Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry/Archive 4

message: Whoa, I started checking out some sources - since when is:
* biblebelievers.org a reliable source on the Knights of Columbus (considering the page also claims the Jesuits are a military order of the Church ready to assassinate its enemies)
*Thomas Lawton Jones a reliable source on Opus Dei?
I would suggest editors seriously check out their sources before posting.....in regards to the Opus Dei part of the article (which caught my eye, as I periodically edit that article) I would suggest taking a look at the Wikipedia article - although it cannot be quoted as a source, it is an extremely well sourced article, and could act as a "source of sources," and gives one a balanced feel for the praise/criticism of Opus Dei.DonaNobisPacem 22:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bible believers are a reliable source on what the critics of KoC believe, surely?  It is bad form for a masonic editor (I'm not sure whether it was Blueboar or Imacomp) to remove a contrary assertion from of all places masonicinfo.com . JASpencer 22:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True to some degree - but it is important to note minority viewpoints as such.  Part of the difference is that the KofC receives far less conspiracy criticisms than the Masonic ones, so those criticisms need to be emphasized as being held by a small minority (as per WP:NPOV......and I personally would not use masonicinfo.com as a reliable source anyways, but rather as an anecdotal one (ie, "some people believe this.......").  If I wanted to present a reasonable criticism of the Masonic order, I would choose to rely on more conventional/academic/respected sources.DonaNobisPacem 22:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And it is also important to note that if what a person believes is believable - ie, is there evidence to back it up (such as the fact the 1913 congressional hearing rejected the KofC oath as a bogus hoax by anti-Catholics, a fact easy enough to find but Biblebelievers neglects to mention)DonaNobisPacem 22:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed masonicinfo is a joke, although a useful source on what Freemasons think.  Bible Believers does say what a minority of extreme Prods believe.  The fact that it was dismissed as bogus should be put in, however you may want to see User_talk:Skull_'n'_Femurs and this little factoid it may seem easy to understand.  JASpencer 23:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry Blueboar, it was Imacomp that removed the valid information.  I do apologise. JASpencer 22:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem... I have no objections to the quote from Masonicinfo.  I would prefer that they both go in ... the first to show that there are indeed some who tar the KofC with the same broad brush as they do Masonry... and the second to show that Masonry is not one of these anti-catholic groups. Blueboar 22:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I can totaly understand Catholics and especially members of the KofC being a bit peeved by this bogus "oath" ... Freemasonry faces this kind of attack for its rituals all the time. Blueboar 23:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why I try not to make such claims.....DonaNobisPacem 05:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I know (and I thank you for it) ... too bad others do. Blueboar 14:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have added the fact that this oath is a fake to the footnote. Blueboar 01:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources? 

message: I have removed one more Pike quote... that at the end of the Religious Indifferentism section.  The section reads (without the footnotes): "Masonic behaviour is seen as a denial of the truth of Christian revelation and Christ's guarantee of orthodoxy to the Roman Catholic church. (Though rather, all Reformed Christians would deny the exclusive right of Roman Catholicism to the claim. Private individual Freemasons may or may not be in agreement, as reformed Christians)."  However the reference quoted Pike and read: "Masonry propagates no creed, except its own most simple and sublime one taught by Nature and Reason. There has never been a false Religion on the world."  This does not seem to follow or be connected to what is said in the section. I will assume that the text was changed at some point, but not the citation.  If it is going to be used to back up a statement, however, I will ask that the citation give where Pike said this, so I can verify it. Blueboar 01:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Imacomp's edit; Blueboar's "discovery".  Why?.  Pike reinserted.  JASpencer 22:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is about the relationship between Catholicism and Freemasonry and not another religion.  Reformed churches stuff taken out until some relevance can be proven for this article. JASpencer 22:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will leave the Pike quote for now (at least I can now understand why it was included).  I would still like to know what document the Pike quote is from... given the previous inaccuracy of the CE in quoting Pike, I need to check the original source.  I will add a quote request tag. Blueboar 02:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still no quote posted here.  Please provide or I will delete the citation. Blueboar 01:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote in Religious indiferentism 

