Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jahbulon (3rd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Jahbulon

Jahbulon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article is unencyclopedic, and violates WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. The reasoning given for its existencein the past has been "controversy", but no editor has been able to articulate said controversy. The introduction of the article states it was a word in use historically in 2 jurisdictions; as comparison, there are 50 such jurisdictions in the US alone, and there is no record of this so-called "word" after the 1800s, according to the article itself. Thus the value of the article is questionable. The current proponent of the existence of the article, User:Hanuman Das has also written Oaths in Freemasonry which consists of nothing but outdated material taken from an old book. He seems to have an agenda to "expose" something about Masonry which while he doesn't understand it, cannot be supported. He has already made a factual error in attributing material in a discussion to a source from whence it didi not come, and while he requires that others tell him why the article is unencyclopedic, he will not offer a counterargument as to why the article is encyclopedic. Editor issues aside, this article tells the reader nothing factual; everything is speculative or interpreted. MSJapan 13:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: I did not write Obligations in Freemasonry. I stumbled across both b/c I was watching Oaths. —Hanuman Das 14:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This summary was crafted to be misleading, which is very dissapointing. The statement "the introduction of the article states it was a word in use historically in 2 jurisdictions; as comparison, there are 50 such jurisdictions in the US alone, and there is no record of this so-called "word" after the 1800s, according to the article itself." is both misleading and wrong. The 2nd "jurisdiction" does not operate the same way the US jurisdictions does and comparing it to the US system is very misleading, in the US there are many seperate jurisdictions of Royal Arch Masonry, however the 2nd jurisdiction we have verifiable proof the word was used in is the Supreme Grand Chapter in England which oversees all Royal Arch Masonry in England. Also the statement that there is no record of the word after the 1800's is a blatant lie. The user who wrote this summary in a previous edit here found and introduced a source that shows the word was in use up to atleast February 1989 (Jahbulon is what is referred to as "the word on the triangle" which is shown in the Tydemann source that can be found here.). People looking at this AFD should look at the statement he made in his summary "there is no record of this so-called "word" after the 1800s" and compare it to his edit here before assuming that the proposed summary was written from a neutral point of view. Seraphim 19:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This is how the page looked before the editors all voting "Delete" on this afd replaced the page with their own version without consensus. If anyone needs to see how the word is notable, and that a controversy does exist please refer to this version where the controversy is made clear, since the gutting of the information in the article had not yet commenced. Seraphim 19:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete or Merge - merits minor mention in either Anti-Masonry or Christianity and Freemasonry for the following reasons

• Is the word itself notable? - It would seem not, it's a synthesised term with a range of potential, but speculative, meanings.
• Is there a controversy surrounding the word? - I would hesitate to call it a controversy although there is some use of it in attacks on the craft. Most of these attacks do not themselves source their interpretation, but it seems reasonable to assess that they are all derived from a single instance in the notes to an otherwise unattributed document. The majority of offline mention is predicated on reports by various churches, undertaken in the 80's, and including the explanation amongst about half a dozen other reasons predominantly related to unsubstantiated allegations of inappropriate influence and hierarchies independent of the church. Any media related discussion of these reports concentrates on these behavioural criticisms and neglect to mention the use of the word.
• Is there any independent corroboration? - I would suggest not, none of the citations used attribute their interpretation. Whilst I recognise that throwing large numbers of citations at an article might help justify it, the process should use verifiably independent sourcing.
• Is it accurate? - No. At least two of the citations do actually refer to what the Royal Arch word actually is.
• Does having a separate article about it tend to exacerbate the perception of a controversy? - Yes. We're wasting an awful lot of time and effort on something which is inaccurate (although marginally verifiable) and only a small part of a broader topic which is adequately covered elsewhere. Noting that some will use Google as a means of establishing notability the very process of discussion on the talk page elevates the level of coverage and it's relative importance to Google. Using that mechanism one must recognise the issues with the google search algorithms.

ALR 13:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge - The article also has problems with WP:NOT, in that 1) the bulk of the article is little more than dictionary definitions, (speculative ones at that) and 2) the article is a subtle form of POV Agenda bashing, which goes against the soap box provision.

In the previous AfDs, several editors have expressed the view that "it is the controversy surrounding this word that makes it notable"; however, when I have asked them to explain what this controversy is, they do not respond. There are no citations to independant reliable sources for there being any controversy about this word (while the article is extensively referenced, almost all of the references deal with the etimology of the word and none of them discuss a controversy surounding it.) Without such a citation, we have to assume that any claim that there is a controversy constitues boarderline Original Research.

