Talk:English versions of the Nicene Creed in current use
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] 1962 Missal
An accurate black-and-white reproduction of the 1962 Roman Missal is found 1962 here. It is entirely in Latin. The anonymous editor from Maidenhead is probably thinking of one of the first vernacular Missals (with provisionally approved texts that varied from country to country) that were issued in about 1965. These were based on the 1962 Missal but with changes that had already been introduced. In any case, the present article is about "English versions of the Nicene Creed in current use". If the Maidenhead editor wants to insert a text, he or she should give a source that indicates that the text is still in current use and where. Lima (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Copyright violation?
On User talk:Invocante I posted the following:
- Andrew c has asked me to use your Talk page, not just edit summaries, to draw your attention to what seem to be copyright violations by you. Apart from printed sources that indicate that ICEL strongly opposes any publication of its copyright draft texts for a revised English translation of the Roman Missal, there are indications also on the Internet. I have already drawn your attention to this site. You could also look at this and this. And you could read Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Please continue to contribute to Wikipedia, but without getting it into trouble. Lima (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Invocante has posted on my Talk page:
- Who do you think you are? I [Invocante] do not accept that in the normal understanding of things I am violating the copyright of the ICEL. The very notion of copyright on translations of texts as ancient as the creed or the Gloria is dubious but in any case there is a more substantial point. The new translation when it comes out will affect millions of the Catholic laity and the attempt to hide behind copyright is simply disingenuous. The reason for this are well given by Father Zhulsdorf in his reply to the ICEL letter referred to by you [http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2007/04/letter-from-icel.html here Indeed if we take the example of the new translation Gloria the Church has already authorised a new musical stetting of those words which is readily available from the Word Youth day website, see http://www.wyd2008.org/index.php/en/parishes_schools/wyd08_mass_setting. This availability on the WYD site tells us two things. One the text I provide was reliable and 2 the church is perfectly happy to have the text in the public domain. So on what basis do you laim the right to delete my entry? Lastly I might you arrogantly reedits my and everyone else's work but you make no effort to speak to me first. You seem to think you have a monopoly of wisdom about the catholic church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invocante (talk • contribs) 18:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
What do others think? Lima (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- In view of the multiple insertions of "[This text appears to have been cited without the express permission of the copyright holder.]" I beg leave to remark that I see a big difference between the cases thus marked and a text whose copyright holder opposes its general publication. But, again, I leave judgement to others. Lima (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Factually a party either owns copyright or they do not. Factually, am I mistaken that you have not obtained express permission from the copyright holders to publish these texts? If I am am correct, and given your zeal for enforing your (entirely mistaken) understanding of copyright law then you can have no objection to these factual statements. Invocante (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] In current liturgical use
Invocante, please indicate how you justify inserting in an article on English versions in current liturgical use a version that as yet is only a draft for future liturgical use. Lima (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well firstly, most understandings of the term current would also include the near future as well. Indeed it would seem fair to assume that any reader interested in current translations of the creed would also be interested in any future translations of the creed. As I make clear this is only a draft (although as you well know this draft has now been fully approved and will not change) it seems difficult to understand what the harm is in including the future translation. Secondly I did try to establish an entry for future use but it was deleted. As I have said before this is not an issue about copyright or any current v future use it is about your proprietorial attitude towards all pages concerning catholic doctrine about which you seem to believe you should be the sole contribution. I suggest you go and start “Lima’s online Encyclopaedia of Catholic Doctrine” and leave wikkipedia the open, collective work it is supposed to be.Invocante (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