message: My apologies, but the source given to the reference to Opus Dei is taken from the Constitution of 1950 which have been totally discarded. Opus Dei is a prelature with a Vatican-established Particular Law of 1982, and there are no oaths in this law. Also, the Italian Parliament in 1987 has declared that Opus Dei is not a secret society as alleged by the Italian communists. The Italian parliament said it is neither secret "in law and in fact." Some of the reasons: if we are able to contact them, if they have public listing of their addresses, names of directors, etc., then they are not secret. I am erasing any reference therefore to Opus Dei in this section. Lafem 08:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to revert your deletion... The point of including Opus Dei (as well as KofC) is that many Anti-Catholics believe that they do have an oath... and that they feel that there is a double standard going on... the Church bans societies such as Freemasonry, while allowing its own societies.  I can agree that the seciton should be re-worded ... but to keep things NPOV, something about that double standard needs to be included.  If you want to clarify the passage with a citation showing that this beleif is unfounded, please do.Blueboar 14:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By Lafern's reasoning, Masonry isn't a secret society either, so it sort of defeats part of the ban, thus we would have to talk about the double standard or be guilty of a logical fallacy.  I personally don't mind adding qualifications to statements in order to clarify boundaries, and maybe that's the road to take here. MSJapan 04:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But in Masonry, isn't their some pledge of secrecy?  Lafem was pointing out there is no oaths (of any sort) in the 1982 Particular Law.DonaNobisPacem 04:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Masonry, the only "secrets" are the various modes of recognition, and that's all - the oaths specifically say that they do not affect any responsibility you have to G-d, your country, your neighbor, or yourself (the latter inclusive of family as well).  Other than that, there's actually plenty of publicity regarding Masonry, whicxh is why i would protest is being labelled as a "secret society" in its modern form.  What I'm really getting at though, is that to cut Opus Dei off at 1982 is a bit POV, as it has clearly been around a lot longer in a possibly different but definitely related form (an issue related to another Freemasonry-related WP article, would you believe); so, while I'm willing to accept that theories and critiques may no longer be valid, they should still be stated, as that is precisely what is being done in the other Freemasonry articles, and I think we need a standard policy for fairness' sake.  It's simply not right to go "Oh, Opus Dei isn't the same, so prior to 1982 doesn't matter, but the fringe anti-Papist Scottish Rite that died out 150 years ago needs to stay in, because it's obviously a valid complaint", and I don't want to have to go screaming about NPOV if I can help it. MSJapan 05:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying ignore it - but as it stands, the article does not indicate that the oath in the source is no longer used.  So, I guess that is what I shall point out......DonaNobisPacem 05:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Having read over the oath cited, I am not sure what secrecy has to do with it, anyways - it simply says they will consult their spiritual director on a number of matters.  One, it does not say they are obligated to follow their advice, and two, it does not refer to secrecy....the oath cited would not prevent a person from confessing anything, from exercising freedom of choice, etc......DonaNobisPacem 05:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same with Masonic oaths.  Also, just to nitpick to illustrate a point, you are right assuming that Opus Dei is in fact following its Particular Law.  I believe the Knights Templar were ostensibly burned for something relating to not following certain Laws a while back. :)  I could also claim that unless you ask someone in Opus Dei to verify, you don't know, and even then, "they would say that, you know".  I'm not arguing semantics, though, only trying to illustrate that some things need to be taken as a given (or cited to equal degree) on both sides of the equation if we want a balanced article.  This affects whether we consider the fact of a claim made to be valid vs. the factg of validity of the claim as the barometer for inclusion. MSJapan 05:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I get what you're saying - as I said to Blueboar earlier, I have tried not to make edits on this page that can't be shown to have validity (and if it is simply the statement of a claim, I try to point it out as just that - a POV).  And just an FYI (as I used to be a frequent editor on the Knights Templar page) - they weren't burned b/c they didn't follow their Rule, it was because Philip IV had a vendetta against them...... : ) DonaNobisPacem 06:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Just so everyone is clear... I have no problem with rewriting this section.  The Church does have a legitimate issue with any society that contains "secret" oaths that a member could not discuss with his or her confessor.  So the section topic is definitely valid.  The question is whether Freemasonry really falls into that category or not.  There is debate over the issue, and that needs to be discussed.  Part of that debate (and thus part of the discussion) includes the perception of a double standard where it comes to specificly Catholic "secret" (or at least secretive) societies.  Blueboar 13:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oath-bound/Secret societies