I can only think of two things that could be considered a "controversy": 1) the debate over this word's etymology, or 2) the debate over whether Freemasons do or do not worship Satan. If the the first is the controversy that they are talking about, I do not think this is much of a "controversy" (more a set of competing definitions), and certainly not a notable one. If the controversy is the second issue, I would contend that this is really a sub-argument of a larger controversy between certain Fundamentalist Christian groups and Freemasonry. In which case this article really should be merged into Christianity and Freemasonry which explores these larger issues in more depth.

Another argument that came up in past AfDs was "it's interesting". I will simply point out that "interesting" is not the same as "encylopedic". We make a distinction in Wikipedia between what is mearly "cool" and what is truly encyclopedic. Blueboar 13:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The debate exists outside of Wikipedia, whatever the merits of the case, references, agenda's or whatever. The fact that much/all of the suppositions and claims are disputed, and the references questioned for lack of provenence, is irrelevant - it is in the public domain, thus it is likely to be searched, and this article is the vehicle to note it. I would comment that this is the third attempt at an AfD within a year, and it appears that the usual suspects are pressing for deletion are the same as previously and that the same anti-deletion names will again vote to keep, and wonder if the 3 revert rule could be applied here? LessHeard vanU 14:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per LessHeard vanU. Both the word and the controversy surrounding it exist. Furthermore, it appears that the word is also known outside Masonic contexts. —Hanuman Das 14:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - nom seems to not really understand WP:V, WP:RS, etc. As far as I can tell, the word exists, there are documentable beliefs about the word, and the fact of the controversy is even mentioned in a Masonic publication listed in the references at the bottom of the page. Looking at the talk page archives, the same parties appear to have been arguing about this since March. One can't help but think that this "debate" is intentionally constructed to give the appearance of a dispute about the encyclopedic status of the article. These secret socities and their games give me the creeps. Their goals of keeping certain information secret are diametrically opposed to the goals of Wikipedia. In this case, we need to see through the rhetoric and put the goals of Wikipedia first. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

comment: The debate is not whether this word exists or not, or even what some people believe about the word... but if a Wikipedia article on it should be deleted. The questions to be asked and answered here are: 1) Is it notable enough for inclusion? 2) If so, why? 3) Does the article have problems with several guidelines and policies or not? The statement about secret societies and their "goal of keeping information secret" is spurious (and quite frankly POV) as the rituals that contain this word have been public knowledge since at least the 1840s ... there is no issue of keeping anything secret. This is not about secrecy, but about notability. If there is some big controversy over this word, then there is notability, If not then the word is not really notable. This is an encyclopedia, and not every piece of trivial fluff is worthy of an article. I ask again, please identify what this controversy is. Blueboar 16:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep per LessHeard vanU and others. Frater Xyzzy 16:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC) strengthed position per Priyanath (way) below. Frater Xyzzy 18:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (or possible merge) per nom and Blueboar - I've yet to see any indication that there exist a controversy over this in a reliable (read: non-partisan) source. WegianWarrior 16:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The word and the circumstances surrounding it are known to exist. All the controversy in Talk:Jahbulon is enough to show that the subject is notable. Anthony Appleyard 16:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is not existence, but notability. The word has only one verified independent existence and the veracity of that source is unknown. With that in mind what do you mean by circumstances surrounding it?

I'm not convinced that discussion about the article itself within WP is enough to establish the notability.ALR 16:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Especially since "all the controversy" on the talk page is mostly back and forth argument between two or three people. An argument between a small group of people is not the same as a controversy. Blueboar 17:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep the word is notable, and contraversial. Just because some editors make adding any information to the article, and having it stay there, harder then performing brain surgery, doesn't mean the article should be deleted. Seraphim 18:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate why the word is notable, and as a result why any corresponding discussion might be notable. At the moment it's just your opinion and despite several months of asking the question you haven't managed to come up with anything which doesn't constitute OR by infering a conclusion.ALR 19:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah I forgot, according to you and a few of the other editors on the page, people claiming that the word is used in a certain way isn't allowed to be included in the article since those people themselves are biased, and actually reading sources instead of just pulling direct quotes out of them is considered original research and therefore inference. If I find a source of some religious group saying that Jahbulon is the name of the Masonic Devil God, and use that source to make the statement "atleast one religious group has claimed that Jahbulon is the name of a Masonic God" it's removed due to the source being biased, which is NOT how wikipedia works, nor how RS works. I have a great idea, my new source for the fact that there is controversy surrounding this word is the Wikipedia Jahbulon Talk page, or the edit history of the actual Jahbulon page where users can see editors removing over and over sourced statements, or where a fully sourced version of the article was removed all at once by you with the comment "tx across replacement article drafted in talkspace in light of recent edit warring. Majority agreed, anticipate continued disruption from non-contributing individual" since obviously if people are disagreeing with the majority that's all the consensus the majority needs to remove sourced material that they disagree with. Seraphim 19:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you answer the question?ALR 20:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, the word is notable due to the controversy established in the "Jahbulon and Religion" section in this version of the Article. All the sources in there show that enough groups make claims about the word that are disputed by masonic representatives that calling the situation "controversial" under the defination of "Controversy" that reads "contention, strife, or argument" a completly valid claim. Seraphim 20:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you articulate, using sources which meet the requirements of WP:RS and avoids breaching WP:NOR two points -

