Talk:Jahbulon/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 "alleged to have been used" 2 This article has problems with WP:FRINGE? 3 Unencyclopedic 4 Poll: Tag on article 4.1 Vote 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Summary 5 RfC response 6 Why IS this encyclopedic 7 Interesting 8 The Weir quotation 9 Mainstream sources 10 Another mention of Jahbulon in a mainstream book 11 Question wrt OTO 12 Opening paragraph 13 Block cut and paste from legacy versions 14 Further reading 15 Web of Hiram reference 16 Pike 17 UGLE Quote cf SGRAC quote 18 Royal Arch as part of York Rite 19 Comment after result of 3rd AfD 20 Anthony Appleyard edits 21 Use of Mackey Quote 22 Rewriting -- is it possible? 23 Wiktionary Vs. wikipedia 24 Rewrite 25 Merge 1 26 Jefferson 27 Disruptive editing

[edit] "alleged to have been used"

In tydeman's address, which can be found here (not linked due to possible copy vio iirc). He states "recent attacks on Freemasonry have shown up all too clearly that the Royal Arch is one of our most vulnerable fronts, and the thing that our critics have seized upon as proof of our evil intentions is the composite word or words on the triangle in the very centre of every Chapter." the address then goes on and he discusses how the word is not a name of anything, it is actually an honorific that means "The True and Living God — The Most High — The Almighty", which he gets from translating the three parts of the word. What does this mean? It means that the word Jah-bul-on, must be the word he is discussing or the translation would not make sence, therefore we know that there is no chance for him to be using a fake or obsfucated word in this address. He then goes on to explain how the grand chapters ritual has not changed for 149 years.

What does all this mean? First off, he is confirming that the word was being used in the UK in the Grand Chapter in December of 1985 ("the words on the triangle in the very centre of every Chapter"). He is confirming through his translation (which is in the article currently) that he is discussing the word "Jahbulon" (even though he never states it in the article) since if it was an obsfucated word the translation would be invalid. He then suggests changing the ritual they have been using for 149years since "reference to the word on the triangle as a name will bring us into disrepute with the world outside", since their ritual hasn't changed in 149 years, and the ritual references the word on the triangle as a name, he's confirming that the word on the triangle has been in use in the Grand Chapter for 149 years. Also according to a source MSJ found and edited in here. The Grand Chapter removed the word on the triangle in feburary of 1989.

Tydemans address proves, that the word Jahbulon was used in the Grand Chapter ritual (which is standardized accross all of the chapters under the jurisdiction of the grand chapter) during atleast the period of 1837-1985, another source shows that it was finally removed in early 1989. Since tydeman's address proves without a shadow of a doubt the word is in use, the word alleged is incorrect, and should be changed. Does anyone have reason against removing the word alleged? (Note this discussion is only about the "alleged" issue, please don't go off on unrelated tangents) Seraphim 08:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR, inference. Haven't you got anything better to do, the rest of us have?ALR 10:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A source stating something is not inference in the least, nor is it original research. The address is about his defination of the word on the triangle, which he very plainly states was in use at the time. Seraphim 10:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is much doubt that Jahbulon is a word that was used by at least some Royal Arch jurisdictions... after all, Duncan includes it in his expose. The inference is that it is used by ALL Royal Arch jurisdictions. We also have inference in HOW the word is/was used. Blueboar 15:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The opening line is misleading since it implies that there is no proof the word was ever used. Since we aren't allowed to use weasle words, I feel that saying something like "Jahbulon or Jabulon is a word which has been used in atleast two jurisdictions of Royal Arch Masonry(tydemanref/duncanref tydeman for the SGC jurisdiction, duncan for the state jurisdiction (i forget which state it is off the top of my head))." then go into explaining the different allegations as to the words meaning/use. Leaving the word "alleged" where it currently is in the article is simply false information. Seraphim 19:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Both of those assumptions are inferences, so constitute OR.ALR 19:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There is another factor that Seraphim is not discussing. The word "alleged" is not really refering to whether the word is/was used by Royal Arch Masons, it refers to HOW it was used. Read the entire sentence and it will make sense: Jahbulon or Jabulon is a word which is alleged to have been used historically in Royal Arch Masonry as either a secret name for God, a description of God or the name of an allegorical explorer. Blueboar 20:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

ALR when someone makes a statement of fact, and you in turn report that fact, it's not an inference. And Blueboar it's very ambiguious the way it is currently worded. It was used in the SGC as the name of god. Tydeman's address was an attempt to get people to change it. Currently the wording makes it seem as if the fact that the word was ever used for anything is still unproven. Seraphim 00:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Seraphim... Which "fact" are you talking about?... that SGC used the word, or that SGC used the word in a specific way? I would agree with you in saying that Tydeman demonstrates that SGC used the word... I would disagree in saying that his speach demonstrates how the word was used. Once again, there is absolutely no reliable evidence to back the claim that the SGC (or any other RA Chapter) used Jahbulon as the name of God. Please provide chapter and verse if you have such evidence.

Let's reveiw: From reading Tydeman and Duncan, there does seem to be compelling evidence that the word Jahbulon was at one time contained in at least two Royal Arch rituals (specificly, those in England and in NY). What is not known is if the word was or is used elsewhere. (I would be willing to say it probably was, but I have no evidence to back up such a statement and so could not put that as a definitive statement in the article). OK... so now we come to the question of HOW it was used. Tydeman does not discuss this. So we do not know how the word was used in England. Duncan's exposé shows the word being used in NY. And we even discover HOW it was used: as a recognition password... a bunch of sylables that have to be said in a specific way to "prove" that one is a Royal Arch Mason before the meeting can begin.

