Talk:Jahbulon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 January 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Articles for deletion

This article was nominated a second time for deletion on 16 August 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated a third time for deletion on 2006/12/11. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a project to improve all Freemasonry-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Freemasonry-related articles, please join the project.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Freemasonry To-do:

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions;
  • Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue.
  • During any such changes, please be careful to cite reputable sources supporting them, and when submitting your edit, please include an accurate and concise description in the "Edit summary" field-box.
  • After making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page.


Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] discussion of OTO rituals

Out of respect to Ordo Templi Orientis, I think the reference to Jahbulon in degree ritual should be removed. The organization keeps degree rituals secret for the sake of initiates.

Scarletwoman93 23:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

So you're validating the existence of the term in OTO ritual?ALR 23:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I've not been through that initiation. I do not know for certain that it is used or not but I don't think that descriptions of initiation rituals should be posted publically.
Scarletwoman93 23:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Frankly if Freemasons have to put up with a fictional article about a word that's not used in Freemasonry then I'm afraid that OTO have to put up with the exposure of a word which is used in their rituals. Regrettably Wikipedia is not too concerned with accuracy, merely verifiability inasmuch as published in any old dodgy source.
WhilstI have some sympathy with your position......
ALR 23:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Though it does bother me that initations that are supposed to be kept secret (why ruin the surprise for an initiate) can be found so easily, that's not something that Wikipedia is responsible for.
Scarletwoman93 06:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I acknowledge the dilemma, the initiatory experience is one which can't be captured in documentary form and prior knowledge of the process will frequently dilute the experience. Regretably there are significant segments of the WP community who do not respect the initiatory experience and are quite happy to corrupt it for others. That probably reflects the demographic mix of active contributors and it might be a useful discussion in the Countering Systemic Bias project.
The above wasn't intended to be sarcastic, although I recognise it probably comes across that way. There is a lot of effort going into inserting bullshit about Freemasonry into Wikipedia, which is pretty wearing, and there is bound to be some collatoral.
ALR 21:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
As Wikipedia is a resource for information, while also offering a digest, and does not permit WP:Original research then it is not WP that has disclosed these "secrets"; This point should be addressed to those sources that have. Nor is WP censored and, unless disclosure is prohibited in law, is not bound by the practices or wishes of a third party. LessHeard vanU 20:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
True... but that does not mean the third party can not express their displeasure about it. I do find that there is a certain type of article that is kept because editors and readers think "oooh... SECRETS!!!!... kewl". These are often based on mis-informed references (some perfectly reliable under WP's rules... but mis-informed never the less). I know there is little I can do to change this, but it does irk me. Blueboar 22:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I recall this argument from previous discussions ;~) and I do have some sympathy with the viewpoint. I don't think it as a valid reason to not write about it, is all. There are subjects far more sinister in fact than Freemasonary is supposed to be by some, and I wouldn't want the subjects sensitiveness about exposing certain (mis)information to be the yardstick by which articles are written. The criteria for content needs to be consistent for all WP articles. LessHeard vanU 23:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose we have raised it a few times before :>) ... but I am not really restating it as any kind of argument here. Just using the opportunity to gumble a bit. Blueboar 02:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reply to two concerns, and two reasons to modify the OTO-related text

First, in reply to Scarletwoman93's two concerns:

  1. "it does bother me that initations that are supposed to be kept secret (why ruin the surprise for an initiate) can be found so easily" -- the information quoted in this article already has been published in Francis King's book. Any prospective OTO initiate can read it there. If it is one's True Will to follow this particular initiatory path, then one may simply look away when presented with the option of reading ahead in the rituals.
  2. "The organization keeps degree rituals secret for the sake of initiates" -- It may violate internal rules or agreements of OTO members to reveal the contents of the rituals, however agreements made by members of an organization (as with signatories of a contract) do not bind non-members who are not parties to the agreement and therefore have not agreed to those conditions.

So, in both of the above cases, those concerns do not apply to inclusion of the information in Wikipedia.