• In what way is a synthetic word which has one unique appearance notable?
• In what way is a dubious interpretation of that word listed as one of six objections by the Church of England, one of which is and other general objections, to which there has been no formal response by a Masonic ruling body constitutes a controversy.

comment - According to the second part of your statement, all that is needed by any party subject to a matter of debate is that they do not (formally) respond to any question; therefore the matter is not noteworthy? That is patently ridiculous, there may be many reasons why a party may legitimately not respond - but it doesn't mean that the question or the subject isn't relevant.LessHeard vanU 14:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You will note from above that I've suggested merging this issue with the more general article on objections to Freemasonry by various shurch hierarchies, this contextualises the issue and maintains a place in Wikipedia.

Thankyou

ALR 21:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

We have gone over this many times. To put in the article the statement "a number of religious bodies asserting that the interpretation demonstrates that Freemasonry is incompatible with their religious philosophies" simply requires sources of religious groups making claims that Freemasonry is incompatible with their philosophies. The fact that the sources are clearly biased is irrelevant since the source is simply being used to show that Group X makes claim Y, where the source (S) is Group X claiming Y, it's not stating Y as a fact using S as a reference. Once you are able to grasp that concept all your confusion will be cleared up. Seraphim 22:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you explicitly answer the question please. It appears to me that you are avoiding doing that.

Please provide multiple, independently verifiable and authoritative sources which meet the requirements of WP:RS and do not breach WP:NOR which extensively identify a controversy rather than state a position.ALR 08:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

ALR just because you don't read my posts doesn't mean i'm not answering the question. In the version of the article that I pointed to, in the "Jahbulon and religion" section there are many fully sourced lines explaining that there is a contraversy with links to websites where various religious groups from both catholic and non catholic sources discuss how jahbulon is the name of a seperate god and thus blasphemous. Since they are self published sources, they are being used only as primary sources, and many of them are given since "and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial". It meets the requirements of WP:RS and is not Original research. I'm starting to feel like a broken record. You keep asking me to "answer the question" and accusing me of avoiding a question, yet i'm trying to answer whatever you ask. If you don't find this to be enough, please restate the question since obviously i'm not understanding it. I'm providing proof of the controversy that's completly sourced in accordance with WP:RS with no original research. I assume that is what you were looking for. Unless of course your attempting to argue that WP:RS's section titled "Self-published sources as secondary sources" doesn't actually exist, in which case I have some bad news for you. Seraphim 18:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Rather than have this discussion in parallel I've tried to simplify the question down a bit more on the article talk page. Rather than rant about process and point at legacy versions of the article can you actually declare which source you believes supports your argument.ALR 19:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