message: OK, given that it has already been demonstrated that Pike had no authority over regular craft Masonry I have managed to dig up a reference which indicates the Antient and Accepted Rite ritual (Scottish Rite to the colonials ;) ) as used in Northern Jurisdiction and England and Wales wasn't written by him.
The A&AR ritual was originally documented by Etienne Morin and Henry Andrew Franken in 1771.  The manuscript is held by Supreme Council for England & Wales.  Franken then added to that in 1783, the manuscript being held by SC US Northern Jurisdiction, Lexington MA.
I'm not sure when NJ split from SJ, but SC of England&Wales was formed in 1845 under the authority of US NJ.  Pike didn't assume the office of Sov Gd Commander SJ until 1859, and as Supreme Councils are Sovreign clearly Pike would have had no authority over either NJ or any SC derived from NJ.  Indeed following the issuing of the patent NJ wouldn't have any authority over its daughter SCs.  Morals and Dogma wasn't published until 1872.
From that timeline it can be demonstrated that regardless of the influence of Pike within Southern Jurisdiction he had no authority over other Supreme Councils.
The source is a privately printed document by SC England & Wales, published in 1960, reprinted 1990.  A&AR The intermediate degrees.
Now I appreciate that the impact of this will probably be played down because it is a privately printed source and so not easily available to the public, however it does exist.  I also appreciate that it could be suggested that the conclusions I'm approaching may constitute orginal research, but I'm sure the material could be included to inform the reader.
I'm copying this across to the Catholicism article as well.ALR 23:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applicability of Pike 

message: I found this website which perports to give the version of the Kadosh degree as it is done in the US Northern Jurisdiction.  I can not vouch for it's authenticity, as I have never taken any Scottish Rite degrees... but it is at least a valid as any other ritual found on the internet.  If you accept it as valid, it does indicate that the claims about the Kadosh degrees made by Catholic critics of Freemasonry are not true as far as the Northern Jurisdiction goes.  No stabbing of skulls or trampling of tiaras mentioned.
On the other hand, while this site does talk about all the things that are claimed ... it will be noted if you go to the main page of the site it becomes clear that this is not an acutal Masonic site, but some "illuminati" group that has borrowed the trappings and degree names of the Scottish Rite for its wacko rituals.
I don't trust any of this as a citation for the article... I can not call them reliable sources, but they do reinforce my feeling that this whole claim is either made up out of whole cloth, or caused by a great misundertanding.  Blueboar 05:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do know NMJ, and that site is also old.  I've read a few newer versions, and they don't match that at all.  IIRC, the degree was last rewritten in the 1950s, but as I mentioned before, the tiara stuff comes from J. Banchard's Scotch/Scottish (depends on where you look) Rite, and it's the ritual used by the Cerneauist faction (Google it), which was short-lived and died out over a hundred years ago.  DeHoyos addresses this, I think, and I have the Blanchard book (I got it a long time ago because I thought it was the real AASR stuff), and it is in there. MSJapan 06:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a statement on this and a citation to DeHoyos.  Once again... misinformation, misattribution and out right lying from the Antis. Typical Blueboar 19:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And since there is a quote request... "Rev. Blanchard's outdated book was actually an exposure of Cerneauism, an illegitimate pseudo-Masonic organization founded by Joseph Cerneau and chiefly active in the 1800s. Oaths of fealty and other references to the Cerneau "Supreme Council" appear repeatedly throughout Blanchard's exposure".  Says it all really. Blueboar 19:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: my feeling that this whole claim is either made up out of whole cloth, or caused by a great misundertanding.  I have no idea whether the Scottish Rite does involve stabbing of skulls or trampling tiaras.  My suspicion is that something similar happened in the Southern Jurisdiction a hundred years ago by has now been quietly dropped - for reasons of taste more than PR.  However it is certainly not made up out of whole cloth, Pike mentions it and the Builder mentions it. JASpencer 19:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Once again... misinformation, misattribution and out right lying from the Antis. Typical. Can I refer you to WP:NPA?  JASpencer 19:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Kadosh degree 

message: Sections on same theme put together and re-ordered to follow a logical progression. Imacomp 12:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article re-ordered 

message: If there were Masonic Jacobites who supported Charles Edward Stuart, they ought to be quite surprised by the encyclica Eminenti Apostolatus Specula. According to my encyclopedia "Lenning" from 1900, Karl Eberhard von Wächter, a Mason and Kanzler der VIII. Provinz of the :de:Strikte Observanz met Charles Edward Stuart since they were sure he was one of the Unbekannte Oberen as claimed by Freiherr von Hund. The signed protocol was given to Ferdinand, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg. (Lenning tells us nothing about its contents.) When Herzog von Södermanland corresponded with Charles Edward Stuart because of his election to the Heermeister der VII. Provinz and wanted him to confirm this, Charles Edward Stuart consulted von Wächter, perhaps because of the encyclica and since he was dependent from the pope and lived in Italy. There was no more chance to get back the throne to that time, so it would have been not a good idea to confirm any connection to the Strikte Observanz. The encyclopedia tells us that there was a lodge that kept copies of this correspondence. But the Nazis confiscated all documents in the second world war. If they still exist these documents should be part of the Freimaurerbestände im Geheimen Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz or in posession of one of the Masonic Museums.
--SGOvD webmaster (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jacobites 