However, the article does need to be changed to remove the (so-called) OTO ritual text, and, the statements regarding the OTO ritual use of the word need to be modified. I will do that after I complete this comment. Here are the two reasons the change is needed:

  1. the information about the OTO rituals in this article is taken from Francis King's book and that book in itself is controversial. There is no third-party source (that I know of) to support King's claims that his transcriptions of the OTO rituals are correct. It is possible he has it exactly right, but it's also possible that he's wrong. And further, it's possible that he was correct in his observation of a version of an OTO ritual at the time and place he observed it, but that the ritual he observed was perhaps incorrect or unique. In any of those cases, we do not have WP:Verifiability and we do not have WP:Reliable sources, so if the article mentions King's use of the word in OTO rituals, it must state that this is simply King's assertion, not that it is a verified fact that the word is used in the OTO ritual.
  2. the use of the complete poem from Francis King's book must be removed because it is a violation of WP:Fair use (re: text quotations) (also see WP:Fair use#Counterexamples and Quotations). King's book was published in the United States in 1973 by Samuel Weiser and carries the copyright notice of the OTO. A short section of the poem could be included as an illustration, but the entire poem must not be included.

Summary: Since King's claim that the word and/or the poem is used in the OTO ritual is (so-far) not verified by a third party, it seems best to modify the article to mention King's claim (which can be referenced to his book), but not to state his claim as fact. Since King's claim is unsupported, it also seems best not quote any of the poem, in that we don't really know if that poem is in the ritual or not. Parzival418 07:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I am in broad agreement with this, except as regards no mention of the poem for the reasons stated above. Since the poem forms part of King's unsupported claim then it is no more or less worthy of inclusion (of part of it) where it illustrates the claim. If it does not add to the section any more than reading King's book would then it is not needed in the text. LessHeard vanU 12:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to point out that it was added in/forced in with no citation in the first place. I'd say also, that there's no reliable source for usage in Masonic ritual either, which again brings us to a fundamental issue regarding the notability and accuracy of that part of the article. I also agree with the statement that what's good for the goose is good for the gander - we can't keep one and not the other. MSJapan 18:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I concurr with your point that the sources for Masonic usage are also murky, and it would be fine with me if you want to change that section. Regarding the OTO usage, all we have are King's claims - not corrobaorated at this time - which is why I changed the article to read that way. I'm not sure I understand your summary of the situation though, I'd be interested if you'd like to clarify your point further. Parzival418 19:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the poem - I removed the full text per WP:FAIR and because I could not find a shorter segment that would illustrate the point. But also because we don't know if the words of the song as related by King are accurate or if the song actually even does mock the Masons. It could even be original poetry by King that he felt simulated or described what he thought the OTO ritual conveyed (or maybe it's correct, I'm not arguing either way on that point, just that we don't know for sure). It's also possible that in the greater context of the rituals that the apparent mocking may be a parody or joke or misleading trick (as are commonly part of the psychological-social initiatory process). I wonder if even that claim that OTO ritual mocks the Masons should be softened or removed from the article, since in other situations there has been positive collaboration between Masons and the OTO at some times in history. I retained it, even though is controversial, because I wanted to avoid a sudden major change in the sense of the article from before I started editing here, and while King's claims may not corraborated in detail by others, his book has also not been conclusively repudiated either. If someone really wants to read the poem, then they may want to read the whole ritual which is available in King's book still currently in print. Parzival418 19:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reason for reverting addition of OTO to first sentence of intro

I reverted this change: diff because the reference to the OTO already appears in the intro, in the sentence right above the table of contents. The OTO usage is claimed only by one source, which is strongly disputed as detailed later in the article, therefore it should not be listed in the first intro sentence on an equal basis with the Masonic reference. The Masonic use is also disputed as discussed in the article, but it is the primary use with older historical references and should be the primary introductory statement.

If you want to move the OTO reference to the top of the intro, instead of where it is at the end of the intro, that would be OK with me though I think not as good. If you do that though, then the full sentence about the usage being claimed only by Francis King should be moved from above the table of contents, an additional statement about it should not be added - OTO should not be listed twice in the intro. Thanks. Parzival418 18:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah... I didn't see it lower down in the intro. Good point. Perhaps as a second sentence? Blueboar 12:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It appears to me that the OTO usage is secondary, and claimed by only one disputed writer, so seems too prominent as the second sentence in the intro. But that's a small difference and I accept your edit. Parzival418 18:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reason for refactoring the page (no content was changed)

I refactored the page to improve readability, keeping the summary of usages near the top as an overview, followed by the explanations of those usages, then ending with the criticism section.

It seems to me this new organization is easier for the reader to understand. Previously, the controversial arguments were listed prior to the usage and historical elements, which made it confusing to understand what the controversy was about.

