text:
Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry/Archive 1

Addressing serious issues... a complete re-boot?
OK, it is time to seriously address some long standing issues with this article. The current version of the article has POV problems, synth issues, relevance issues, and a host of other problems. In my opinion, these will not be resolved with minor tweeks. The problems are just too large.

Some of the issues I have include:
 * POV Tone problems... the tone is overly POV in discussing both sides of the issue. We alternate between trying to prove that that the Church is "right" to ban Freemasonry and trying to prove that it is "wrong" in doing so.
 * Synth and relevance problems... also affecting both viewpoints... there are a lot of assumptions being made in the current article. For example, the assumtpion that "Historical figure X was a Mason" and "Historical figure X did Anti-clerical things" are related.  We need solid sources to make such connections.  We also need to examine the chicken and egg issue... were historical figures Anti-clerical because they were Masons, or did they become Masons because they were Anti-clerical... or is it just coincidence?  Again, we need sources and not inuendo and supposition.
 * Over stating the Church's view and understating the Masonic view... we have a problem here that needs to be resolved: there has been a lot written by the Church on this topic, and very little written by the Masons... how do we achieve neutrality in what we write given this disparity?
 * Over reliance on outdated materials... The article relies too heavily on things like the Catholic Encyclopedia... great sources for discussing Church thinking of a century ago (less great when it comes to discussing the state of Freemasonry a century ago), but not for reflecting how things are today (Church thinking has subtlely changed in the last century, as much as some in the Church might wish it to be otherwise, and Masonry has changed dramatically in those years). We need to address this.
 * —This is part of a comment by Blueboar which was interrupted by the following:
 * You are mistaken. Fundamentally the teachings of the RCC never change.  The Depositum fidei can only expand, and be clarified, not shrunk.  Nor otherwise (in opposition) interpreted then before.  1 day or a thousand years do not matter in this case.  The only 'evolution' in morals and dogma is quantitatively, it is expanded, but never contradicted.  Thus the info from the CE is as actual as it was the day it was written. --Stijn Calle (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair to Blueboar he is saying that "thinking" has changed and not the deposit of faith. Words can have very precise meaning in Catholic theology so to find common ground, as mentioned earlier, it might be better to use phrases like "development of doctrine". Taam (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly... perhaps it is better to say that while the doctrine and teachings of the Church does not change, the interpretation of its doctrine and teachings has changed over time and will continue to change. Blueboar (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

These are just some of the larger problems... there are others. I have come to the conclusion that the only way to fix this article is to do a complete re-write.

I am hopeful that we can reach something both sides can agree to if we are willing to abandon the current language and structure, and work together in a step by step fashion... all it will take is for everyone to all assume good faith, and respect differeing opinions (this does not mean we have to agree with differing opinions... just respect them).

Is anyone outright opposed to the attempt? Blueboar (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Well I for one commend your efforts. I started to look up notable Catholic sources that were less belligerent in tone that I thought might be useful for the article but in the interest of NPOV I also tried to find other Catholic views that were critical of these sources. At this point I gave up since I would not pollute my thoughts, never mind this page with such darkness. A person who seemed to display all what Christians normally describe as "holiness" being described...well I'm sure you can guess... because, like the precepts in Vatican II, he was open to dialogue and could see the goodness in all people no matter their beliefs.Taam (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. Blueboar (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Catholic sources that were less belligerent in tone. If the radical opposition of the RCC towards freemasonry is a fact, belligerent words are normal.  To try to search for less threatening words would in this case be an effort to violate NPOV.  Belligerent words are correct words if they espress correctly the opinions in question.  The citations in the article are good ones and should be kept. --Stijn Calle (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Stijn... I think what you are trying to say is that if belligerant language reflects the viewpoint of the Church, then we should acknowledge that belligerance. I totally agree with that in concept... we should reflect viewpoints accurately.  However, I think what Taam is pointing out is that some Catholic sources use belligerant language that doesn't accurately reflect the normal viewpoint of the Church.  These are sources that reflects the viewpoint of an extreme fringe of the Church.  We can certainly discuss this fringe view, but we need to identify it as being a fringe viewpoint if we do discuss it. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not as if the (fixed) opinions of the RCC are here written in beligerent form originating from 'extremist interpretations' inside the church, whilst these (fixed) opinions have a more liberal (less beligerent) formulation in mainstraim church teachings. There is NO evolution of interpretation of church teaching that is fundamentally or qualitatively.  There exists only expanding of information, NEVER contradicting earlier teachings. These beligerant expressions can be found in papal documents, and other official documents of the highest church hierarchy.  They are NOT expressions of a fringe within the church.  Belligerency is a factual attitude of the church towards fundamental beliefs that it does not accept and are perilous to the salvation of one's soul.  --Stijn Calle (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

 * All I would add to Blueboar's comments is that any changes to the article should be mindful of not ripping out parts of old Papal documents (and I suppose the old Catholic Encyclopedia) the language which relates to the socio-political context of that era, and projecting them into the 21st century as representative of how the Church now relates to the world. During the 20th century the language of anathema and condemnation became muted in Church documents to reflect realities of the modern world and how to engage with it, on common ground for the common good, whilst respecting divergent takes on honestly held beliefs. I'm sure nobody here needs reminded how the lessons of history conditioned this. I think the current Pope writes about "Charity in Truth" which seems to resonate with similar ideas set out in Vatican II. Taam (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Dispensation from the sanctions imposed by membership in Freemasonry?
Recently on Father Benedict Groeschel's TV show, Sunday Night Live, a Catholic Mason called in stating his concern for his soul and obedience to the Church, despite his feeling that Masonry had no conflict with the Church. Father Groeschel stated that, although initiation into Freemasonry is still prohibited, today we are more interested than in the past in avoiding contentiousness. Then he advised the caller to write to his bishop, saying that the bishop may refer him on to Rome. He seemed to be implying that the bishop or the Vatican could give the man a dispensation from the prohibition or at least from the sanctions which membership incurs (He didn't seem to be advising that the man renounce Freemasonry). Does anyone know about this or have RS on it? If such dispensations are sometimes given perhaps it should be addressed here. Mamalujo (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any sort of dispensation available (at least I have never heard of one). I suppose a priest could grant absolution at confession, but that is not the same thing. If the caller did contact his bishop or the Vatican, he would probably be advised to resign from the fraternity.  He would probably get a similar answer if he asked someone at his Masonic Grand Lodge... if being a Mason is dragging on his concience, and if he can not reconcile his personal religious beliefs with his membership in the fraternity, then he should resign from the fraternity. Faith should always come first. Blueboar (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sub page set up for Drafting the rewrite
I have set up the following page: Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry/Draft of re-write of article as a place for us to work on a new version of the article... nothing is there yet, I simply wanted to be up-front and tell people that I am moving forward with a rewrite... I'll try to create an initial draft over the next few days (unless someone beats me to it) and let you know when it is done... then, of course, everyone can rip my hard work to shreds, comment on how POV/poorly written/poorly sourced etc. it is... and then we can start the process of edit warring over changes :>) I do recommend that we leave the existing article in place while we debate the replacement. We can swap things out once we are all happy with the rewrite. Blueboar (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