1234567 these are all Self-published sources that along with the Tydeman's statement "Only the other day I was accosted by a vociferous churchwarden: "How can you", he said, "How can you, a minister of religion, take part in ceremonies which invoke heathen gods by name?", and as evidence for his accusations, he brandished before me, not a copy of Stephen Knight’s book, but a copy of the minutes of last November’s Grand Chapter containing the address by ME Comp the Revd Francis Heydon, the then Third Grand Principal." are more then enough references to support the statement "The word Jahbulon has been a source of Controversy between religious groups and masonic groups". In full accordance with WP:RS and WP:NOR Seraphim 19:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for allowing us some insight into your position, that will make things much easier to discuss meaningfully. As I said above it's not particularly useful to have this debate in parallel so I'll address it on the article page.ALR 20:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - looks like a small group of editors simply don't like the article. Citations appear to support the text. What's the real problem here? Jefferson Anderson 18:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Freemasons would not like their secrets being revealed. Anthony Appleyard 18:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Anthony, please... this is not about "secrets"... the entire Masonic ritual has been exposed numerous times (starting as far back as the mid 1700s). There are no "sectets" for the Masons to keep. This is about the notability of a word, and if there should be an article about it in an encyclopedia. So please... explain to us what the supposed controversy is about? I notice that (as with the last two AfDs on this article) the arguments are coming down to a bunch of people saying that the word is notable because it is controvercial ... but no one seems able to articulate what that controversy actually is. Blueboar 19:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Particularly as those of us who are Masons appreciate that this word is not in fact used hence cannot be considered as a secret anyway. Lets face it, if there was going to be an exposure of the word it would be much better to actually have the correct one. :) ALR 19:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Lummee (here we go again); Whilst it may well be that the word is a concoction by anti Masonic interests, or a misunderstanding, the point is that the accusation (for want of a better word) is in the public domain. That is why there is a debate; Masons say it doesn't exist (although not formally, see my comment above) and other parties say it does - which some of them use as an example of anti Christian "devil worship". It may be irritating to the point of tears, but the debate exists. The article is the place in which to record the objections/denials.LessHeard vanU 14:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I ssincerely doubt that during the late 80's after the publication of Knight that various Masonic authorities considered Wikipedia content guidelines as a reason for not commenting on an issue.

However, notwithstanding that, the issue is one of a number (usually between six or eight) which are used by a range of Christian denominations to object to Freemasonry. That's already extensively discussed in another article, Christianity and Freemasonry. Various Masonic authorities do have a position on that.

It would be quite reasonable to place the issue in context by including it in that article, hence my Merge suggestion above.

ALR 15:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• About 6 entries above I voted keep.

The controversy seems to be this: It is a Masonic word for God or for a god. Some say it is Jehovah + Baal + Osiris. Some say otherwise. Some can accept revering all those names. Others cannot. Once we have sorted out what it DOES come from and means, we can decide if it is notable. Anthony Appleyard 19:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

For a good intelligently written background on the facts behind the situation read Tydeman's address which you can find here(Tydeman was at the time of his address a member of the SGC which oversees Royal Arch Masonry in England) the "word on the triangle" that he is discussing is Jahbulon. Tydeman touches on all the major aspects of the article, both attemping to figure out what the meaning is (which is impossible to prove), and adknowldging that the term is controversial. Seraphim 20:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Anthony... thank you. Finally someone has answered my question as to what the controversy is. That makes things clearer. The article isn't about whether the word exists or not, nor is it really about what the word actually means, or how Masons use it ... it is about the fact that certain Christian groups think it means that Masonry is anti-Christian. I actually can live with that... as another issue in the Christianity and Freemasonry Article. But I still don't think the subject rises to the level of notability for an article on its own.

I especially have questions as to whether the article meets the criteria for inclusion stated in WP:FRINGE. Can you provide at least one reliable mainstream source (such as a newspaper or an academic journal) that discusses this controversy extensively (even to debunk it), as is required by that guideline? So far, all the sources that discuss this word have come from advocates of one side of this controversy or the other... most are Anti-masonic sources, and a few are Royal Arch Masons. Both sides of which I would contend are Fringe (If I remember my stats correctly, less than 1% of all Freemasons are invovled in any way with Royal Arch Masonry). Blueboar 22:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - the article is not (or should not!) be what the debate/controversy is, but an overview of the claims and denials/counterclaims of the parties in NPOV language - with citations/references. Whilst it is impossible to remove agenda from the contributors here it should be possible to accommodate all verifiable viewpoints. Could we please conduct this discussion without drawing 'inferences' from other peoples responses. Thank you. LessHeard vanU 22:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar it should be noted that WP:FRINGE was created to deal with Science related issues, as an extension of the notability requirement. With part of the justification of it being "anything with a complete lack of mainstream discussions can probably not be written about in a NPOV manner without some sort of mainstream baseline; doing so risks violating the No original research policy". Since the page does use many sources, some primary, and presents the topic in a NPOV manner without original research, then WP:FRINGE does not apply. Seraphim 22:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE may have been originally created due to disputes relating to science theories, but it has clear application to Fringe theories in other fields, and has gone beyond its origin. If you read the guideline, it clearly is on point in this dispute in two of four sections:

• Any non-mainstream theories should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of the small group of adherents. References that are brought about because of the notability of a related subject, such as the creator of the theory, and not the theory itself, should be given far less weight when deciding on notability. Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion, such as on April Fool's Day, as "News of the Weird" or during "slow news days".
• The discussion of a non-mainstream theory, positively or negatively, by other non-mainstream groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is themself notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If a non-mainstream theory is so unnotable that mainstream sources have not bothered to comment on it, disparage it, or discuss it, it is not notable enough for Wikipedia.