I did my best to be careful not to change the meaning of any of the arguments; my intention is only neutral improvement of the text. Parzival418 09:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with your rearranging the article... but I do have a concern. If you look through the history of this article, you will see that it has been nominated for deletion a few times... in each case the argument for deletion was that it was little more than a dictionary definition. The argument for keeping was that the word Jahbulon was noteworthy due to the controvercy surounding it. Does your rearrangement focus the article on the dicdef, or does it focus the article on the controversy? Blueboar 20:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand your concern, but we can also consider that it survived three AfD's, so odds are it will continue to survive. Even if some editors want to delete it, there is so much energy stirred up by the topic it's hard to imagine it disappearing. Also, I don't think this word has a dictionary definition at this time, so moving the article to the Wiktionary seems inappropriate. The thing that is so unusual about this word, and this article, is that almost everything about the word has been kept secret by the people who use it (if they even do use it as it's described in this article). There are some who assert they know how the word is used and they are reporting it, but because of the secrecy and related disinformation, it might not be possible to validate the claims. That means all we can do is report the claims, and state they are in effect hearsay, and have not been validated.
We have is a word that has some historical basis, some theories about what it means or how it was constructed, some claims by people who say they have observed the word used in rituals of a few different (secret, fraternal) organizations, and some claims by others who see the word as being dangerous or blasphemous. What we don't have is a solid reference or two to clearly light up the source of this word, what it means and how it's used - because there are so many conflicting claims.
It's a pretty strange article and a difficult topic. Any member in good standing of either the Masons or the OTO who has been through the rituals that allegedly include this word would not give away the secrets of those rituals. That means that anyone who explains how the word is used in those rituals (or what it means) either is a past member who has left the organization and disavowed their oaths (and may have personal agendas for spreading disinformation); or they are one who never experienced the rituals in the first place and is just making up the information; or they are reporting what they have heard from other questionable sources; or I suppose, we need to also include for completeness - non-members who managed to somehow overhear the rituals or obtain secret documents, or members in good standing who spread disinformation to throw others off the track, or who tell the secrets unintentionally to someone they believe is also an initiated member, or perhap a good standing member who happened to be under the influence of a bit too much of a good time and gave away a secret unintentionally.
So to say the least, WP:RS will be very challenging in this article. I suggest the focus of the article should be: here is a mystery word, believed by many to exist and have meaning and usages, but those are at this point still unverified (ie, not WP:verifiability). We can report some theories about the word, from some sources of unknown authority. We can verify that those sources made those statements about the word, but so far we have not been able to confirm that they are correct. To avoid WP:OR we need to state that is what we are reporting, and not imply we "know" the meaning or use of the word. We can report what people have said or written about it, including controversy. But we cannot clearly define the word, at least not yet, with the research that has been done so far. Parzival418 05:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
That is as good a description of the article (rather than its subject) that I have seen.LessHeard vanU 14:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I suppose my comments derive from my own confusion as to why this article did survive three AfD debates. I am not saying we should put it up for yet another AfD... it is obvious that it is considered a keep. I just have trouble understanding why we keep arriving at that result. I guess I am simply expressing my confusion as to how we are applying the policies and guidelines. As I see it, you would focus the article on the meaning and usage of the word... to me, that is a dictionary definition and would make this a prime candidate for exportation to Wiktionary (actually, it already has a Wiktionary article... with much of the same material). If we try to shift the focus to the stated reasons for the keep (that there is a notable controvercy about this word), we end up having trouble with reliable sources and original research. People keep saying that what makes this word so notable is that there is a "controversy"... but the article contains very little discussion about that controvercy (probably because most of the sources that discuss it are so unreliable). We keep waffling back and forth between this being a dicdef and bad "Fringe theory" article. I am going to have to think about this more. Blueboar 16:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I, unsurprisingly, see it quite clearly. The word may or may not exist in relation to Freemasonary (or at all!). Everyone who says it does cannot be trusted since it should only be known by Freemasons who are bound not to speak about their rituals - so anyone who does say it does exist is either a non-Freemason or an ex-Freemason who cannot be held to their word. Those who say it does not exist are Freemasons, who for the reasons of their being who they are will not divulge the ceremonies and forms of words used to prove their point, and who might have reasons for denying its existence if it was used (for such is basis of secrecy; the denying of truth as well as its concealment.) Controversy is quite an emotional word these days, but the correct meaning serves this article quite well - two viewpoints of the same matter that cannot be reconciled. The lack of impartial reliable sources for either viewpoint is understandable in the light of what I wrote previously; since there is no publicly available tome which records the practices, ceremonies and terms of the Craft then there only the observations/allegations of some (and the repeating of those sources) and either silence or unsupported denial by others. However, it cannot be called Fringe since there is no proof that it does not exist.
I recall that renaming was an option suggested by a few in the previous AfD's. Perhaps we should look to the merits of that, to clarify the context of the alleged use of the word? LessHeard vanU 20:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