message: The Taxil hoax isn't mentioned at all. Leo Taxil was the inventor of most false rumors that are discussed here. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxil hoax - completely missing 

message: One of the issues here is that criticism of Freemasonry demands literal interpretation of the available material, whereas Freemasonry, being an allegorical and symbolical system, is not well served by literal interpretation.  As Christ used parable to communicate his message with layers of meaning appropriate to those of the flock who had differing degrees of knowledge, experience and understanding so Masonry uses a similar system (from Mashal in Hebrew) to communicate it's content.  The over-literal interpretation does not allow even a recognition of layered meaning meaning that actually those of us who do appreicate that, from our own experiences, are talking a different language from those who haven't had that experience.  It does rather tend to suggest that some of the issues under debate are never going to reach a reconciliation, but then the topic is the Roman Catholic Church in relation to the craft, and the RCC does tend to reserve interpretation for only a select few. :( ALR 21:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a page about Rosicrucianism but Catholicism and Freemasonry.  The Catholic position is clear on Freemasonry although the reasons why are complex.  There is no allegory on the Canon Law prohibition.  JASpencer 19:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your last is the point I'm making, the RCC prohibition is clear cut.  Although widely ignored, I've just come from a SocRos meeting with a number of RC brethren including one priest.  The difficulty with any elaboration on that prohibition immediately runs straight into the fact that FM is full of allegory, in the craft degrees predominantly around the Old Testament, in some of the appendant bodies more explicitly Christian and in fact RCC influenced in a couple (an interesting irony).  With that in mind, reconciling the two positions to make an article which is wholly acceptable to both your agenda and the understanding of those who have undergone the work is close to impossible; you ask for printed citations, we appreciate that the understanding does not lie in the printed word.ALR 21:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:V.  The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Sorry. JASpencer 22:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's no more than an observation, surprised you took it as anything else.ALR 22:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was responding to your first point about allegory, not to your point about Catholics indulging in heresy and/or Freemasonry. JASpencer 07:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well there you go, it rather suits the approach you appear to be taking at the moment.  It's easy to comdemn Freemasonry by taking things literally.ALR 09:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretation 

message: Found something to Ewald Gruber here: 
:Buchbeschreibung: Vlg. Rudolf Abt, München/Wien, 1899. OBrosch. 8. Lieferung 1,2,4 u. 5 - Lieferung 1: Loge und Kulturkampf. VIII, 56 S. mit Porträt des Autors. - Lieferung 2: Geschichte der Freimaurerei in Deutschland. S. 60-104. - Lieferung 4: Geschichte der Freimaurerei in Deutschland. S. 153-200. - Lieferung 5: Geschichte der Freimaurerei in Deutschland. S. 201-248. - Wolfstieg 1247. Antimaurerische Schrift mit sehr viel Material gegen die Freimaurerei. Ewald soll das Pseudonym eines Pfarrers Schwarz in Ottenbach sein. - Unbeschnittene und teilweise unaufgeschnittene Expl., kl. Randläsuren, Rückendeckel mit Bibliotheksmarken, sonst innen sauber. Buchnummer des Verkäufers 500292
This says that this is a book mainly against Freemasony and Ewald Gruber is meant to be a pseudonym of pastor "Schwarz" from Ottenbach. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ewald Gruber: "Loge und Kulturkampf" 

message: ABrowne. Now you are making it too easy! You are Lightbringer! Spotted in three edits! Imacomp 20:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ABrowne? Lightbringer!