 * OK... I have created an initial version of the rewrite... at this point less a rewrite as a restructuring. We have a lot more to do, but at least we have a starting point.  Please drop by and opine (use the talk page attached to the Draft, rather than cluttering up this page). Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

 * The talk page is the draft. JASpencer (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with what JASpencer said, although at first I misunderstood what he meant. I thought he meant that THIS talk page is the draft, and that a subpage shouldn't be made, then I looked at how the draft is set up - properly, so that it is not a subpage of the ARTICLE, but a sub page of the TALKPAGE, which means it is IN talkspace, not article space, and has no additional discussion page.--Vidkun (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OOPS... Good point... I had not realized that this was how things automatically set up. sorry about that.
 * OK, I have moved the initial DRAFT to the article page (Catholicism and Freemasonry/Draft of re-write of article), which leaves the attached talk page free for discussions. Blueboar (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

 * It really should NOT be in as a subpage of the article, Blueboar. see here.--Vidkun (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So where should it be?... I don't want to move it to my user space, because I want to avoid the appearance that the end result is "my" version... I want everyone to be involved in rewriting. Blueboar (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

 * It's supposed to be where you originally had it - in as a subpage of a talk page.--Vidkun (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, do not feel we need a rewrite. What is the purpose? What are we intendending to change? The current version is actually the product of much reworking and I think it's pretty good. Mamalujo (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 * It's an essay really, and one that can be more aggresively edited by the author. JASpencer (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry. I'm not sure what you mean. Mamalujo (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

more on Church and State
At the moment the section discusses what the view of the Church 100 years ago was (citing sources written almost 100 years ago.) I contend that this has no relevance to today... Please provide some indication that the Church sees Freemaonry's stance on Church and State in the same light that it did back then... otherwise I will delete the section as being outdated and irrelevant. Blueboar (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, for now, never mind... I'll just omit it in the rewrite draft (if you want it there... please provide some relevance to modern day attituds.) Blueboar (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can find someone who says that the attitudes towards church and state are no longer an issue then go ahead and cite them. Otherwise it really is an editor's opinion, no matter how "obvious" it appears.  JASpencer (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

 * You know, I just realized that this entire section is a WP:SYN violation. It links disperate sources together in an attempt to make an argument that is not stated in the various sources.  I am cutting it. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly, please. Are you really saying that church and state where not prominent in most church condemnations of freemasonry?  The point that I would like us to get to is not removal of information but some idea of current thinking, which is by common consent the hole in the section.  There does seem to be an absence in church commentary on freemasonry and its relationship to church and state in the last sixty years or so, and that in itself is significant.  However how do we reflect the apparent indifference of the church?  By pretending it was never concerned about this?    JASpencer (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am quite serious... the section is a WP:SYN violation. There are several implied arguments being interwoven in this section... 1) that statements made by the Church over 100 years ago have relevance today.  2) That the Church's current stance on the seperation of Church and State is the same as it was 100 years ago.  3) That the modern stance of Freemasonry over the issue of the seperation of Church and State is the same as it was 100 years ago.  All leading to the implied conclusion that the Church still condemns Freemasony over this issue.   If we are going to discuss all these things in conjuction with each other... then we need a modern source that examines all of these disperate arguments and reaches the same conclusion.  Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) As this is partially a historical article then what the church or grand lodge said 100 years ago is still important. (2) The difference between what was said then and what is said now is an issue, but not one to be dealt with by "I wish it thus" deletions or mini (flawed) essays on the "evolution" of Church doctrine.  It needs some authorities to be brought on it.  (3) The stance of freemasonry on church and state is not really addressed in the deleted area although the difference between inert Anglo masonry and active Latin masonry is pretty much the same today (although the boundaries between the two schools may be different).
 * The church did see freemasonry's desire for the seperation of church and state as one of the problems of the institution. We have an authority on that.  Those two facts aren't in doubt.  To argue that we need a "modern" source to say what we all accept is tosh.  What we need is some way of saying what the Church does(n't) say today and (perhaps accidentally) provocative deletions are not the way to get to this.
 * That's why I'm going to reverse the deletion. It would be better to deal with this constructively rather than to just delete what you don't like.
 * JASpencer (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (1)WHY is what was said 100 years ago still important?  (2)and (3) But the article does (indirectly) discuss Freemasonry's stance (or at least the stance of one Grand Lodge)... it is quoted it in the foot notes.  However, this modern statement is juxtaposed with Church statements from 100 years ago... by doing this you set up an improper sythesis.   The implied conclusion being that what the Church was talking about 100 years ago is the same thing that modern Freemasons are talking about... and so the Church's views on the Separation of Chruch and State from 100 years ago apply to modern Freemasonry.  I won't edit war over this... I will take it to NORN and ask for third party opinions. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC on Separation of Church and State section
Please see the arguments in the section above, and comment below. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Is this the contested text? (i.e. it hasn't changed since the RFC was filed?)
 * One form of OR (if present) would occur if any of the sources was not explictly addressing Freemasonry's appeal for the separation of church and state. The key terms are A) Freemasonry's appeal, and B) Separation, and sources must be in that context. Is this given?
 * Secondly, rather than reporting what RSs have said, the section is itself argumentative. That's OR.
 * And, although the first sentence states 18th/19th century, its unclear whether the rest is also in reference to the 18th/19th century. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, if this is supposed to be an RfC, isn't it supposed to filed as such on the RfC page? John Carter (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, since it was purely a WP:NOR issue, I posted a request for comment at WP:NORN, rather than in the main RFC page.Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reasonable answer. Is Fullstop right regarding the contested text? Per your comments on the NORN, I would have to say that linking the various statements is probably not right, unless one of the later sources explicitly refers to the earlier sources. But at least regarding statements of the Catholic Church, I think it is the case that any statements which that body makes which aren't more or less specifically "overruled" at a later date are still valid. In this case, the statements of Vatican II that John Courtney Murray helped get through, which indicated that separation of church and state were not things that the church itself saw as being necessarily opposed to its principles in Dignitatis Humanae Personae could be seen as indicating that Catholics themselves no longer see separation of church and state as an evil. Regarding the statement of one Grand Lodge, if that statement is itself phased so as to indicate the statement is relevant more broadly than that single lodge, that would probably be changed. I couldn't find exactly what was being spoken of there, though. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes... no edits have been made to the text since I posted the request at WP:NORN. JASpencer and I were reverting each other about this (see our comments on this in the section above),  and I decided to stop the edit war and seek third party opinions instead.
 * Since it seems that both you and Fullstop agree that there is an OR problem, the next question becomes what do we do about it? Can it be fixed or should we simply delete the section? Blueboar (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not how I read John's comment at all, Blueboar. The problem is that you are conflating two seperate disputes in one article.  Question 1 is whether the Catholic Church's views on church and state have changed and whether this affects its attitude towards freemasonry and question two is whether pointing out that the Catholic Church had stated that church and state was a problem constitutes original research.  John was answering question one (which if I remember you were claiming was perfectly legitimate).  JASpencer (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Date is not necessarily a problem if that context is clear. That is however not so.
 * reading specifities into sources is OR, and thus constitutes a NOR violation. For example source [58] (first in that section) is a quotation from Leo XIII Humanum Genus that reads: " It is held also that the State should be without God; that in the various forms of religion there is no reason why one should have precedence of another; and that they are all to occupy the same place. " This is not specific to freemasonry (its actually a general theme of the enlightenment), which in fact the first sentence of that very same paragraph, and the first sentence of the next clearly note. Further, that encyclia has nothing to do with separation of church and state but is in fact a list of perceived symptoms of Freemasonry's (alleged) "wish to destroy the religion and the Church which God Himself has established". Even if Leo had concluded that Freemasonry supported separation of church and state (which Leo does not do), it would not actually reflect " the Church frequently criticized Freemasony for its support of a strict separation of church and state ", which is what Leo is being cited for.
 * " Such strict separation of church and state... " is an artifice. It presupposes (and causes the reader to presuppose) that the previous sentence established a fact, when in fact it did not do so.
 * That section makes generalizations that are not verifiable. For example: Who says " In recent years Catholic condemnations of Freemasonry have shown less emphasis on the political aspect of Freemasonry " ? Who says " Throughout the Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, the Church frequently criticized Freemasony for its support of a strict separation of church and state " ? Who says " manifesting a religious indifferentism which did not accept any religion as true or revealed " ?  The accompanying "sources" do not substantiate those claims. That in turn constitutes a NOR violation.
 * using sources as examples to assert something is OR, and thus constitutes a NOR violation. For example (first sentence), " the Church frequently criticized Freemasony for its support of a strict separation of church and state ". This is not followed by a source that states anything like "the Church frequently criticized ..." Instead, it is followed by examples of criticism, from which the editor(s) concluded that "the Church frequently criticized...". Even if properly cited, this is OR, and thus a NOR violation. In that section, every source being "cited" is being abused in this fashion. Moreover, misrepresenting examples -- as if they were sources that already make conclusions -- is not even permissible in legitimate OR, leave alone on WP where OR is altogether prohibited.
 * As it stands (because of the extensive abuse of sources) every sentence in that section is invalid. For the message to be valid, the editor(s) need to use reliable sources that already thematisize (i.e. review) the Church's critique of Freemasonry's position on the Separation of church and state. Someone else has to have previously arrived at the conclusions presently being made in that section. Those sources may then be cited for their conclusions. A Wikipedia article may not itself arrive at conclusions. Wikipedia articles may not state anything that has not been said before. Wikipedia articles may not join together what has not been joined before. And, the greatest crime that anyone can make in academic writing is a misrepresentation of sources.
 * On Wikipedia, the only legitimate use of sources is an on-topic and accurate summary of what each source independently says. -- Fullstop (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we have the second citation for the first sentence... " Freemasonry Does Not Support any particular political position. It has long stood for separation of Church and State, and has been a champion of Free Public Education." From a speech given by Bill Jones Grand Master of Arkansas, 1996 ". I assume that this is being used to support the idea that Freemasons support the concept of separation of Church and State. However, it is misplaced here.  How can a statement issued by a Grand Master in the late 20th century have any relationship to Church criticisms from the 19th and early 20th century?  It is obviously tossed in to make it appear that the earlier Church criticisms are in some way valid today; essentially saying to the reader "see... A Grand Master says Freemasons support the separation of Church and State, so Humanum Genus must have been right!"  Placing the two quotes side by side invites the reader to make a comparison, one that omits the context in which each statement was given. Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