There's a misapplication of "secrecy" here - it's not a problem to say that any of the Masonic words exist, we're just not supposed to tell you what they are (it really does ruin the experience). Therefore, in this case, it's perfectly OK to say that "the word" isn't what people say it is, or that it really doesn't mean what people think it does - there's no attempt to hide anything here. What concerns me about this article still is the sources used - people who aren't linguistically trained coming up with etymologies for languages they don't demonstrate knowledge of, historians who are largely discredited being given fair weight regarding their claims, sources with obvious agendas considered "fair", etc. It's simply a matter of semantics - if the three syllables are considered to be attributes, then they cannot be a name. I mean, I may be a Freemason, a Wikipedian, and a scholar, but my name isn't "Frewisch" as a result of that. Furthermore, usages are not standardized throughout Masonry, and we've got no real evidence to even claim widespread non-historical use. MSJapan 21:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely with Frewisch... I mean MSJapan. As to the idea that we should rename... I agree, but before we can do that we need to deside what this article is really about. Is it about the meaning of the word "Jahbulon"?... is it about the history and development of the usage of the word by Freemasonry and OTO?... is it about the accusations that Masons worship a pagan god named "Jahbulon"? Is it about a word or is it about a controvercy? Or is it about something else? Blueboar 21:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Frewisch as well, wait, yes, I also mean to say... MSJapan. But I think if the article stays, it's name should stay, because whatever that word is, and whatever the article explores, that is the word. If we add "Controversy about" or anything else onto the title of the article, it would be hard to avoid creating a bias or an illusion of understanding before the reader had even started reading the article.
"is it about something else? " -- good question! I've been thinking about this a lot... what is different about this word that makes this article so different than articles about other words used in Masonic or other Fraternal Orders, or by various religions? One consideration is this: is Jahbalon a word in and of itself, in any language, ie, outside the usage by one or another Order? I searched on Google and found it has approximately 17,000 unique page hits. In reviewing page after page of them, I couldn't find anything unrelated to either Freemasonry or the OTO, and even in those references they seemed all to be from just the same few sources we already have. Maybe there are other sources, but I couldn't find them on Google. On the other hand, consider other words that some have called related to Jahbalon such as Jehovah, IHVH, Baal, Osiris, On, or other dieties in various pantheons from any culture. All those other words easily reveal many usages and etymologies either within Wikipedia or in Google searches or in any library. So, what is different about Jahbalon? I suggest it may be a "constructed" word, built for a particular purpose as a symbol for ritual use. (There is a section in the article now that mentions this, though it is too narrow and not sufficiently sourced. But that's neither here not there for this discussion.) I'm rambling so to get back to my point: maybe the reason we can't find historical etymology for the word is there is none. That does not mean we should not have an article, but it does mean maybe instead of referring to the word as if it were a generally-accepted part of our lexicon, instead we refer to it as a word that appeared mysteriously in literature at a certain time (around 1700-1800 perhaps), has been reported by various sources to be used in certain rituals (but not verified), and in some sense has become a sort of lightening rod for controversy and even emnity from some sources, based on their ideas of what the word may be referring to in the secret rituals, even though there has been no way to verify those uses reliably.
In other words, there is a fundamental difference between a secret word that has been uncovered (or a fake secret word that has been put forth as disinformation), and that was constructed rather than evolved historically; vs a word used in ritual that may have special secret meanings but that has a complete etymological history separate from those secret uses. So, I think this article would be best approached by beginning with a statement that this word appeared in literature at a certain time, state the way it appeared and what was said about it, the theories about how it's been used in the various secret societies (with sources, and making sure to point out they are only theories and have not been proven, and include where we have them examples of references that claim to debunk those claims), and then... append the descriptions of the controversies resulting from various interpretations of the word made by people who are not part of the groups that coined it in the first place. We can't actually state there is no historical evolution of the word though, unless we have a source to verify that. All we can say is that in the sources we do have the word appears only after a certain date. This is very different though from how we would approach writing an article about a word with longer and more public history, such as the diety names I listed above. Those words would have endless sources that could be quoted about meanings and origins. Writing about a secret word (that may or may not exist outside a few books and speeches that "reveal" it) on the other hand is, well, difficult... Parzival418 08:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, I think this is entirely reasonable. The word does exist, as explained in the article, as the name of an explorer previously used ritualistically by Royal Arch Masonary; this can be dealt with in the appropriate encyclopedic manner (and indeed has). The alleged use is, as is said, difficult. Perhaps we should look at "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" which, while now recognised as a forgery, deals with how dubiously sourced allegations were used as a way of discrediting the supposed adherents. This may provide a framework for this part of this article. Whilst it cannot be proven that Jahbulon is not, and never has, been used in Freemasonary it would be encyclopedic to note that the usage has only ever been alleged via the sources and also note any rebuttals. LessHeard vanU 09:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
ps. A word of warning!!! You will never guess who one of the groups supposed to be supporting the Jews in world domination, according to "The Protocols..."? Have a guess! Starts with "F" and ends in "S"! Supposed secret society...
It may be pertinant to include mention of "The Protocols..." in this article as an example of how a known forgery has been used to disparage Freemasonary? LessHeard vanU 09:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
If we want to bring discussion of hoaxs into this, I would think a far more appropriate one would be the Taxil hoax. The claims made by religious Anti-masons, especially the ones that say Masons practice devil worship, or worship some sort of pagan god named Jahbulon, are a direct descendant of that hoax. Blueboar 15:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, that's an interesting article. It's just amazing how much energy has entered into public conversations based on imaginings of what happens behind closed doors. I have a new idea for aproaching this article after reading the responses and the hoax information above, but we need a new heading so I'll continue below in a new section. Parzival418 17:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Yup, interesting article. LessHeard vanU 21:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] this talk page is very long; let's archive the older discussions to a subpage...

