorical one) regardless of where the meeting is held. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to open some discussion on this section... I know it says that there is no standardization... but I think the reality goes a step further than that.
There really is no such thing as "Masonic" Architecture... Lodge buildings come in all sizes, shapes, styles and designs. Some were purpose built to house the lodge... others started out as private homes, or as commercial buildings, or former religious structures. Some Masonic buildings incorporate Masonic symbols in thir exterior or interior decoration ... but others do not. Meeting rooms within the building come in all shapes and sizes (although they do tend to be rectangular)... they can be as large as an auditorium or ballroom, or as tiny as an attic loft. Some are highly decorated... others have bare undecorated walls.
There is some degree of standardization within each Masonic Jurisdiction as to how the furniture is arranged ... the norm is chairs or benches lined up along the sides of the room, and an open space in the center with a table (altar). But in fact, you don't really need the chairs ... or even a room (I know of one lodge that meets outdoors, in an abandoned quarry... with everyone simply standing in appropriate places).
I know that some lodge buildings are great big impressive looking buildings, prominently located in the center of town. And to someone not familiar with the topic, it would make sense that they would assume all Masonic buildings are the same... But the reality is that there is nothing that makes a building used by the Masons uniquely "Masonic". That is what makes such buildings so attractive to purchasers when they are sold by the Masons... they are easy to convert to other (non-masonic) purposes. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are some masonic buildings in the U.S. called "Shrine" or "Mosque" or even "Mosque Shrine"? --Anvilaquarius (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the “short description” per