message: ::: I’m infallible. I know because I’ve just read it here. I wrote it, and I'm infallible, so this must be true. Imacomp 00:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Imacomp... how many times to we have to tell you... the standard at Wikipedia is not truth but verification. You have to get someone ELSE to say you are infallible on their website so you can cite it, add a link, and then quote it in a foot note. Blueboar 12:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on Blueboar, you act as if Imacomp is infallible.  Or a couple of degrees higher than you.JASpencer 19:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe I'm the Grand Master of the Catenians? Follow the "link" and see. Imacomp 20:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean he's NOT?... but, but...  he just told me he was... boy, now I'm confused.  I don't know who to trust.  (in the words of the immortal Foghorn Leghorn: it's a joke, son, a joke) Blueboar 20:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a serious point about the Catenians, KoC, KSC, etc, in that it seems quite clear that they at least in part were aping Freemasonry.  In the 1960s they seem to have moved away from a lot of the ritualism and secrecy, but the history of these organisations is an interesting question for the church.  Sadly questions like these (and the role of Jacobitism and the differences or otherwise with Latin Masonry) will not be properly addressed for a long time. All interesting areas, but as long as a certain poster is allowed to stop growing up the whole page will bog down.  JASpencer 20:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Do not be so hard on yourself JASpencer. After all you do seem to show a kind of rudimentary intelligence. Imacomp 20:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Imacomp Admits...

message: In a couple of days I will list out the outstanding citation requests with a view to deleting the text. JASpencer 08:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation Requests

message: Webmaster, the quote requested was from the book, not the quote from Campillo. Thanks.  JASpencer 13:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Denslow Quote

message: JASpencer has requested a quote for the following statement: Masonic Scholar Art deHoyos claims to have demonstrated that these anti-Catholic elements do not form part of the rituals of the Scottish Rite, but are instead taken from Jonathan Blanchard's Scotch Rite Masonry Illustrated, an exposure of Cerneauism (an illegitimate pseudo-Masonic organization founded by Joseph Cerneau and chiefly active in the 1800s). there is a link in the foot note: Jonathan Blanchard and the Scottish Rite from "Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry".  
The problem with providing the quote as requested is that the link is not to a short, one sentence (or even a one paragraph) statement ... deHoyos has written an entire essay on this topic.  To copy it and put it here would be rediculous.  Go click on the link and read the essay...  If you do not agree that the article that is linked backs up the statement, then we have something to discuss... but the quote request itself can not be complied with. Blueboar 13:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No habilitation of a professor needs quotes for every sentence. And this is an encyclopedia, not a habilitation. References are sufficient for everyone who can read. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what Webmaster means by "habilitation" (this is not a word that comes up in common english... perhaps there is a translation issue?)... but I think I understand what he is saying... we do not need to put a quote into every footnote.  I agree.  JASpencer, I'm not sure you understand what a quotation request is for...  The quotation request template:   is designed to highlight questionable citations... it says clearly that we should post the citation to the talk page for discussion of interpretation.  It does not mean that we should add snippets of what we are citing to to the foot note.  What if we are citing to an entire book?  Do you want us to copy the book in the footnotes?  At the rate you are going, we would end up with a references section that is longer than the actual article!  The whole POINT of linking citations is that the reader can click on the link for further information that backs up the statements we make in the article.  Blueboar 13:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean habilitation. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah... thanks for the link.  Now I understand.  And you are correct.  This is not a habilitation.  Blueboar 13:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: deHoyos has written an entire essay on this topic.  He hasn't.  The article talks about Blanchard but in relation to a book written Secret Teachings of the Masonic Lodge: A Christian Perspective which is written by a Baptist minister and a collaborator (not sure of the denomination).  I can't see it mentioning the purported anti-Catholicism of the Scottish Rite or the Kadosh degree in particular.  So it is a legitimate question - how does this citation show that "these anti-Catholic elements do not form part of the rituals of the Scottish Rite" without going over WP:NOR? It is a legitimate question.JASpencer 14:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK... now I understand what your question is... (see, asking here where you can explain what confuses you is much better than simply slapping a quotation request on the article.)  The deHoyos article claims that the rituals in question do not come from the Scottish Rite, but are from Blanchard's Scotch Rite exposé of Cerneauism.  He then goes on to show how various Anti-masons have misunderstood or misused this difference.  It is true that he does not explicitly say "the folling bits of ritual: (quote ritual taken out of context), are not part of the Scottish Rite"... instead he says that the entire expose that Anti-masons base their claims on are from Blanchard.  This is why you need to link to the entire article and not just quote a small part of it. Blueboar 14:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an extrapolation of what de Hoyos says.  It falls foul of WP:NOR and should be deleted.  JASpencer 16:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree... I think deHoyos goes directly to the point.  He clearly points out that the ritual we are talking about is not part of Scottish Rite. Blueboar 20:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, if deHoyos falls fowl of NOR, as an extrapolation... then about 3/4 of the citations for this article do so as well.  A lot of them are Catholic extrapolations of what the Masonic Rituals say.  Blueboar 21:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blueboar, am I right in thinking that you have changed your mind on this?  I do not think that citing the page violates WP:NOR, just that without some original research it fails to back up the point. JASpencer 21:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly... I don't think we need to quote deHoyos... we need to cite Blanchard first, and THEN cite deHoyos.  Along with that would be a re-writing of the statement.  Something along the lines of: "These anti-Catholic elements, however, do not form part of the rituals of the Scottish Rite, but are instead taken from Jonathan Blanchard's Scotch Rite Masonry Illustrated,  an exposure of Cerneauism (an illegitimate pseudo-Masonic organization founded by Joseph Cerneau and chiefly active in the 1800s as discussed by Masonic Historian Art deHoyos in his essay "Is It True What They Say About Freemasons")."  I still don't think it is needed to add quotations from these works, as the reader can click on the link to deHoyos, and the Blanchard quote was already quoted (allbeit with an incorrect attribution) in  the previous citations.  Alternatively, we could cut the quotation in the previous citations and put it with the Blanchard citation (I prefer this, since Blanchard is not available on line while the previous citations you put in are.)  Otherwise we simply would be quoting exact same same bit of ritual, with the citation to two different sources.  Blueboar 01:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote request 