The second criteria is especially apt in this instance. Please provide even one mainstream source that has commented on, disparaged or discussed this word or the theories surounding it. Blueboar 00:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your using WP:FRINGE in a way it was not intended to be used. Also your confusing a guideline with policy. Infact from reading the WP:FRINGE discussion page you seem to be the only one so far who has oppossed to it being merged into the Science section of WP:NOTE. WP:FRINGE only deals with pages that are based on theories, this is not a page about a theory, it's a page about Controversy caused by a theory. If the page was all about how Jahbulon is the name of a masonic devil god, then WP:FRINGE would apply, however right now your misrepresenting WP:FRINGE so it's the cornerstone of your latest attempt to get the page deleted. As I pointed out to you already on the talk page, WP:FRINGE does not apply here, you responded to my point by stating "But the theory that Jahbulon is the name that Masons use while they worship Satan is EXACTLY what this article is about!", so now i'll toss it back at you, since you are claiming that the page violates WP:FRINGE why don't you explain to me how you can possibly believe that the page is about masons worship satan. If you can somehow prove that the entirety of the Jahbulon page is about masons worshiping satan then you are absolutely right, WP:FRINGE will apply. However as this AFD has shown, the majority of people have replied that the page is about a notable controversy, so good luck convincing everyone. Infact I don't understand why this discussion about WP:FRINGE should continue since unless you can prove that the page is simply about masons using jahbulon as the name of their satanic god, the argument that the page is about a controversy not a theory, absolutely nullifies WP:FRINGE, since the page is about removal of pages about Fringe Theories from wikipedia, and it specifices "Theories". If you can't prove the page is about a theory, WP:FRINGE doesn't apply at all. Seraphim 01:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• While page Jahbulon and its talk page are subject to so many edits per day, it should stay separate. If Jahbulon was merged into another page, that other page would instead be subjected to so much editing, and its talk page would be drowned in arguments about Jahbulon. Thus, best keep Jahbulon separate as a "fireproof compartment" to stop the ongoing flamage from affecting other pages. Anthony Appleyard 08:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Seraphim - you say: "If the page was all about how Jahbulon is the name of a masonic devil god, then WP:FRINGE would apply"... but that is exactly what the article is about. The theory that (as Anthony said above) Jahbulon is "a Masonic word for God or for a god" is the only thing that makes this word at all notable. So WP:FRINGE surely applies.

Anthony, if the information about Jahbulon were to be merged into the article on Christianity and Freemasonry, much of the arguing would disappear. A major factor in this AfD is the contention that this word is not notable enough for an article on it's own... a merge would solve that. For another, WP:FRINGE would not apply, as that guideline relates to articles and not to sections within articles. For another, I would agree that, in the context of the C&F article, the debate over this would be notable. The C&F article already discusses several reasons why different Christian groups object to Masonry. this fits in perfectly in that discussion. As that is the central theme of this article, it makes sense to merge it. In fact, a merger would give a much needed context to the debate over this word. Sure, there might be a brief period of back and fourth as we debate how this information best fits into the C&F article, but I truly believe that we could easily reach a consensus on that. The idea of keeping a bad article in order to "fireproof" another is rediculous. Blueboar 13:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - please take the long tedious discussions elsewhere. Blueboar, you've been given clear answers, you simply don't understand WP:RS, are misintepreting WP:FRINGE, and simply won't accept that other people have formed their own opinions. This page is not for arguing with other people. It is for stating your position clearly once and letting it rest on its merits. Feel free to improve your initial position in place, but if you continue I will move all argumentation beyond an initial statement to the talk page where it belongs. —Hanuman Das 14:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Reply - While I disagree with your contention that I don't understand RS and do not agree that I have misinterpeted FRINGE, I do understand what you are trying to say. I have made my point and will let it rest on its merits. My appologies for running on. Blueboar 15:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Time to give it up, boys. The controversy is mentioned in a mainstream source. It fact, the controversy is presented as a textbook example in Religion in the Contemporary World (ISBN 0745620833) in Chapter 2, "Defining Religion: Social Conflicts and Sociological Debates" under the heading Identification as a cult.