The article has changed a lot since the early discussions. I recommend we archive the past discussions of this page to a subpage. Nothing should be deleted, we would keep the archive link at the top of this page.

I request that someone go ahead and do the archiving, or... eventually I'll do it when I can find the time.

If anyone objects, please let us know here. Thanks Parzival418 06:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for archiving!

Much appreciation to User:MSJapan for archiving this page... and for the cool archive summary infobox! Parzival418 06:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] summary; and suggestion for new approach

Here's a summary of how I see where we are (if I missed something or mis-stated something, please comment):

  1. We have a notable word deserving of an encyclopedia article.
  2. The word's origin, meaning and uses are mysterious because, according to the sources we have been able to find, it was coined and defined as part of secret rituals within Fraternal Orders.
  3. It's notable because many people have written about it and there has been significant controversy resulting from its existence.
  4. None of the sources are reliable for the reasons we've discussed, including - there's no linguistic history for the word pre-dating its supposed ritual use; the sources could be wrong, or they could be lying - either as disinformation or to cause trouble or to attain personal notoriety; however - although the sources are not reliable, we do have historical verification of what they said or wrote.
  5. The word and its alleged meanings and uses could be part of a hoax, and we have some evidence that similar hoaxes have occurred in regards to the Freemasons, OTO, and probably other Orders as well.
  6. We have some sources describing how the word was constructed and what it is used to symbolize in rituals, though again the sources are not reliable because the information so far can't be verified. That makes those ideas theories and not facts. The only facts are that those sources have expressed those theories.
  7. Wikipedia has a range of articles about Freemasonry, OTO, many other Fraternal Orders, related biographies, Anti-Freemasonry, related hoaxes, various deities and concepts involved in the philosophies of those Orders as discussed by insiders (possibly revealing secrets or possibly spreading disinformation) and by outsiders (possibly guessing, or interpreting from hints, or making stuff up, or misunderstanding, or overhearing...etc).

Therefore I suggest we do this: Let's make this a medium-short article, basically outlining the points above and including references where we have them, and provide a comprehensive See Also section at the end with links to the many related articles already existing within Wikipedia. Or we could include those links within the body of the article text.