 * The date of sources is not per-se a problem. That is, if source A says X, and source B says X, then both sources can safely be cited for both saying X, and it does not matter whether A and B are from the same period. HOWEVER, in this case, source A and source B are not both saying X. Indeed, neither is saying anything like what they are being cited for.
 * Thus, objectively speaking, the fatal flaw in the citation of that source is simply that
 * " Freemasonry Does Not Support any particular political position. It has long stood for separation of Church and State, and has been a champion of Free Public Education. "
 * does not in any way reflect what it is being "cited" for. It is being "cited" for
 * " Throughout the Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, the Church frequently criticized Freemasony for its support of a strict separation of church and state. "
 * This is a either a gross misrepresentation of the source, or it is an attempt to provide a "source" for what the editor made up. In either case, it is dishonest, and as such constitutes an attempt to undermine the integrity of the encyclopedia.
 * The problem seems to be chronic: a cursory review of the article shows that it is absolutely littered with such dishonesty, and it is patently evident (to me) that someone was/is misusing this article to forward his thoughts to the world.
 * Additionally, a brief look at the so-called "references section" shows only one (or perhaps two) reliable sources. I cannot say whether these are being used correctly. But the majority of the other sources are being abused in exactly the same manner as noted two sections above this one.
 * Thus, it would seem the "Separation_of_church_and_state" section is really just an acute symptom of a greater problem. Gettting rid of it will require the article to be written from scratch, this time without the pernicious/pervasive abuse of sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; articles need objective reporting of existing content, not argumentative claptrap that some "genius" cobbled together. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (outdent) I can't really find fault with that statement, so perhaps we should not RFC a particular item, but effectively audit and rewrite the whole article instead? MSJapan (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have started just such a rewrite already... see: Catholicism and Freemasonry/Draft of re-write of article. In the meanwhile, I am going to delete the section on Church and State (again). Fullstop's detailed analysis confirms my feeling that it is beyond fixing with anything less than a complete rewrite. Blueboar (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have worked on the rewrite a bit more, removing the OR and argumentative language. I would like to formally propose that we replace the current language with what is there, and use that as the basis for continued work.  Any objections? Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hearing none... I shall so proceed. Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the rewrite

