Talk:William J. Whalen

Negative assessments of work
you wrote that Whalen is, I asked you to. You wrote that Whalen's mention of opinions by Stephen Knight. You asked me to (although the words "Stephen Knight" were never included in the history of the article and  first on the talk page). You wrote I need.

I added this here to defragment our Whalen discussion.

From the worldcat.org identity page about William J. Whalen, he has published on the subject of comparative religion. The 3rd ed. of Christianity and American Freemasonry was published recently, in 1998. It was reviewed in 1999.

I found an example negative assessment about Whalen on footnote on freemasonry.bcy.ca about his book Christianity and American Freemasonry (1987 ed.). The freemasonry.bcy.ca states that Whalen:
 * "mistakenly reports that Nathan Bedford Forrest founded the Klan" (read quote on p. 21 in 1998 ed.)
 * I assume the freemasonry.bcy.ca straw man is that Whalen chose to use the term founded instead of using a phrase like was a founding member


 * "repeats without providing citation the claim that Pike was the Klan's Chief Justice" (read quote on p. 21 in 1998 ed.)
 * I assume that Whalen "repeats without providing citation" since this is a broadly known claim, as a shows


 * "excerpts the Negro Freemasonry quote without providing context" (read the "I took my obligation to white men..." quote on p. 21 in 1998 ed.)
 * This is a broadly known and quoted in similar ways, for example in correspondence published in Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of the State of Illinois: "we adopt and endorse the language quoted by the Washington committee, of the learned and accomplished Brother Albert Pike: 'I am not inclined to meddle in the matter. I took my obligation to white men, not to negroes. When I have to accept negroes as brothers or leave Masonry, I shall leave it. Better let the thing drift'."(1899, p. 147)


 * "notes that 'Some believe Pike concocted the ritual for the original KKK.' (p. 17-18)." (read quote on p. 21 in 1998 ed.)
 * Whalen including what "some believe" about Pike is consistent with other scholars, for example, William Fox in Lodge of the Double-Headed Eagle (pp. 83, esp. fn. 124 at p. 436).

The freemasonry.bcy.ca negative assessment fails to impugn Whalen's credibility and only addresses Whalen's stylistic choices.

What Whalen wrote in 1985 is similar to what others have written in scholarly works, e.g.: I do not think either of these is "a highly suspect source". –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC); modified 15:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Suspicions were further inflamed when it was claimed in The Brotherhood that KGB spies had become masons and, thus, gained admission to the intelligence services".
 * "The second mythical concern of the right is with deep penetration agents or sleepers, popularly called 'moles'. The best-known case in Britain is the chase for the Fifth Man (to complement Maclean, Burgess, Philby and Blunt) and/or the mole in MI5 who, according to Chapman Pincher (1984) and Peter Wright (1987), reached the elevated position of Director-General (allegedly Sir Roger Hollis)".


 * Pike was a racist, I can't dispute that. My personal opinion of the man is unprintable. Knight is not a "scholarly source", he was a journalist from the gutter press. He doesn't quote sources and transparently lies with depressing regularity. Farnham has no comment as to the veracity of Knight, but has serious reservations as to the way this myth was handled by the media. Bartoszewski doesn't mention Freemasonry at all. Anything else? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * no, of course Bartoszewski doesn't mention Masonry he is writing about intelligence, myth, and fallacies – this discussion is about the veracity of Whalen, especially 1985. The about Knight is equivalent to what other scholars write about Knight and MI5 mole allegations. You can see that Knight is cited in scholarly work. You can see Whalen is comparable in comparison to other scholars. You can see the example criticism of Whalen which I found is trivial and unconvincing. You asked for a defense of Whalen. I gave one based on the content that contradicts your assertions about Whalen. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Farnham clearly believes Knight was a fantasist, and Bartoszewski doesn't mention him at all. Perhaps a read of our article on Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution will convince you that Knight, aka Swami Puja Debal, had a talent for ignoring awkward stuff like the truth. No serious researcher would use this crap. Stop misquoting sources. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)