Since there is so much guesswork and mystery with this word, we should be selective about what we include as fact. Instead of detailed reporting of sketchy information, the article can lead readers to many directions of investigation to related concepts within Wikipedia. About the word itself we have very little truly encyclopedic content to offer, but we do have enough that we can offer a hub of related links that can be valuable. -- Parzival418 18:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I do have a suggestion;
  1. On the basis of the alleged use and meaning of the word Freemasons have been castigated and/or discriminated against by several sections of society (especially Religious orders). This is specific to the supposed existence, use and meaning of the word.
Examples are noted in the existing article. LessHeard vanU 22:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, good point. I concur with adding this item to the list above. Parzival418 01:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some misstatements, I think

I've separated this out as a separate thread, because others may disagree, and I don't want to derail the main portion.

We have a notable word deserving of an encyclopedia article.

No, we do not. The word is supposedly in use in one degree in an appendant order of Freemasonry. Just as a note, I think there are only 3000 members of said order in my jurisdiction, and at least five times as many Craft members. It is notable because of the controversy it engenders through misunderstanding by the uninformed.

The word's origin, meaning and uses are mysterious because, according to the sources we have been able to find, it was coined and defined as part of secret rituals within Fraternal Orders.

This assumes that there was an associated meaning to begin with - what we have now is speculation by very biased or non-mainsttream sources.

It's notable because many people have written about it and there has been significant controversy resulting from its existence.

Undue weight - the writers are often fringe historians, are 100% not Masons, or they believe the word is an example of Masonry's "anti-Christian" stance (Masonic Knights Templar anyone?)

None of the sources are reliable for the reasons we've discussed, including - there's no linguistic history for the word pre-dating its supposed ritual use; the sources could be wrong, or they could be lying - either as disinformation or to cause trouble or to attain personal notoriety; however - although the sources are not reliable, we do have historical verification of what they said or wrote.

I'll buy that, though I believe it's sidestepping the RS issue that I believe is the central issue with the article.

The word and its alleged meanings and uses could be part of a hoax, and we have some evidence that similar hoaxes have occurred in regards to the Freemasons, OTO, and probably other Orders as well.

Correct.

We have some sources describing how the word was constructed and what it is used to symbolize in rituals, though again the sources are not reliable because the information so far can't be verified. That makes those ideas theories and not facts. The only facts are that those sources have expressed those theories.

Precisely! Note WP does not propagate theory, but rather fact.

Wikipedia has a range of articles about Freemasonry, OTO, many other Fraternal Orders, related biographies, Anti-Freemasonry, related hoaxes, various deities and concepts involved in the philosophies of those Orders as discussed by insiders (possibly revealing secrets or possibly spreading disinformation) and by outsiders (possibly guessing, or interpreting from hints, or making stuff up, or misunderstanding, or overhearing...etc).

I wouldn't say there's a "range of articles", but again you point out a reliability issue.

Parsival's point: On the basis of the alleged use and meaning of the word Freemasons have been castigated and/or discriminated against by several sections of society (especially Religious orders). This is specific to the supposed existence, use and meaning of the word.