 * Apologies for taking so long to respond, but I felt the need to educate myself on the subject before venturing an opinion on content.
 * The draft/current version is better, but not free of problems, albeit of another sort (The previous state of the article also had most of these problems)
 * The draft/current version is restricted to a list of the Vatican's injunctions against Freemasonry. But papal edicts against Freemasonry do not constitute a discussion of Catholicism and Freemasonry. That list would perhaps be more appropriate in an article titled "Papal edicts against Freemasonry." The former version also demonstratively missed the point in that strange section titled "Relationship between Catholicism and Continental Freemasonry" section. Its redundant when the whole article is (ostensibly) about the relationship between Catholicism and Freemasonry". The geographic division was also invalid, and just as contrived as, say, a subsection titled "French Catholicism and Freemasonry".
 * Both versions go overboard with sub-sectioning, by which they effectively turn the subject into a power-point presentation. The lack of a coherent narrative encourages interpolations, i.e. OR. Lack of coherence leaves the reader confused, and the bullet lists merely serve to impress upon the reader the idea that the Popes were a bunch of uninformed dimwits.
 * Lack of context. The Papal edicts were not made on a whim, nor where they made in isolation from historical events of their time. The papal prohibitions have a backstory, and each action resulted in a reaction (which in turn had another reaction, and so on). One reason for those edicts appears in Leo XIII's denunciation of Freemasonry as "the permanent personification of revolution". In essence, what Leo was referring to was the revolution against the Vatican's notions of (infallibile!) moral and temporal superiority, viz. the ideas that were discarded during the Enlightenment. What Leo denounced as "the great error of the age" in 1901, we call "secularization" or "religious equality", and which is/was a thorn in the Vatican's side. These issues need to be explained.
 * Both versions are lopsided.
 * While Freemasons were the visible antithesis of institutionalized religion (i.e. of the Vatican), it is not safe to suppose that the Vatican's position on Freemasonry is co-eval with Catholicism's position on Freemasonry. This may be exemplified by the fact that when, in 1794, the Bishop of Baltimore was asked for his opinion on the papal prohibitions against Freemasonry, he replied "I do not pretend that these decrees are generally received by the Church."
 * Even so, the title of the article is "Catholicism and Freemasonry", not "Catholics on Freemasonry". The relationship between them is a two-way road. By way of example: Masons have been (or claim to have been, or are perceived to have been) instrumental in precipitating the founding of the French, Italian, Portuguese, Mexican, Brazilian (etc) republics. These events went hand-in-hand with anti-clericalism, and the revolutions occurred at the expense of the clergy who had shared power with the former feudal/semi-theocratic regimes. Then there are the reciprocal myths that Masons and Jesuits subscribe to, which make the other party responsible for their suppression; indeed, each side even subscribes to the other side's myth. Masons are perceived to have had a role in the anti-Catholic hysteria of the early 20th century United States, just as Boston's Catholics are perceived to have engendered the antimasonic movement of the 1820s.
 * Quality of sources is terrible. Both versions just vaccumn together titbits found elsewhere on the web. Like any dust bag, all they collected was condensed dirt, indiscriminately gray. But an encyclopedia article's job is to inform, and that means that editors need to distill relevant reliable sources, and not what readers can find with any old search engine. What follows is a list of the papers I read in the last two days.
 * Editors who would like to have a copy of these should send me mail. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair comments. And a lot to digest.
 * I do have one reply at the moment (I am sure I will come up with others later)... it goes to the issue of Anglo/American vs. Continental Freemsonry. I do think there is a valid line to be drawn here.  You see, it is incorrect to talk about a unified Freemasonry.  There are actually two very seperate forms of Freemasonry, with very different histories of how they interacted with the Church. You say "The papal prohibitions have a backstory, and each action resulted in a reaction (which in turn had another reaction, and so on)"... this is true, but the reaction is not the same when you look at these two branches of Freemasonry.
 * The Continental form of Freemasonry is a minority world wide but, since it tends to be common in Catholic countries is what the Church tends to notice. The Continental Grand bodies have been quite outspoken on religio-political issues over the years, and during the 19th and early 20th centuries there was something of a spiral effect going on: The Church would issue a condemnation of Freemasonry, those with anti-clerical leanings then see Freemasonry as something worth joining, which causes more condemnations, which attract more anti-clerical people to Freemasonry... etc. There is a good discription of this effect in Jasper Ridley's book "The Freemasons".
 * A different reaction occured in the Anglo/American form of Freemasonry (which forms the majority of Freemasonry world wide). These Grand Lodges do not comment on religious or political issues. Here, the only official reaction to Papal condemnation has been absolute and utter silence (unofficial reactions have ranged from mild statements of regret to, recently, polite attempts to "correct" what are seen as misrepresentations of Freemasonry).
 * In other words, for the majority of Freemasonry, the relationship between Chruch and Freemasonry has NOT been a two-way road. It has been decidedly ONE way... all from the Church.  The Church has been focused on an outspoken minority of Freemasonry.
 * This differnce may explain why there is more acceptance of Freemasonry among American Clergy (not to mention the layity) than there is from European Clergy and the Vatican. When they think of, and talk about Freemasonry, they are actually disussing two different things. Unfortunately, I am not sure if anyone has published an analysis of this, so (while important to understanding what is going on) we can not discuss it in the article. Blueboar (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do have one reply at the moment (I am sure I will come up with others later)... it goes to the issue of Anglo/American vs. Continental Freemsonry. I do think there is a valid line to be drawn here.  You see, it is incorrect to talk about a unified Freemasonry.  There are actually two very seperate forms of Freemasonry, with very different histories of how they interacted with the Church. You say "The papal prohibitions have a backstory, and each action resulted in a reaction (which in turn had another reaction, and so on)"... this is true, but the reaction is not the same when you look at these two branches of Freemasonry.
 * The Continental form of Freemasonry is a minority world wide but, since it tends to be common in Catholic countries is what the Church tends to notice. The Continental Grand bodies have been quite outspoken on religio-political issues over the years, and during the 19th and early 20th centuries there was something of a spiral effect going on: The Church would issue a condemnation of Freemasonry, those with anti-clerical leanings then see Freemasonry as something worth joining, which causes more condemnations, which attract more anti-clerical people to Freemasonry... etc. There is a good discription of this effect in Jasper Ridley's book "The Freemasons".
 * A different reaction occured in the Anglo/American form of Freemasonry (which forms the majority of Freemasonry world wide). These Grand Lodges do not comment on religious or political issues. Here, the only official reaction to Papal condemnation has been absolute and utter silence (unofficial reactions have ranged from mild statements of regret to, recently, polite attempts to "correct" what are seen as misrepresentations of Freemasonry).
 * In other words, for the majority of Freemasonry, the relationship between Chruch and Freemasonry has NOT been a two-way road. It has been decidedly ONE way... all from the Church.  The Church has been focused on an outspoken minority of Freemasonry.
 * This differnce may explain why there is more acceptance of Freemasonry among American Clergy (not to mention the layity) than there is from European Clergy and the Vatican. When they think of, and talk about Freemasonry, they are actually disussing two different things. Unfortunately, I am not sure if anyone has published an analysis of this, so (while important to understanding what is going on) we can not discuss it in the article. Blueboar (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Re: the distinction between Grand Lodge and Continental:
 * Ok, but such distinctions then need to be explained. Moreover, the reactions to the Vatican may be different, but the Vatican does not differentiate. On the contrary, the Vatican's statements are explicitly all-encompassing, e.g. "whatever name they go by" (Clement XII), or "several organized bodies which, though differing in name, in ceremonial, in form and origin, are nevertheless so bound together by community of purpose and by the similarity of their main opinions" (Leo XIII). The same sort of general hand-waving ("sect of the same sort", "other such societies" etc) occurs in statements from Benedict XIV, Pius VII, VIII, IX, and Gregory XVI.
 * Of course, perceptually the Vatican's attacks on Freemasonry may seem to be addressed to the lodges in predominantly Catholic countries, which is presumably where the attacks are most keenly felt. After all, predominantly Catholic countries have predominantly Catholic lodges. However, this is not limited to (say) Italy where the Freemasonry is primarily "continental", but applies to (say) Ireland as well, where the lodges are almost all with English/Scottish constitutions. Poland -- another arch-Catholic country -- has twice as many Scottish rites lodges as Grand Oriental lodges. Then there are those countries in which the Eastern Catholic Churches are strong. Thus, considered collectively, I don't see a 1:1 relationship between "predominantly Catholic countries" and "continental" Freemasonry. While "continental" Freemasonry latter is typically found in countries that predominantly Catholic, predominantly Catholic countries aren't necessarily (or even typically) limited to "continental" Freemasonry.
 * Re: the relationship between Church and Freemasonry being decidedly one way:
 * Even if the Grand Lodges do not comment on religious or political issues, this "absolute and utter silence" is not necessarily an indication of a lack of response. Responses don't necessarily have to be spoken, nor do that have to be officially made. An example of a response (or perceived response) is polemically described by Leo: "Now, these no longer show a desire to remain concealed; for they hold their meetings in the daylight and before the public eye, and publish their own newspaper organs." Thus, even if the Masons did not comment with words, they (were perceived to) respond with actions.
 * It may also be that things only appear one way. This could be due to the reliance on primary sources. On the one hand there is a Vatican that apparently can't help pontifying on the evil in all but itself. On the other hand there is a society that is closemouthed by design. Under such circumstances, the reliance on primary sources is destined to be a onesided depiction -- perforce one in which the Vatican says everything, and the Freemasons say nothing.
 * The reliable sources have a more varicolored picture, and -- to me -- a more reasonable and rational one. This is a picture in which the reasons for the papal polemic are apparent (it is not just a product of the Vatican's own chauvinistic convictions); and in which Catholicism is not necessarily equal to what Rome doth spew.
 * Suggestion: move the current content to "Papal edicts against Freemasonry". "Catholicism and Freemasonry" can redirect to "Christianity and Freemasonry" until RSs can be found. (my offer to forward material stands) -- Fullstop (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing my point... part of the problem is that the official Catholic opposition to Freemasonry does not distinguish between Anglo/American and Continental branches... but another part is the way Freemasonry responds to that opposition. There are three distinct perspectives on this topic. The Church's perspective, the Continental Masonic perspective, and the Anglo/US Masonic perspective.  Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * oops. I did misunderstand. Sorry about that. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the suggestion to move content and redirect ... I don't have a problem with that in principle. I have long thought that this article should be renamed. Perhaps something like: Papal ban of Freemasonry would be more appropriate?Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK... I want to make sure that JASpencer (who was essentially the main contributer to the pre-rewrite version of the article) is notified and has had a chance to opine on this before any action is taken. I will leave him a message. Blueboar (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Having looked over the comments as well, I agree with a need for better sourcing. However, I think we have a fundamental problem with how we are delineating the scope of the article.  I agree that we need to address the divide in Anglo vs. Continental Freemasonry, but we also need to decide what we mean by "Catholicism" in general.  Every religion has some difference of opinion within it, but if we are talking about Roman Catholicism, the official position would have to come from the Vatican, otherwise we are starting to deal with local interpretations of Canon Law and probably a lot more besides.  So what is it we are trying to convey with the title "Catholicism and Fremasonry"? MSJapan (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I think we can safely assume that 'Catholicism' means 'Roman Catholic' here. But it does not follow that the article is then restricted to (only) reiterating the Vatican's announcements.
 * Reactions/interpretations of those edicts (including reactions/interpretations from Roman Catholics) are also on-topic. What the article needs to do is use reliable sources; sources that discuss the edicts will also discuss their impact. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK... two weeks ago, I left a note on JAS's talk page about the move/redirect idea... No reply (he seems to be away from Wikipedia). I will give him one last chance to comment, and make the proposal more prominent (see below). Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Separation of Lodge and State
I think one of the remaining issues is that many Church leaders would certainly like to see more separation of Lodge and State, i.e. there are still many of them who disapprove of things like government-sponsored funds going to Masonic lodges. In France, many public officials apparently have no qualms about giving public money to Masonic associations. ADM (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a seperate issue (and one that would need more than a blog posting as a ref to include in the article). Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence of any opinion on this from Church leaders so it doesn't fit in here. JASpencer (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move and redirect
This was suggested above, but I want to highlight it in its own section... Proposed: that the current content be moved to Papal ban of Freemasonry and the title be redirected to Christianity and Freemasonry. Discussion? Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I will take the lack of reply as consensus for the proposal. Last call to state an objection. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

