Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry/Archive 7

message: Is a convenience link to the New Catholic Encyclopedia article on Freemasonry acceptable from either of these two sites:
* trosch.org 
* bessel.org
Please note that there is also a debate about reliability.  This is purely about copyright. JASpencer 19:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is definitely a reliablility issue on Trosch... but as you say, that is another issue.  I really don't know on copyright.  I don't see any "reproduced with permission" statement on Trosch.  He gives permission to copy his page (so Bessel has permission to copy Trosch), but does not indicate that he has permission to copy the NCE.  I have been able to compare what he has with a reference copy of the NCE at the library... and he does seem to have copied accurately (except for the addition of his underlining).  I think someone who really knows copyright law will have to take a look. Blueboar 20:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright Examination Request

message: A citation request was removed from the following sentence:
:is not known if this skull represents a Papal skull or the skull of Jacque DeMolay, the last Grand Master of the historic Knights Templar
... with the comment "See Talk Page".
I'm not clear where this is on the Talk Page.
JASpencer 19:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea either, but it's not a statement of fact.  However, IIRC from reading Blanchard, it's supposed to be DeMolay. MSJapan 20:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's below.  I'll answer there. JASpencer 20:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the confusion, I got called away in the middle of writing my explanation.  A little patience please. :>) Blueboar 20:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation Request

message: JAS, you've put in a very contrived discussion of the pike versions implying that the initial version which BB has inspected was not used by SJ as a valid ritual.  The implication from the wording is that whilst the inspected version does not have the ritual element being duscussed within it, a later revision may have.  Do you have anything to suggest that the initial version as inspected by BB differs that significantly from the later versions, or that the initial publication was not used for some reason?  It seems to me that like an effort to undermine the work done by BB to inspect the ritual.ALR 21:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take it out if it's controversial.  The Kessinger version that's quoted is noted as the "first revision". JASpencer 21:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JAS... the way you have it (as part of the footnote) is eminently acceptable to me.  As I said above, you raise an interesting, if unlikely, possibility.  I will not be as strident about this until I have reviewed later versions of the Pike Ritual.  But fair warning, if it turns out that the tiara trampling bit is not in that either... I will be very peeved. Blueboar 21:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to see the Inner Sanctuary which is what the CE quotes, as well as the Magnum Opus. JASpencer 21:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You make the assuption that Inner Sanctuary is ritual... yes, we should look at Inner Sanctuary if we can find it, but it is the Ritual that is key, as that determines what actually is said and done in the degree.  If we assume that Inner Sanctuary is not a later revision of the Ritual, looking at Inner Sanctuary will only explain why the mistake happened. Blueboar 22:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm certainly not making any assumption about TIS being ritual, I'm making the assumption that the CE is treating it as ritual.  It may be ritual or may not.  We'll see. JASpencer 22:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Update: Google Books has it, and if you have a GMail account you can view the pages of the Bibliography that have the Inner Sanctuary entries (pp. 91-92). MSJapan 01:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would assume that Kessinger don't reprint it because it's so long (at least four volumes written over ten years).  I thought that there was a quote (from Bible Probe) that did not appear in CE, but it did.  I caught this reference which doesn't appear in the CE: here.  An awful lot of the most quoted Pike sayings seem to come from the Inner Sanctuary (like the Babylonian darkness or there has never been a false religion.  I'll look into Google Books, thanks for the tip. JASpencer 18:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would there be any Masonic history bulletin boards that people can ask about this work?  JASpencer 20:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can try the Scottish Rite Research Society.  Somebody there should know. MSJapan 23:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be good.  The lengthy time over which the Inner Sanctuary has been written seems to point to a periodical.  As these are citations for probably the most common source for the anti-Catholicism in the Kadosh degree (the stabbing of the skull probably has a different source) then it would be good to see the source.  What I should try to do is track down the citations for all the Catholic Encyclopedia citations in WP (excuse the convuluted English).  We could then get some other issues sorted out.  JASpencer 08:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pike versioning 

message: We're listed as start class for the Freemasonry and Catholicism projects.  I did this originally because (a) I'm stingy with these marks for the Catholicism project and (b) when FM came on as B class I levelled down rather than up.
I've made them both into B class.  Any objections?  JASpencer 20:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that is a good assessment. Blueboar 22:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Start Class or B Class

message: In the To Do list it had an item that went along the lines of editing the history "so as to provide a history of the 'relationship' between the two groups rather than the POV "hit list" that is there right now."  Now the times when the two groups have taken lumps out of each other are very important.  Notwithstanding that any POV issues should be dealt with (although they can be raised individually) I'd really be interested to see what people perceive as the gaps in the history between the two groups.
I know it's not normal practice, but could I ask if we could try to hammer them out here first before going on to the main article as this could open up an edit war.
I'm also taking the item out of the to do list.
JASpencer 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gaps in History

message: According to the Bibliography of Writings of Albert Pike, compiled by Ray Baker Harris, published by Kessinger(), Pike's got about 36 separate documents classified under "Cerneau Controversy."  They will bear looking at.
I also have information for The Inner Sanctuary.  It appears in the "Ritualistic and Ceremonial" section of the Bibliography. Each volume was reprinted several times, and the page counts differ considerably.  Part I is subtitled "The Book of the Lodge of Perfection".  Part II is subtitled "The Book of the Second Temple", except for one where it is subtitled "Latomopolis", Part III is subtitled "Latomopolis" and Part IV is subtitled "The Book of the Holy House".  It seems that the last volume was retitled Ritual Part V, The Inner Sanctuary and was subtitled "The Book of the Great Light".  Some of these volumes are upwards of 500 pages apiece, so I don't see them going on Wikisource even if they are available.  There is also a disclaimer at the head of the section that some of the material in the section was reprinted with explanatory material not written by Pike. MSJapan 14:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking that if this was a periodical of some kind then it would be in an article that could be put on Wikisource.  However, it could be possible to put a chapter or two on to Wikisource.  Thanks for looking this up.  JASpencer 14:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Pike writings of utility.... 

message: I think the article shows promise, but needs a lot of work before it attains GA status. I'm impressed with the documentation. The article fails in two critical ways. First, the lead is way too short for an article of this size. (see WP:LEAD for suggestions). Second, the language does not flow well. It reads like a series of bullet points rather than an essay. 
Not critical for GA status:
Try to avoid using passives (example: "is seen by the Catholic Church") and participles (example: as "having based") While these constructions are correct English, English readers find them hard to absorb (these constructions give off a 'fuzzy" feeling).
Reread the article in the light of its Catholic Encyclopedia source. If substantial stretches are verbatim from that article still, paraphrase them. 
Also, images would help a bunch.
Once you've gotten to the first two suggestions, please renom. --CTSWyneken(talk) 10:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Nom Failed 

message: I'm afraid that the Binder quote is simply unacceptable unless there's a quote in German.  I'm going by WP:RS when it says "Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly."  I simply don;t trust the editor who originally put this in as he's shown bad faith in the past.  JASpencer 18:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must stress that the editor who originally put this in is not one of the editors who currently edits this page. JASpencer 07:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking sources on trust