That's more or less nailed it. There's no solid proof of the existence of the word, and yet it's supposed existence, coupled with overactive imaginations of people who have no idea about the meaning behind or the administrative divisions of Freemasonry, has pretty much caused the supposed "notability", which is really only verifiable through Internet sources, largely from biased sources. MSJapan 05:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Your comments about my summary are well-taken. One correction, in your last note, Parsival's point: - that one was added by User:LessHeard vanU, then I concurred with his note.
From reading your comments, I think you have more experience than I do with Wikipedia policies and you found some messiness in the way I expressed my points. That's fine with me, I'm here to learn as well as to contribute, and I find all of this fascinating.
Without going through all your comments and responding to each one, I'd like to focus on the question of how we can change this article to improve it, so it's useful and not misleading. As it is now, it's confusing and implies more encyclopedic content than it seems we actually have.
So let me simplify my long list into a shorter note and ask for feedback: when I wrote We have a notable word deserving of an encyclopedia article - what I meant is that there is "something" about this "word" that has stimulated some writers to make noise about it over time; has allowed a way for antagonists to make noise complaining about Freemasonry or OTO or other Orders; and to bring it right here into the present, has stimulated a very long debate among Wikipedia editors, even surviving multiple AfDs. So when I said it's "notable" maybe I was off-track and not properly using the word according to WP:notability. What I really meant is that there is something about this word that has enough of a sticky quality that it needs an article... but... the article should not pretend it is a linguistically-evolved word in the sense of other deity words (as I outlined above), the article needs to make clear that everything about the word is a mystery because it's all been either shrouded in secrecy (or disinformation) or because it's been reported by people either not privvy to the secret who were either guessing or lying, or whatever.
That's why I suggested we direct the article to the other pages already in Wikipedia instead of trying to analyze this (possibly imaginary) word in detail. Maybe we can start with the outline I listed above for the format, but modify the way I stated the points to be more carefully in accord with WP:notability and WP:RS as you have clearly specified.
One way or another, I feel we should change the article soon, because it just isn't right as it is now. There has been a lot of rich discussion here that could be used to improve it. I wouldn't mind if the non-RS details about the word are simply removed and we just describe the stories of what has happened around the assumptions and guesses about the word, ie, the controversies, because any so-called analysis of the word would be a pseudo-analysis since no-one can verify its existance and usage reliably. The resulting discrimination, etc, that was mentioned above does need to be included in the article and is part of what makes the word worthy of the article in the first place.
What procedure shall we use to make the change? Would you like to start the rewrite yourself? From your writings here, it seems to me you are well-qualified to give it a go. Or would you prefer to await more consensus before we begin on that? Would it be appropriate to create a subpage to write a new version and then move it to mainspace after we have consensus? I am starting to see the big picture on this, but I don't feel quite up to digging in and rewriting the article from scratch myself at this time. Parzival418 06:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I would think "Parzival" would be the ideal editor to re-write this article, under advice from all the parties involved in this and earlier discussions, if that was the decision. Parzival has clearly indicated an encyclopedic based desire to improve the article and has shown no bias toward any interpretation of the word or the allegations of its use. I believe Parzival is capable of taking on board the various viewpoints and creating a coherent article. If, in doing this, Parzival learns more about the style and practices of Wiki article writing then everyone benefits.
This is not to disparage User:MSJapan's abilities or anybody elses; I simply feel that a fresh pair of eyes and lack of exposure to the debate history might provide us with the opportunity of having an article that all parties can be reasonably happy with. LessHeard vanU 11:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
While a well-intentioned thought, asking Parzival418 to do it smacks of being "thrown to the wolves". The history is something like mankind's history of war: if we don't know & examine that history, we are bound to repeat it. Grye 00:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm certain that the various interests would be fully prepared to give as much assistance as Parzival1418 needed, and more, but perhaps such a neutral third party may then be allowed to decide what was and what was not encyclopedic and use it accordingly? All this is moot, of course, unless Parzival indicates whether they wish to make the attempt. LessHeard vanU 10:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Well,... I'm interested in this topic and in learning to write good articles. But I have reservations (more on that follows). LessHeard vanU, I appreciate your confidence in my ability to re-write the article from a neutral viewpoint, and in mentioning that there would be support from others when needed - I am sure you're correct that there would be support. And Gyre, thank you for your support in alerting me that I could be subjecting my writing to the "wolves" if I were to give this a go. While I wasn't around for the earlier debates about the article, I have now read the entire talk-archives so I understand what I would be getting into. I feel I should decline the rewrite, though I am willing to assist and support if someone else wants to do it. I believe I could do a good job, but I don't have enough hours to put in on it to develop the sources, write it up, and then argue and defend the points.
In particular, since my prior comments, I've done more research and now I find it even more doubtful that there is enough WP:RS for most of the content of the article. All I could find was basically a few books that repeat the statements of the writers we've already mentioned in the article or the talk pages. There is a lot of interesting reading to be found about Freemasonary, and the OTO, but when the rites are described they are inconsistent, contradictory and of dubious dependability since as we discussed above they are either written by ex-Masons, anti-Masons or conspiracy theorists, or if by Masons, could be disinformation. There are for example some Masons who state that the word is now defunct since it has been revealed, and others who say it's a perfect word so cannot be changed. I believe this was discussed previously in the talk-page archive as well. (By the way, older book scans can be found on books.google.com though it rquires a free log-in).