To quote:

"Freemasonry provides an illustration of the wish to avoid being labelled as a deviant religion."

and later:

"They have therefore been repeatedly embarassed by repeated accusations that theirs is an occult faith which worships a composite deity called Jahbulon, who is different from the god of the world's great religions. Denial that Freemasonry is a religous cult is a condition of its claim to respectability."

Now, does that confirm the existence of the controversy? Frater Xyzzy 15:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Does it say anything about an official response to the assertion?

Does there have to be an official response? If all you had to do to make a subject non-noteworthy then you would decide to say nothing then there would be many articles that would fail that criteria, and folk with agenda's would use that as a reason. Sorry, but putting fingers in ears and whistling does not deny the legitimacy of a question.LessHeard vanU 14:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm minded to change my vote above to be just Merge with Christianity and Freemasonry, which I've had no particular objection to.ALR 16:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Does not satisfiy contitions in WP:FRINGE which requires extensive discussion of the theory. (italics used in the guideline for emphysis). Blueboar 17:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Satisfied WP:RS. WP:FRINGE does not apply. Frater Xyzzy 17:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You guys tried to merge it with Christianity and Freemasonry before, and we already had that debate. The reason the merger was shot down was that I found sources that showed that it was not only Christian groups making the claims, I also found 2 islamic groups. We've already had this discussion, and we already reached consensus on it, that it does NOT belong in Christianity and Freemasonry. Look back in the talk page archives if you can't remember. Seraphim 18:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep An article like this is a perfect example of Wikipedia's value as a research tool. It's an incredibly well researched article. Even though it's on an arcane subject (which does not equal 'fringe', by a long stretch), it's far less 'fringe' than the numerous articles on soap opera characters and video game characters, just to name two areas of extremely fringe interest that actually have their own categories! Looks like an encyclopedia article, and walks and quacks like one - this is an encyclopedia article. Keep. ॐ Priyanath 17:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, without histrionics. It's a shame that the same book by Ankerberg and Weldon is brought up so often that it's painful. However, if Talk:Jahbulon#Mainstream sources is correct, then at least one mainstream textbook thinks this is a notable accusation. Please rewrite so it doesn't repeating the same book title in fifteen different places. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is the third AfD here. The energy that seems to have gone into seeking this article's removal or making its expansion more than usually difficult, together with the fact that it relates to secret societies, makes it hard to assume good faith here. If you want people to ignore Jahbulon, give it a rest. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Nearly 500 edits to Jahbulon in the last 18 months suggests: 1. notability, 2. non-fringe subject, 3. there is more to this AfD than meets the eye. I question whether this nomination is being made in good faith. Is there a way to protect the page from being nominated for deletion again, and again, and again, after AfD fails a third time? ॐ Priyanath 21:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 1&2. No and no - in fact, some of the least notable subjects get the most activity. We have more articles and editors concerned with Pokemon and Star Trek than with 450 out of the Fortune 500 (and don't even ask about my area of interest). There is little to no correlation between editor interest and greater world notability. 3. Your eye needs to meet more - it's a religious issue, literally. It's specifically about whether a particular organization is a religion; no wonder it's contentious. 4. No. But it's not a bad faith nom, it's a badly cited article, making for a fairly close call. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The article is only badly cited because the block of users who have been strong arming everyone else out of the article wish it to be. The users who all voted delete on here (specifically MSJapan ALR and Blueboar) have all stated publically that they do not want this article to exist, and they oppose any attempts to improve the article, so when they post their next AFD comments like this will be posted. They abuse WP:RS with the idea that if a group makes a statement against masonry, then they are inherently biased and therefore any attempt to use the page where they make their statement as a source is immediatly shot down. For example, I find a source S where Group X makes claim Y, I then add a line to the article that states "Group X has made claim Y" and use S as the source. This is completly acceptable as a self-published source being used as a primary source, however the masonic-editing-block will immediatly blanket revert stating that source S is biased and therefore is not able to ever be used on wikipedia as a reference, which is wrong. The amount of references removed from the article is staggering, right now if you look at the article there is no mention at all about the controversy the term has caused between masons and religious groups. This is because the majority group of editors will remove any information added to the article that is not related to the possible defination of the word, inorder to support their claims that there is no controversy and therefore no notability. Look at this version of the article if you want to see an example of some of the information that they culled from the article. Seraphim 21:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you misrepresent the situation, personally I don't believe there is anything particularly notable about a word and a few churches objecting to freemasonry but I've said several times that I'm quite happy for the issue to be properly contextualised amongst all the other objections to Freemasonry by the churches, in the extensive article already written about Christianity and Freemasonry. That places it in it's proper context, as one of a number of objections and as one of a number of specific things which lead Churches to see Freemasonry as a competitor.