OK... DONE. Blueboar (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It probably would have helped to have it listed at Proposed moves. John Carter (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh... sorry if I have messed things up, John. I was not aware that there was a proceedure to follow. If you feel that my move and redirect should be undone, and proper proceedure followed, please do so. Blueboar (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily object to the move myself, as Christianity and Freemasonry is probably a more inclusive title. I was just pointing out that, I think, that most of the discussion regarding such moves tends to arise from being listed there. John Carter (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I for one have a highly object to the way this article was decimated and then redirected to two different articles. The "Papal Ban" article is a joke. It isn't a papal ban. It is a a ban by the Church. Also, the small portion of the Christianity and Freemasonry article which deals with Catholicism, omits large portions of important material as does the Papal Ban article. Quite frankly the whole process has a POV stink to it. Mamalujo (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you're going to have to be put on the spot to give some direction as to what we should do with it and how. The article has never really been satisfactory, because the POV has been claimed to have gone one way, and then it swings back in the other.  I think we're going to have to start from scratch material-wise, but I for one don't know what's good and what isn't. MSJapan (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry/Archive 1


text:
Tiwa

Tiwa and Tigua may refer to:

 * Tiwa Puebloans, an ethnic group of New Mexico, US
 * Tiwa (Lalung), an ethnic group of north-eastern India
 * Tiwa language (India), a Sino-Tibetan language of India
 * Tiwa languages, a group of Tanoan languages of the US

People with the name

 * Malakai Tiwa (born 1986), Fijian footballer
 * Monty Tiwa (born 1976), Indonesian film director and screenwriter
 * Tiwa Savage (born 1980), Nigerian singer

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Tiwa


text:
Thomas Hudson (painter)

Thomas Hudson (1701–1779) was an English painter, almost exclusively of portraits.

Life
Hudson was born in Devonshire in 1701. His exact birthplace is unknown. He studied under Jonathan Richardson in London and, against the latter's wishes, married Richardson's daughter at some point before 1725.

Hudson was most prolific between 1740 and 1760 and, from 1745 until 1755 was the most successful London portraitist. He had many assistants, and employed the specialist drapery painter Joseph Van Aken. Joshua Reynolds, Joseph Wright and the drapery painter Peter Toms were  his students.

Hudson visited the Low Countries in 1748 and Italy in 1752. In 1753 he bought a house at Cross Deep, Twickenham, just upstream from Pope's Villa. He retired toward the end of the 1750s. William Hickey described the elderly Hudson, "His figure was rather grotesque, being uncommonly low in stature, with a prodigious belly, and constantly wearing a large white bushy periwig. He was remarkably good tempered, and one of my first-rate favourites, notwithstanding that he often told me I should certainly be hanged.". He died at Twickenham in 1779. His extensive private art collection was sold off in three separate sales.

