Talk:Novus ordo seclorum

message: I remember there being a theorem involving a pyramid with its top cropped off as a big turning point in the history of mathematics.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:1A00:6EF:E17C:E69E:8BA1:989F (talk) 13:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Try our article on Frustum (the fancy word for a pyramid with its top cropped off).  However, as interesting as mathematical history may be, this article isn't about pyramids... its about a latin motto. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Maths 

message: The article says, "By circumscribing the 6 pointed Star of David over the pyramid, 5 of the 6 apices (the 6th being the 'All-seeing eye'), point to the letters spelling M-A-S-O-N. (disputed — see talk page)".  What part is being disputed, and based on what evidence? If someone doesn't answer soon, I'll remove the disputed tag. Superm401 | Talk 05:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact of the pointing. A six-pointed star points near, but not at the letters; in fact, most of the points miss the letters entirely. Look at a dollar bill if you have one to hand.  Also (thank you for reminding me) the order of the letters. Septentrionalis 04:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, I think the existence of the theory should be mentioned, whatever its factuality; as long as it is clearly separated from the consensus parts of the article. After all, we describe the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Septentrionalis 21:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: See :Image:Tetragrammaton-Tetractys.png. AnonMoos 19:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed Statement

message: :There also those who believe that the freemasons were influenced by an ancient brotherhood from the time of Galileo called the Illuminati. The eye over the pyramid is said to be the eye of illumination. References to "New World Order" for the translation of NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM also point to an Illuminati influence in the early freemasons.
The connection between Galileo and the Illuminati appears to be Dan Brown's invention in Angels and Demons, I do not recall novus ordo seclorum coming into the novel. (It would be implausible; Weishaupt knew Latin, he would not have mistranslated it.) Please supply source. Septentrionalis 16:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Galileo?

message: This has passed unnoticed for quite a long time; though the article states [t]hese theorists assert that the word should be spelt secolorum, and the alleged first o is omitted for occult reasons, the actual term in latin is saeculus (or seculus), -i; the correct form would be seculorum. Taragüí @ 15:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: as the article says, when discussing actual Latin, rather than conspiracy theorists: "Latin prose would normally spell the word saeculorum". Septentrionalis 20:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In such cases, I believe it is customary to add a (sic) notice to the oddly-spelled text. Taragüí @ 10:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Latin

message: Article states, "The scholar mistranslates the phrase to "New Secular Order", with no indication that it was a mistranslation in the story, despite the author's claim in a foreword that the information in the story is completely accurate."  In the book I have, the forward states that "references to all works of art, tombs, tunnels, and atchitecture in Rome are entirely factual (as are their exact locations).  They can still be seen today."  It doesn't say that everything in the book is 'completely accurate."  Obviously, as a work of fiction, there are creative licenses, but this sentence suggests that the author believes the book to be entirely fact when Mr. Brown has stated on his web site (and in many interviews) that "each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations." http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html --66.30.84.242 04:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AH HA!  Latin isn't commonly taught in schools today ... they don't want you to translate your own latin.  Which must be PROOF of the conspiracy.  They don't want you to know!  Damn those Masono-communist Illuminati Anti-Christian Democrats and their conspiracy of seclorism!... now where did I put my tin foil hat.  Blueboar 21:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: See a pretty good Latin dictionary here: That sense is Christian, ecclesiastical, and Vulgar Latin; indeed the first citation is Jerome. Reading that sense into Vergil is an anachronism; asserting that a group of enlightened eighteenth century minds did so is preposterous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Author's Claims?

message: I see the section on the conspiracy theory has been removed. While I believe no word of these claims, the section did have the advantage of keeping this stuff out of the rest of the article; I hope we don't need it back. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because it had no sources or references, not because of what it said.  I have no problem with someone returning the information or recreating the section... as long as they include citations to reliable sources when they do so. Blueboar 12:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The advantages of having it were largely tactical; it was a summary of the POV stuff that kept being put in the header, with a few facts mixed in. Although unsourced, I'm sure none of it was OR; someone has said all of it before. But if we don't need it, I shan't miss it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: @Pmanderson While the article is controversial in the "Conspiracies Theories" it should be contain in Wikipedia because in is a subject of much controversy in 2023. 174.240.67.241 (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Conspiracy theory