I would also suggest that despite my reservations I have sought to work collaboratively to bring the issue to a reasonable conclusion. I'll admit that at times it does feel like I'm banging my head agasint a brick wall, but that's the nature of collaboration sometimes. I'd also say that the other regular contributors who have declared themselves to be Craftsmen have generally done the same and put up with quite a lot of innuendo both to us and about us on numerous talk pages.

You'll note that my persistence with regard to actually outlining your views has now resulted in some apparently productive discussion on the talk page, which I hope will continue. However I am concerned that you've now chosen to revert to the previous style of asking us to understand your position by pointing at a legacy version.

I'd agree that the article is badly referenced, it's over-reliant on the few credible sources which exist however the more recent information about usage outside Masonry is proving illuminating.

ALR 22:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

We already had the discussion about a possible merger into the Christianity and Freemasonry article months ago, which was ended when sources were found that show some Islamic groups believe that Jahbulon is the name of a masonic devil god. I suggest you read the page's archives, before making the incorrect assertion that it's only an issue between Christianity and Freemasonry. Seraphim 22:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That's one of the things that we can discuss on the talk page, if you can return to discussing development in a mature manner. The Prescott reference proves quite illuminating that particular front.

Also I thought we were making reasonable progress towards synthesising a form of words which could be used, but your more recent actions by chopping in huge chunks which had been previously agreed as inadequately sourced is not particularly condusive to a collaborative environment.

I'd very much appreciate if you could return to trying to make progress in a sensible manner.

ALR 22:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Progress means people working together to make the article better. There is nothing wrong with adding sourced information to an article. Feel free to edit the information that I added and we can work together to represent it in the best possible manner. However it should be noted, that your continued misrepresentation of WP:RS in an attempt to get the article deleted, is NOT progress, nor does it help wikipedia. Seraphim 22:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again you misrepresent me, I could start to get quite hurt by that you know ;)

I've deleted all of the material which you spannered into the article without thought for it's readability and which was already there. I've left in the material which is supplementary and relies on questionable sources, since it's only really repeats of what was already there anyway. But as I've said several times it's easier to try to have this discussion on the article talk page.