Many of Hudson's works may be seen in art galleries throughout the United Kingdom. They include the National Portrait Gallery, the National Maritime Museum, Tate, Barnstaple Guildhall, Foundling Museum and the Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery.

Death
Hudson died in 1779, aged 77 or 78.

title: Thomas Hudson (painter)


text:
Acrylic fiber

Acrylic fibers are synthetic fibers made from a polymer (polyacrylonitrile) with an average molecular weight of ~100,000, about 1900 monomer units. For a fiber to be called "acrylic" in the US, the polymer must contain at least 85% acrylonitrile monomer. Typical comonomers are vinyl acetate or methyl acrylate. DuPont created the first acrylic fibers in 1941 and trademarked them under the name Orlon. It was first developed in the mid-1940s but was not produced in large quantities until the 1950s. Strong and warm, acrylic fiber is often used for sweaters and tracksuits and as linings for boots and gloves, as well as in furnishing fabrics and carpets. It is manufactured as a filament, then cut into short staple lengths similar to wool hairs, and spun into yarn.

Modacrylic is a modified acrylic fiber that contains at least 35% and at most 85% acrylonitrile. Vinylidene chloride or vinyl bromide used in modacrylic give the fiber flame retardant properties. End-uses of modacrylic include faux fur, wigs, hair extensions, and protective clothing.

Production
The polymer is formed by free-radical polymerization in aqueous suspension. The fiber is produced by dissolving the polymer in a solvent such as N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF) or aqueous sodium thiocyanate, metering it through a multi-hole spinneret and coagulating the resultant filaments in an aqueous solution of the same solvent (wet spinning) or evaporating the solvent in a stream of heated inert gas (dry spinning). Washing, stretching, drying, and crimping complete the processing. Acrylic fibers are produced in a range of deniers, usually from 0.9 to 15, as cut staple or as a 500,000 to 1 million filaments tow. End uses include sweaters, hats, hand-knitting yarns, socks, rugs, awnings, boat covers, and upholstery; the fiber is also used as "PAN" precursor for carbon fiber. Production of acrylic fibers is centered in the Far East, Turkey, India, Mexico, and South America, though a number of European producers still continue to operate, including Dralon and Fisipe. US producers have ended production (except for specialty uses such as in friction materials, gaskets, specialty papers, conductive, and stucco), though acrylic tow and staple are still spun into yarns in the USA. In the late 1950s, Courtaulds Ltd began investigating the production of an acrylic fiber later to be called "Courtelle" by a process of solvent polymerization. Methyl acrylate (6%) and acrylonitrile were polymerised in a 50% solution of sodium thiocyanate to produce a dope ready for spinning into a water bath to produce "courtelle" fiber in various grades of denier. The sodium thiocyanate solution was reconcentrated and re-used. The reaction was a continuous process, with about 5% of reactants being recycled. This recycling process resulted in the build-up of pollutants in the process, as did the recycling of the solvent. A great deal of research in the chemical engineering laboratory in Lockhurst Lane, Coventry, and on the pre-production pilot plant at Little Heath overcame the recycling problems. It resulted in the process becoming a commercial success at a new production plant in Grimsby.

Textile uses
Acrylic is lightweight, soft, and warm, with a wool-like feel. It can also be made to mimic other fibers, such as cotton, when spun on short staple equipment. Some acrylic is extruded in colored or pigmented form; others is extruded in "ecru", otherwise known as "natural," "raw white," or "undyed." Pigmented fiber has the highest color permanence. Its fibers are very resilient compared to both other synthetics and natural fibers. Some acrylic is used in clothing as a less expensive alternative to cashmere, due to the similar feeling of the materials. Some acrylic fabrics may fuzz or pill easily, though there are low-pilling variants. Acrylic takes color well, is washable, and is generally hypoallergenic. End-uses include socks, hats, gloves, scarves, sweaters, home furnishing fabrics, and awnings. Acrylic can also be used to make fake fur and to make many different knitted clothes.

As acrylic is a synthetic fiber, the larvae of clothes moths are unable to digest it. However, acrylic fibers that are blended with wool or soiled may be eaten as a consequence of having blended fibers.

Acrylic is the "workhorse" hand-crafting fiber for crafters who knit or crochet; acrylic yarn may be perceived as "cheap" because it is typically priced lower than its natural-fiber counterparts, and because it lacks some of their properties, including softness and propensity to felt. The fiber requires heat to "relax" or set the shape of the finished garment, and it isn't as warm when wet as alternatives like wool. Some hand-knitters also complain that the fiber "squeaks" when knitted, or that it is painful to knit with because of a lack of "give" or stretch in the yarn. On the other hand, it is machine-washable and extremely color-fast. This makes it useful in certain items, like garments for babies, which require constant washing. However it is much more flammable than its natural fiber counterparts, so caution should be used when making items for babies and children.

Microplastic release
A team at Plymouth University in the UK spent 12 months analyzing what happened when a number of synthetic materials were washed at different temperatures in domestic washing machines, using different combinations of detergents, to quantify the microfibres shed. They found that acrylic was responsible for releasing nearly 730,000 tiny synthetic particles (microplastics) per wash, five times more than polyester-cotton blend fabric, and nearly 1.5 times as many as pure polyester. Research by ecologist Mark Browne showed synthetic fibre waste over coastlines at a global scale, with the greatest concentration near sewage outflows. Of the man-made material found on the shoreline, 85% were microfibers and matched the types of material (such as nylon and acrylic) used in clothing.

The History of Acrylic Fabrics
In the middle of the last century, the DuPont Company (USA) was actively developing a new material that could compete with the then-popular nylon in quality and properties. DuPont first introduced this material in 1948 to create a fabric that would be competitive with nylon in its properties. This research resulted in the emergence of Orlon, a synthetic fiber isolated from polymers. The material turned out to be incredibly practical and, by many characteristics, exceeded many artificial and natural analogs at that time. However, the new fabric had a significant disadvantage: the fibers could not be dyed. Only in 1952, four years later, DuPont chemists solved this problem. They created a new version of the previously invented synthetic fabric, which met all the requirements. And most importantly, it was perfectly dyed. A distinctive feature of the acrylic fiber is its burning behavior; it melts and emits acrid smoke with a sour smell. Although acrylic fabric has pros and cons, it is popular in the fashion and textile world due to its characteristics.

title: Acrylic fiber


text:
18th Dáil

The 18th Dáil was elected at the 1965 general election on 7 April 1965 and met on 21 April 1965. The members of Dáil Éireann, the house of representatives of the Oireachtas (legislature) of Ireland, are known as TDs. It sat with the 11th Seanad as the two Houses of the Oireachtas.

The 18th Dáil saw a change of Taoiseach from Seán Lemass to Jack Lynch in November 1966. On 22 May 1969, President Éamon de Valera dissolved the Dáil at the request of Taoiseach Jack Lynch. The 18th Dáil lasted days.