message: I have moved the following discussion from the top of the page to the bottom... Note for those who posted: Standard Wikipedia practice is to put new discussion on the bottom of the page... Blueboar 23:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it seems that Satwa does not know how to do it... I have placed a citation request at the sectons he/she mentions needing one.  I suppose a citation to Vigil or something is in order. Blueboar 23:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: convinces me... but I don't think about.com is considered a reliable source.  Perhaps a similar page from a standard Latin text book? (Or, even better, a standard Latin textbook used in the late 1700s so we can show how the founding fathers would have translated it.) Blueboar 20:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: To add a note of rationality to this palaver about possible meanings of the word "secular," consider the modern English phrase "secular trend," still used everyday in such disciplines as medicine and economics. It means, very simply, "long-term, non-periodic variation" -- that is, "variation over time."  Here we clearly see that the older, temporal sense of saecularis ("of or pertaining to time [or ages]") has been preserved, as opposed to the sense "of or pertaining to that which is worldly or non-religious," which was undeniably a later development.  So in that sense, yes, one could (inelegantly!) translate Novus Ordo Seclorum as "A New Secular Order" -- but it would not mean "A new non-religious order," as hacks like Dan Brown would have you think, but something more along the lines of "A new order for this time [and all times hereafter]."  Obviously, rendering the phrase as "for the ages" far better captures the intended meaning of the author than the alternative "for this time."  --Nonstopdrivel (talk) 06:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I didn't delete it, but I'm not sure it added all that much.  "of the ages" implies a rather long time already.   The author of the motto specifically said it refers to the beginning of the American era; I'm not sure we need to elaborate beyond that (and anything else may be original research anyways).  That implies a long (but indeterminate) time, and really the motto is more about the start of the era/age, i.e. a significant break with the past, and not about how long it will or might last, I don't think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but no.  We have been over this many times, but it is worth repeating.  Read the sources... The motto was added by Charles Thomson, who actually left a record of where he took it from, and what it was supposed to mean.  He said that he based it on the fourth Eclogue of Virgil.  So the ancient roman usage (the latin that Virgil used) actually is quite important.  In other words, even if others may have translated the word as "secular" ... the man who actually created the motto did not.   Blueboar (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

text:  It is adapted from a Virgil quote, thus the meaning is that of Virgil.  Charles Thomson also directly indicated what the motto referred to, and in no way was "secular" the intended meaning (it's not an adjective anyways; it's a plural noun).  The seal predated the Constitution as well, where the separation was made explicit; nothing in Thomson's description alluded to those concepts. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: More on translation of Seclorum

message: Shouldn't there be some reference to this? 76.23.153.173 (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For example? We need a citation to put anything in. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No user 76.23.153.173, because American Imperialism dosen't exist. Travis Cleveland (talk) 13:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that is a debatable question... many reliable sources say it does exist.  The issue for us, however, is: how is its existance or nonexistance tied to the phrase "Novus Ordo Seclorum"?  Without a citation to a reliable source that discusses such a tie, any discussion about American Imperialism is a non-starter at this article. Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: While we can debate it all we want here on the talk page... to talk about it in this article requires citations to reliable sources that make a direct connection between the concept and the motto "Novus Ordo Seclorum" (the subject of this article).  While we could probably find sources that discuss "American Imperialism", I doubt that any of them tie it to the motto.  So it is really a moot point that does not need further discussion. Blueboar (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Any international imperialism is again Freemasonry, not the US. The Freemasons' next revolution followed 1776 into France, 1789. Freemasons harp in that they know nothing about world revolution. There are doctors and lawyers and shop owners, and there are knighted bankers who organize revolutions and wars with knighted statesmen who hire generals. The US did not found the UN, the Fremason's CFR did. The land where the UN sits was donated by CFR chairman David Rockefeller.
99.195.110.205 (talk) 07:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Novus Ordo Seclorum and American Imperialism

message: We say it is both... in the same paragraph.  So which is it?
:It seems to be Nominative possessive plural. Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is unquestionably an oxymoron and absurd on its face. I studied Classical Latin formally for three years (as well as German, which uses a similar case system, for another three), and I never heard of anything called a "nominative possessive plural."  The nominative case is used for the subjects of sentences and clauses. The genitive case is used for possessives. Something cannot be both nominative and genitive; it makes no logical, much less grammatical, sense to ascribe both qualities to the same noun.  Based on my Google search, the absurd phrase "nominative possessive plural" only appears in discussions of the phrase Novus ordo seclorum (mostly on outlandish conspiracy-theory websites and in mirrors of Wikipedia itself).  Therefore, to say that I find this concept questionable at best is a serious understatement.  S(a)ec(u)lorum is a plural genitive form contracted for metrical reasons, and it translates as "of the ages."  Period.  There is nothing nominative about it, and anyone who would allege otherwise has clearly not studied Classical Latin grammar. --Nonstopdrivel (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying.  It is good to have this settled based on solid grounds... You are correct in asserting that most of the editors to this page did not study Latin... Most of us are either American History buffs or fans of conspiracy theory (both groups are not know for studying Latin)... it is good to hear from someone who did. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