message: I'd just like to add a little about my view of this issue, little as I know about it. You guys seem to be arguing over two things: whether to have the quotes or not, and if to include them, how to include them. 
With the former, it's clear to me that it is much better to have the quotes than to not to- readers may like to read some of the original texts, such as they may be (what good would an article on Hamlet be, say, without any quotes from the play?), and they're useful for adding information an editor may not like to add because they don't feel like restating the quote's information, or it is too troublesome, or because they feel it borders on plagiarism- not to mention the usefulness of referencing. Besides, quotes can always be easily removed if need be, whereas if the person adding it does not add the quote along with the information, it is quite possible no one will ever get around to it, because there are simply so many more pressing issues on Wikipedia and in life.
As for the latter... I don't know much about the aesthetics of these particular quotes and articles, but I've never had or seen any problems with adding lengthy quotes or comments to footnotes. --maru   (talk)  contribs 03:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose my difficulty with all of this is a conflation of footnotes and citations.  I have no problem with having quotations (provided they do support the statements made) ... and I will even agree that sometimes it does make sense to have them as footnotes (although not nearly as frquently as is currently done here).  Again, this is a stylistic issue:  I don't like combining footnotes (which are really a continuation of the text) and citations.  If there were some way to split the two, to have seperate footnotes and citations, I would have less problems with sticking the quotes in footnotes. Blueboar 15:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside view 

message: Moving comments that really don't add to the discussion above. Blueboar 21:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I'm sure the "Ace Sockmeister" can pass it on - to himself. ;) Imacomp 20:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Imacomp, please provide evidence for your assertion. JASpencer 20:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What? Imacomp 20:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide evidence for your assertion that I am a sock.JASpencer 20:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Please provide your evidence for what you have asserted above. Imacomp 20:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh... now I get it.  sort of.  Never mind.  Blueboar 21:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other stuff 

message: I don't see where in the cited articles it mentions the Kadosh degree, anti-Catholic elements or any mention of the Papal tiara, hence the citation request.  Perhaps there is evidence showing that these allegations originally come from Blanchard, which would be the sort of citation I'm looking for.  Thanks. JASpencer 15:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got Blanchard's books.  Do you want the pages for the entire degree, or do you want the tiara page specifically? MSJapan 02:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I understand now what JAS is concerned about... rereading the section in question, I have to admit that there is a logic gap.  While we may understand that deHoyos is referring to the Blanchard exposé, a non-informed reader may not make the connection.  We need to make this connection explicit. In other words, we need a statement backed by a citation to show that the ritual that is quoted by the Catholic Encyclopedia and Second Exodus does indeed come from Blanchard. Then we can incorporate what deHoyos says about Blanchard.  So... MSJapan, please do give us the citation info from Blanchard's book, and any other links that might be useful. Blueboar 12:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Blueboar you put your finger on my concern there.  JASpencer 21:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Art deHoyos

message: While re-writing my version of the New Religion section, I noticed that the citation to Father Sauders's article in the Arlington Catholic Herald is incomplete.  I assume this is a newspaper or periodical magazine... so we need to add the issue or date of publication info.  This is true no matter what format we may like on dealing with the Quotation.  Blueboar 00:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  Added onto page.  How long before this gets taken off? JASpencer 15:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Blueboar 17:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation issue - Father Sauders