Composition of the 18th Dáil
Fianna Fáil, denoted with a bullet, formed the 11th government of Ireland led by Seán Lemass as Taoiseach. In 1966, Lemass resigned as Fianna Fáil leader and Taoiseach, to be succeeded by Jack Lynch, who formed the 12th government of Ireland.

Graphical representation
This is a graphical comparison of party strengths in the 18th Dáil from April 1965. This was not the official seating plan.

Ceann Comhairle
On the meeting of the Dáil, Patrick Hogan (Lab), who had served as Ceann Comhairle since 1951, was proposed by Seán Lemass (FF) and seconded by James Dillon (FG) for the position. His election was approved without a vote.

On 7 November 1967, Hogan retired as Ceann Comhairle. Cormac Breslin (FF), the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, was appointed to the position on a temporary basis. On 14 November, Breslin was proposed by Lemass to the position on a permanent basis. His election was approved without a vote.

TDs by constituency
The list of the 144 TDs elected is given in alphabetical order by Dáil constituency.

title: 18th Dáil


text:
Robert Liston

Robert Liston (28 October 1794 – 7 December 1847) was a British surgeon. Liston was noted for his speed and skill in an era prior to anaesthetics, when speed made a difference in terms of pain and survival. He was the first Professor of Clinical Surgery at University College Hospital in London and performed the first public operation utilizing modern anaesthesia in Europe.

Early life
He was born in the manse of Ecclesmachan, the son of Margaret Ireland from Culross and her husband Rev Henry Liston a clergyman and an inventor, from Ecclesmachan in West Lothian west of Edinburgh. His grandfather – also Robert Liston – was the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.

Career
After a local education both from his father and in Abercorn village school, Liston studied at Edinburgh Medical School from 1808, and in 1810 became assistant to his tutor Dr John Barclay. In 1816, he went to London for a year to train under William Blizard. He returned to Edinburgh to teach anatomy alongside James Syme. He was then living at 95 Princes Street – a fine house facing Edinburgh Castle. In 1820, he married the daughter of Adam Crawford, a Leith wine merchant. In 1818, he had become house surgeon in The Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh under Dr George Bell. However, he was dismissed in 1822 due to disagreements with Bell and not reinstated until 1827. In 1828, he was promoted to operating surgeon.

He became first 'The Northern Anatomist' of Blackwood’s Magazine. In 1832/1833, he is listed as living at 99 George Street in the centre of Edinburgh's New Town. In 1833, he applied for Edinburgh's Professorship of Anatomy but was beaten by James Syme (5 years his junior) who had a much better aptitude for teaching. Liston then left Edinburgh and relocated to London.

For the last seven years of his life he lived at 5 Clifford Street, off Bond Street in Mayfair, in a building and area now of historical significance, hence Richard Gordon's specific mention of this address in his section on Robert Liston.

He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1841.

Death
He died of a ruptured aortic aneurysm on 7 December 1847 at his Mayfair home, and his funeral took place at St Michael's Church, Highgate, six days later. The funeral procession from his home consisted of five mourning coaches and fifteen private carriages. In the former were relatives and his fellow medical professors of University College, and in the latter were friends of eminence in the higher ranks of society. Near the cemetery, the cortege was met by four hundred of his former pupils, and by about two hundred medical practitioners and others. He was buried on the western side of Highgate Cemetery in the Terrace Catacombs.

Legacy
Liston's legacy comprises both that which has made its way into the popular culture, and that found primarily within the medical fraternity and related disciplines.

In 1837, he published Practical Surgery, arguing the importance of quick surgeries; "these operations must be set about with determination and completed rapidly."

Liston's image has been preserved in both bust and portrait form. Following Liston's death, a meeting was held of his friends and admirers, who "unanimously resolved to establish some public and lasting Testimonial to the memory of this distinguished surgeon". A committee of some 78 people was formed, which resolved that the testimonial should consist of a marble statue to be placed in some designated public spot, and the inauguration of a gold medal, to be called the "Liston Medal", "and awarded annually, as the Council of University College, may decide".

Reputation
Richard Gordon describes Liston as "the fastest knife in the West End. He could amputate a leg in 2$1/2$ minutes." He is reputed to have been able to complete operations in a matter of seconds, at a time when speed was essential to reduce pain and improve the odds of survival of a patient.

In Florence Nightingale's Notes on Nursing, she states "there are many physical operations where ceteris paribus (all else being equal) the danger is in a direct ratio to the time the operation lasts; and ceteris paribus the operator's success will be in direct ratio to his quickness."

Gordon described the scene thus: He was six foot two, and operated in a bottle-green coat with wellington boots. He sprung across the blood-stained boards upon his swooning, sweating, strapped-down patient like a duelist, calling, 'Time me gentlemen, time me!' to students craning with pocket watches from the iron-railinged galleries. Everyone swore that the first flash of his knife was followed so swiftly by the rasp of saw on bone that sight and sound seemed simultaneous. To free both hands, he would clasp the bloody knife between his teeth.

Gordon's prose is more than just caricature. He describes how the link between surgical hygiene and iatrogenic infection was poorly understood at that time. At an address by Dr Oliver Wendell Holmes to the Boston Society for Medical Improvement on 13 February 1843, his suggestions for hygiene improvement to reduce obstetric infections and mortality from puerperal fever "outraged obstetricians, particularly in Philadelphia". In those days, "surgeons operated in blood-stiffened frock coats – the stiffer the coat, the prouder the busy surgeon", "pus was as inseparable from surgery as blood", and "Cleanliness was next to prudishness". He quotes Sir Frederick Treves on that era: "There was no object in being clean...Indeed, cleanliness was out of place. It was considered to be finicking and affected. An executioner might as well manicure his nails before chopping off a head." The connection between surgical hygiene, infection, and maternal mortality rates at Vienna General Hospital was only made in 1847 by Vienna physician Dr Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis from Hungary, after a close colleague of his died. He instituted the hygiene practices exhorted by Holmes, and the mortality rate fell.

Such was the era in which Liston lived. Gordon states that Liston was "an abrupt, abrasive, argumentative man, unfailingly charitable to the poor and tender to the sick (who) was vilely unpopular to his fellow surgeons at the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary. He relished operating successfully in the reeking tenements of the Grassmarket and Lawnmarket on patients they had discharged as hopelessly incurable. They conspired to bar him from the wards, banished him south, where he became professor of surgery at University College Hospital and made a fortune".

In writings on Liston, he is portrayed as a man of strong character and ethics, which was the source of some of his confrontational style. In one case, he confronted a medical colleague (Dr Robert Knox) over the treatment of a young woman (Mary Paterson) who it later transpired was murdered (see Burke and Hare murders), with Knox thought complicit in the murder. She was in Knox's dissecting rooms within four hours of her death, and kept in whisky for three months before dissection, during which time she was essentially on voyeuristic display. Liston's response is documented in a letter from him: According to Liston, he saw Mary Paterson's body in Knox's rooms and immediately suspected foul play. He knocked Knox down after an altercation in front of his students – Liston assumed some students had slept with her when she was alive, and that they should dissect her body offended his sense of decency. He removed her body for burial.