text: It is genitive plural, a modification from the standard saeculorum for Vergil's metrical reasons. (Spelling with e instead of ae involves a long history of medieval orthography, unimportant here.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Nominitive or Genitive case?

message: I am not 100% sure, but I think that "seclorum" does not exists in Latin. It's saeclorum (or more precisely "saeclōrum"/"sæclōrum"). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 07:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And the point is? Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seclorum or Saeclorum? 

message: There is nothing in the article about the Roman numerals on the front face of the pyrimid. Vought109 (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a matter of scope... this article is about something specific... a motto... and the numerals are not part of that motto.  You might wish to see our linked article: Great Seal of the United States, which does mention the numerals. Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Numerals 

message: Translation is a tricky thing... and to comply with our WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research policies, we should probably use a published translation (ie not translate it ourselves)... something that we can cite.  I note that greatseal.com gives two possible translations. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of Virgil 

message: The peace apparently being quoted does not contain the quote itself, this may be explainable but it is not explained, also can we get a philologist to call up management and get something set in stone for this and others like it (popular with conspiracy theorists) so we have a reputation to back whatever turns out to be the case.  sovos 12/12/14 AM  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.35.136.67 (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The motto is based on Virgil's poem (a paraphrase of it)... bit is not a direct quote. Blueboar (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  oversight 

message: I know we have discussed this multiple times... and each time the consensus has been to say "mistranslated".  However, consensus can change and (based on recent edits) I think it is time to find our whether consensus has changed or not.  Shall we continue to say "mistranslated"? Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translated vs mistranslated? 

message: I note that the templates for   and  were recently added.  I do understand why the templates were added, but I have to question whether the addition was really appropriate.  
First, as to the currency and coinage template... Yes, the motto "Novus ordo seclorum" does appear on the dollar bill ... but only because the Great Seal of the United States appears on the dollar bill, and the motto is part of the Great Seal.  It is unlike (say) the motto "In God We Trust", which appears on coins and currency on its own (and not as part of any other emblem). 
I suppose it might be appropriate to add these templates to the Great Seal article (although even there I have concerns)... but I don't think it is appropriate to take the association down to the next level, and add the template to articles about the component parts of the seal (and especially since we seem to do so in an inconsistent manner... I note that we don't add the template to our article on the olive branch or to our dab page on Unfinished Pyramid ... and yet those symbols are equally important component parts of the Great Seal.)
I am also concerned that we are inconsistent about what articles we add these templates to - for example: the Lincoln Memorial appears on both the 5 cent coin and the five dollar bill (thus, appearing on two pieces of coinage and currency - as opposed to the Great Seal, which appears on just one: the one dollar note) - yet we don't add the templates to the bottom of our Lincoln Memorial article. 
I have similar concerns about adding the national symbols template.  The motto is not really a national symbol in itself... again, it is a component part of a symbol (the Great Seal).  It's like the olive branch or the unfinished pyramid.  The motto Novus Ordo Seclorum does not stand on its own as a national symbol... but as a component part of a national symbol.
Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree on the currency template.  I think that is too far away.  The national symbol one... hrm.   The motto on the coat of arms is normally the national motto; that typically has significance apart from the seal it appears in.   The reverse is not the coat of arms, so the mottos there are not as significant, but they still might have separate significance.  Not sure.  I wouldn't object either way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK... I have removed the coinage template (if someone disagrees, they can revert and we can discuss further). As for the symbols template... yeah... I am not quite sure of that one myself.  I suppose it really depends on what the definition of a "symbol" is... and whether a motto really qualifies as a symbol or not.  I will leave it for now, while we discuss further. Blueboar (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  recently added Templates 

message: Not sure why we have this paragraph.  It seems to be a nonsequitor about how Dante (and other poets of his era) viewed Virgil's poetry in general, and not specifically related to the motto.  Should we remove it? Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medieval Christians