There is certainly no doubt that the word exists. We know it exists because it's been written about, and people have been harrassed because of it. But so far, I have not been able to find any independent or scientific sources defining the word or explaining its origin. All of the information comes from FM or anti-FM related sources, so I don't see how we can include in the article the description the supposed etymology of the word as being the combination of the three syllables as with the meanings as mentioned. That might be correct, but it might not, and we just don't have WP:V about that. There is even a reference from the Wiktionary article about this word, here that refutes the way it is described in the article here currently. That's only one example, but the point is I don't see how we can include the meanings. If we do, we are really just including a list of possible and alternate meanings that have been claimed and refuted by various individuals.
We do have enough writings from Masonic-related sources to have a small verifiability that the word has something to do with the Masons (maybe enough, I'm not sure). We do know from other writings that the word has been involved in various ways that Freemasons have been (as written above) castigated or discriminated against, and that is a fact not affected by whether or not the word means what those writers have said it means. The meaning of the word as used within Masonic rites (if it is so used) does not change the fact that the word has been used in hate-speech against Freemasonary by some, and that is a historical fact that can be verified.
So the bottom line, as I see it, is that we have enough sourced information to write that the word exists, is related in some unknown way to Freemasonry, and according to only one writer, to the OTO; and we have enough sourced information to write that there has been castigation and hate-writings towards FM that has included this word as an example of worshipping false gods, etc. But we just do not have enough RS to say anything definitive at all about what the word means or how it was formed, in my opinion, after the research I've done so far. (Please note, these are not my personal interpretations or claims about the word itself, I am only referring to what I have been able to find in sourced references.)
A few more items
  • the Wiktionary entry on this word is even more troubling. I'm not a member over there and don't have time to get involved in it, but I thought I'd mention that article because it is written as if it's all fact but has no references at all, other than random quotations at the end that are not used to support any of the points in the article (including the one link I included above that seems to contest the article).
  • another problem: How do you prove that a word does not exist? Ie, just because no-one wrote about the word before 1700 or so, that does not mean it wasn't used somewhere by someone. So we can't even state with confidence that the word was not used before that time, only that it was not written about before then.
  • a couple of the Google searches I did in researching this were "etymology jahbulon" and "etymology jabulon". In each case, I found zero scholarly articles by linguistics sepcialists regarding this word. Every page that mentioned the etymology of the word was just repeating the same info we already have in the article, saying the word was a combination of three words, etc... but they all quoted pretty much the same few sources we already have. No quotations at all from any etymology experts.
  • A suggestion: I checked five or six on-line English etymological dictionaries for both spellings of the word... none of them include that word, which makes sense since it's probably not English or any other language. Since we have a void in our knowledge of the source of the word and we need to know if it existed before FM allegedly used the word, maybe it would be a good idea to head over to the Wikipedia article on etymology and see if we can enlist a few of the editors who are experts in that subject and ask them to take a look at this question.
So, after all this, I need to say thanks again for the interesting discussion here and for considering my comments. I'll stick around and help out when I can, but I'm bumping up against my time limits so I'm not able to take on the re-write myself. Parzival418 23:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Well... If you put as much effort into the article as the talk page, go to town !~) Grye
Just addressing the last four points:
  • A note on Jahbulon on Wiktionary: I originally transwikied (poorly) this article from here to there. It was unmissed here for some time, then restored, & here it is today; Both here & on Wiktionary they have gone through quite a ride... But that's probably important to realize: That article is from this article! & they both need considerable (re-)work, & will sooner than later effect each-other ;~)
  • Disproving non-existance has always been the critics of the word's point: One person, & only one, put Jahbulon into print, a long time ago, & everyone else that has used the word since, quotes them or someone who quotes them. So it's similar to disproving, say, that Attila the Hun was of mostly Norweigan heritage. I dunno, that probably doesn't help too much, but thereyago.
  • Yup.
  • Def a good idea, hope they bite... Grye 23:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
"I never read a book before reviewing it, I find it prejudices one!" Oscar Wilde (I think)
Ah, well. Shame. I suppose the article will still be here, and the usual suspects arguing their position on it, for some considerable time to come. I hope you will look over the article, especially in light of what you have read in the archived discussions, and make useful comments and ask intelligent questions as you have done, and make a few edits. Have fun. LessHeard vanU 23:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I will, and again, thanks to both of you for making me welcome here. By the way, I forgot to include one more point in the list of a few more items at the end of my prior post above - so I'll re-edit that list and add that into the note about asking the etymologist editors... (It's the note about the checking the on-line English etymological dictionaries). I'll continue to consider the re-write - maybe I'll find the time if I can't sleep one of these nights! See you 'round... Parzival418 23:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/h/Talk%7EJahbulon_cc5d.html"