Liston's firsts
While Liston's pioneering contributions are paid tribute within popular culture such as Richard Gordon, they are best known within the medical fraternity and related disciplines.
 * Liston became the first Professor of Clinical Surgery at University College Hospital in London in 1835.
 * He performed the first public operation utilizing modern anaesthesia, ether, in Europe on 21 December 1846 at the University College Hospital. His comment at the time: "This Yankee dodge beats mesmerism hollow", referring to William T. G. Morton's experimentations with ether as an anaesthetic for extraction of teeth. See the History of general anesthesia.
 * This left a lasting impact on two of Liston's students: James Simpson, who would go on to be a pioneer of chloroform's use as an anaesthetic; and Joseph Lister, who pioneered aseptic technique.
 * He invented see-through isinglass sticking plaster, bulldog forceps (a type of locking artery forceps), and a leg splint used to stabilise dislocations and fractures of the femur, and still used today.

Liston's most famous case
Although Richard Gordon's 1983 book pays tribute to other aspects of Liston's character and legacy as noted elsewhere in this article, it is his description of some of Liston's most famous cases which has primarily made its way into what is known of Liston in popular culture. Gordon describes what he calls Liston's most famous case in his book, as quoted verbatim below."Amputated the leg in under 2$1/2$ minutes (the patient died afterwards in the ward from hospital gangrene; they usually did in those pre-Listerian days). He amputated in addition the fingers of his young assistant (who died afterwards in the ward from hospital gangrene). He also slashed through the coat tails of a distinguished surgical spectator, who was so terrified that the knife had pierced his vitals he fainted from fright (and was later discovered to have died from shock)."

- Richard Gordon

This episode has since been dubbed as the only known surgery in history with a 300 percent mortality rate. The situation that Gordon labels "Liston's most famous case" has been described as apocryphal. No primary sources confirm that this surgery ever took place.

Publications by Liston

 * Also via Google books (Note: The volume listing for Google is incorrect, as evidenced by the first page which clearly states "volume the twentieth").
 * Full text at Internet Archive (archive.org)
 * Full text at Internet Archive (archive.org)
 * Full text at Internet Archive (archive.org)
 * Full text at Internet Archive (archive.org)
 * See also BiblioLife reproduction via Google
 * Full text at Internet Archive (archive.org)
 * See also BiblioLife reproduction via Google
 * See also BiblioLife reproduction via Google

title: Robert Liston


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Software Passport

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was speedy delete. bainer (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Software Passport
Seems more like advertising, than an encyclopaedic article. --TheParanoidOne 11:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but expand. I sorta see where you're coming from with the advertising, but I think it can be improved. Linuxbeak | Desk 12:22, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy deleted - half the article was a recreation of a previously deleted copyvio. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
User talk:Sissel111

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia, ! I hope you like the place and decide to keep contributing. Since I see you've already been active here, let me just give you a few links that are always useful as a handy reference guide: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question at the village pump or feel free to ask me on my Talk page. Oh, and just in case you don't already know: to sign your name on a Talk page like I did below, the easiest way is just to type four tildes (~~~~). To customize your signature, look here. And remember:Be Bold!
 * How to write a great article
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * Wikiquette
 * Wikipedia's NPOV policies
 * Current polls
 * — Asbestos | Talk  12:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Gyungbok.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Gyungbok.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MetsBot 20:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Nice picture, btw. -- Visviva 00:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Images
I've noticed that none of the images you uploaded carries information on their licence/source. To me, they all appear to be copyrighted material; and thus should not be uploaded to the Pedia. Please add a description and licensing information to your pictures. Otherwise they will have to be deleted.

Please let this not discourage you from contributing to the Pedia. Your contributions are very welcome, but do make sure they are compatible with Wikipedia's licence (GFDL). Kokiri 19:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I echo Kokiri's comments. You can learn more about Wikipedia image policy at Images.  Please add licensing information to your pictures, or it will be necessary to delete all of them.  If you have created them yourself, please state so on the image page and also add a  tag.  -- Visviva 02:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gu, Prince of Korea
You keep adding an honorific (italicised, bolded, and red-linked) to this article, without responding to my points on the Talk page. Until you engage in discussion, I shall simply keep removing it. If you have good reasons for your edit, please bring them to the Talk page. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 12:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This is now becoming more than merely bad manners. If you don't stop reverting to your version without having the courtesy to discuss the issue, I shall ask for the page to be protected. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Possibly unfree images
The following images have been listed on Possibly unfree images. Please add licensing information, or they will be subject to deletion. -- Visviva 03:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Image:HCB.jpg Image:813578.jpg Image:BH2.jpg Image:BH1.jpg Image:BH4.jpg Image:Mary5.jpg Image:Mary4.jpg Image:Aiko.jpg Image:Kiko.jpg Image:HPD.jpg Image:Changduk3.jpgImage:994341511.jpg Image:Princess Bangja.jpg Image:Princess Duk-hye.jpg Image:Emperor gwangmu1.jpg Image:Emperor sunjong.jpg Image:Prince euichin.jpg Image:Princessbangja.jpg Image:Empress Nagako.jpg Image:Seok1.jpg Image:Seok4.jpg Image:Seok2.jpg Image:Hong.jpg Image:Gohkun.jpg Image:Roh.jpg Image:Ahn.jpg Image:Ahn2.jpg Image:Boa1.jpg Image:Song.jpg Image:Won.jpg Image:Sunjeong1.jpg Image:The imperial family.jpg Image:Wu;fam.jpg Image:Changduk.jpg Image:Changduk2.jpg Image:5091-5.jpg
 * Please stop uploading images without copyright information. If you do not clarify their copyright status, they will all be deleted. -- Visviva 14:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hirohito
May I ask, Sissel111, why you added in the factually inaccurate (and, if not that, POV) comment that His Imperial Majesty Shōwa Tennō was a war criminal? If you meant that he was tried for war crimes, he was not. It is generally accepted among historians (not conspiriologists, mind you ;) ) that he was largely uninvolved with those war crimes. Then, when you found your POV removed from the article, you added it back in.

I do not wish to start a conflict with you over this issue, as I respect you for most of your positive contributions to Wikipedia.

elvenscout742 7 July 2005 23:10 (UTC)

Image:129474.jpg
I have removed the above image from the article, and tagged it as a copyright violation. It has also been listed on Copyright problems. If you believe it is not a copyright violation, please explain why.

Once again, please refrain from uploading images without a free-use license and source information. Such images do not belong on Wikipedia, no matter how nice they are. -- Visviva 18:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Image:Prince Imperial Gu.jpg
You really must stop up-loading images from Internet sites, with no attempt to discover their copyright status. If you continue as you have been, there's a very good chance that you'll find yourself blocked from editing. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You've removed the copyvio template from the image and replaced the image in Gu, Prince of Korea. I've reverted this; your actions are explictly against Wikipedia policy.  Acting like this makes an editing block even more likely. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Sissel111! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Lee Haewon -

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sissel111