ALR 23:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep -- I think that the article should survive but should be editted in accordance with NPOV restrictions. It is obscure, but there is probably enough material to use. Similar to how Blaphomet (which is also extremely obscure) is used, it seems like is a popular anti-masonic slur. --ScienceApologist 01:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Christianity and Freemasonry per WP:N and the above. It is fairly clear that the present state of the article represents the utmost that can be achieved with the sources that are known; this is simply not enough to justify a separate article. The fact that the term may have some additional relevance in Islam is irrelevant, as far as I can see. That information, if it is judged useful, can be included in the appropriate Islam-related article. -- Visviva 10:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as notability is not subjective. I think the controversy over the word is silly and trivial. However, the word has caused significant controversy, and has enough source material as to the history of this controversy to be notable. Seraphimblade 19:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article seemed hopelessly arcane to me, but looking online, there appears to be lots of people writing and arguing about this Jahbulon - who knew? And if he is the Supreme Being, we might be turned into pillars of salt or something for deleting it. --Brianyoumans 19:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It's clear that this is a point of hot discussion among people nterested in Masonic issues. Why would anyone want there to be a hole in an encyclopedia when someone punches in an inquiry about this word, rather than this well-researched article about it and the controversy surrounding it? The nomination does seem odd, and Hanuman Das is certainly not required to SOLVE the controversy concerning the word for the subject to be notable. (and I don't look good in salt). Rosencomet 20:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: Not really. It is a topic of contention among evangelical Christians who have online ministries dedicated to turning Masons "away from Lodge and to (their) church". The number of actual Royal Arch Masons is probably less than 10% of the total membership in most areas outside the UK. The "controversy" arises from conflating the Lodge and the Chapter, which are separate bodies. It is the usual problem when the people objecting to something don't fully understand what it is that they are objecting to, and thus anything that could be loosely yermed Masonic, whether recognized by Masons or not, is deemed to be "Masonic". The "controversy" arises from the ease of making a web page and borrowing content uncritically from other spurious sources. It is a question of WP making a mountain out of a molehill. for example, Googling gets us this article as the number one hit. The second is an evangelical website, the third is an anti-Masonic site, and so on and so forth. This is all fringe stuff, and most of the editors arguing against deletion don't know anything about this either. Yet the information from those who do know is discounted. People are more interested in unqualified and unencyclopedic conspiracy theory-type "research" than they are in the truth, because it is simply less exciting. However, this does not make it mainstream, or encyclopedic.MSJapan 02:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I find the phrase "...information from those who do know is discounted..." a little insulting; any editor who is able to provide counterclaim and argument has the opportunity to express same within the article, yet those who proclaim themselves knowledgable about the "truth" (and that is a subjective issue in this matter) wish to remove the article. The claims, however far fetched or even ridiculous/errornous they may be, are already in the public domain, in print and catalogued, and are searchable on the internet. I cannot see why it would suit Freemasonary that the only references should then be on "fire and brimstone" religious sites, even if by countering the arguments it appears to give the matter spurious authority. It is surely better to present your arguments than run the risk of appearing to be attempting to mask "the truth" (that subjective concept, again!)? I'm also a little tired of making these points that nobody has the courtesy to answer.LessHeard vanU 13:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As I have gathered, the general trend has been that the Fraternity does not respond to criticism for just that reason of lending authority to that which is spurious. Moreover, (and most importantly for purposes of this argument) what one jurisdiction says only applies to that jurisdiction, so any response to criticism is never an institutional or universal response. I would also point out that as far as HD's point below goes, again, as there is no central administration, there is no one interpretation or one usage of anything within Masonry or any appendant body outside of a single given jurisdiction, so there's no one truth to publish; it is merely fire and brimstone sites that make these sweeping and incorrect generalizations about the structure and content of Freemasonry. This is why, for example, Leo Taxil was obviously wrong to anyone who was a Mason at the time, and why modern day Masons know that the supporting evidence for these various modern claims is wrong, because they know how things work. MSJapan 15:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, these editors are experienced enough to know that "...information from those who do know is discounted..." is the norm on Wikipedia unless what they know can be backed up with references. If your secret society chooses not to publish "the truth" about something, then what you know or claim to know is compeletely immaterial. I know this, you know this, and they know this. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. —Hanuman Das 14:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, the old argument... Masons meet in secret, therefore they must be up to something nefarious. (since A=B therefore A=C). Blueboar 16:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Not my point at all. My point is, you (the Masons) could simply reveal either the actual word used OR the actual interpretation of the word supposedly no longer used or publish whatever the heck you want about it which could then be used in the article. Just because something is secret doesn't mean it's nefarious. It does mean that the people who actually know the facts can't properly clarify them. But that's nobody's fault but their own! —Hanuman Das 18:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but my point is that the question of whether the word does, has, or in what context exist is irrelevant. The allegation is in the public domain, as are subsequent references, and even if it is without a shred of truth (a position I could accept, as I am fully aware of established religions practice of - frankly - lying about organisations they do not care for) and thus deemed unworthy of remark by the Freemasons, it is still a subject that should have an encyclopedic entry. The claim is thus noted, references cited, and the counterclaims / arguments presented, with references. This can be done without requiring any sanction of any authority, by individuals with some knowledge of the matter . Removing the article does not make the claim disappear - rather, it may appear to justify those who remark upon supposed conspiracy.LessHeard vanU 21:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per the commenters above, evidence of notability dating back to the original nomination for deletion. Yamaguchi先生 02:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per Wikipedia:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot??? - the article has TWENTY SIX reliable sources. It's patent nonsense to suggest anything but keep. WilyD 14:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:SNOW applies here, surely? Any way I personally think that the Jahbulon stuff is bonkers, but there is a controversy. I'm puzzled as to why the usual crowd want it out of Wikipedia considering whose second, third and fourth on Google, but tempted as I am to support them out of pure mischief I do not think that the Christian fundamentalists should have a free run on this notable subject. JASpencer 23:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything about this statement in relation to this AfD except the application of WP:SNOW - the nom will fail not because no-one will vote delete, but because there are entrenched views that mean no point of policy or debate will move them from their position - and both deletionists and antideletionists are guilty of this (IMO!). This could be construed as being unreasonable, and that is not an appropriate reason for WP:SNOW.LessHeard vanU 00:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC) (How's that for mischief?)