Now let us review the claims of the fringe Anti-masons... they allege that the word is used by all Royal Arch Chapters (in fact, they atually go a step further and have all Masons everywhere using this word). They also allege that the word is used as a name for some sort god... and that this god is really Satan. All because the middle sylable of Jahbulon sounds like the Phonecian god Baal. Since this is simply an allegation, and not proven fact, the article is correct in stating that "It is alleged that..." To not use the word "alleged" infers that the allegation is fact, which would mislead the reader.

if you can come up with different way to phrase this, one that represents what is fact and what is allegation accurately, I am open to your suggestions... but so far, I think the opening sentence is not only quite accurate, but succincly so. Blueboar 02:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Tydeman does discuss how it was used in ritual. "Has the time come when a new revision is due? Next year will be the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the last revision, and it might be more expedient for us to initiate such a revision ourselves, rather than have it forced on us by pressure from within and without: for there is no doubt that the continued reference to the word on the triangle as a name will bring us into disrepute with the world outside, and will cause an increase in the misgiving which already exists among our own members." He's suggesting a revision because "the continued reference to the word on the triangle as a name will bring us into disrespute with the world outside" at the time of his address it was being used in the GC ritual as a name.

Now for why the opening line is misleading, and innacurate. "Jahbulon or Jabulon is a word which is alleged to have been used historically in Royal Arch Masonry as either a secret name for God, a description of God or the name of an allegorical explorer." is the current opening line. Alleged means "to assert without proof". Nowhere in the opening line does it ever point out to the reader that the word is anything but random gibberish that someone made up. If I inserted the word "Turkey" in that sentence in place of Jahbulon it would still have the same meaning. If you get rid of the either and simply change it into 3 seperate sentences you end up with. "Jahbulon or Jabulon is a word which is alleged to have been used ... as a secret name for god." "Jahbulon ... alleged to have been used ... as a description of god" and "Jahbulon... alleged.. name of an allegorical explorer." The fact that it is was historically used as a name by the SGC is not disputable. What is "alleged" is that it's the name of a secret masonic god, however it being used as a name in ritual is not disputable. Also it's not being used as a password atleast in SGC chapters since the symbol of the circle and triangle is displayed in every chapter "composite word or words on the triangle in the very centre of every Chapter". Seraphim 00:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"Alleged" refers to an unproven statement, one where the proof is not (yet) agreed upon or has been shown to exist - the proof may exist, it simply hasn't been tested. Slander is a statement knowingly made without proof, or the possibility of same. A very slight difference, but one which lawyers make their living on.LessHeard vanU 00:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and since we have proven with valid sources that the word has been used, the word alleged is incorrect. Seraphim 06:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, well, you cite Tydeman as saying "the words on the triangle in the very centre of every Chapter". How does this claim usage? For example, the Great Seal of the US has the title on it, but that title isn't "used" for anything. You are inferring "usage" from "appearance", which is incorrect.

He is confirming through his translation (which is in the article currently) that he is discussing the word "Jahbulon" (even though he never states it in the article) since if it was an obsfucated word the translation would be invalid. That's also inference; you're going to another article, and then transposing that information in order to apply it to the original article. That's OR because it's not something stated by the writer, but rather your own conclusion.

How does "reference to the word on the triangle as a name will bring us into disrepute with the world outside" have anything to do with ritual? Again, you're putting words into Tydeman's mouth.

since their ritual hasn't changed in 149 years -- Tydeman doesn't say that either, and you're wrong again. There's no Masonic ritual in existence that is unchanged if it's over 40 years old or so.

and the ritual references the word on the triangle as a name - I'd like to see a citation for that in Tydeman, actually. Otherwise you're inferring from Duncan, which isn't even the same country.

He's confirming that the word on the triangle has been in use in the Grand Chapter for 149 years. - Actually, as per above, your argument falls apart, because this doesn't necessarily mean ritual. Grand Chapter also doesn't perform ritual as such; it is an administrative body, and only exists to coordinate Chapters and hold meetings.

The Grand Chapter removed the word on the triangle in Feburary of 1989. - and was this anything more than changing letterhead?

Tydemans address proves, that the word Jahbulon was used in the Grand Chapter ritual (which is standardized accross all of the chapters under the jurisdiction of the grand chapter) - Apart from "no it doesn't for the above reasons", I wonder about standardization, actually; UGLE does not standardize its ritual, so I would hesitate to claim uniformity for SGC unless someone in a position to know said that it was standard.

In short, to remove the word "alleged" is not possible without violating NOR. All of these statements and conclusions that are claimed as proof are not internal to the sources, but are rather arrived at by piecing together information from various sources and creating an explicit connection that otherwise does not exist. MSJapan 06:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

MSJ i'm kinda suprized at your responces, since many of them are completly wrong. You seem to be looking at each statement in his address like it's a completly seperate source. We know the word is used in ritual since he suggests changing ritual to reflect that it's a honorific not a name. Your 2nd point is silly, of course he's talking about Jahbulon, and the word isn't obsfucated, since he's translating it, and naming what each of the 3 syllables translates to, if it was another word his entire address would be pointless. "reference to the word on the triangle as a name will bring us into disrepute with the world outside" has everything to do with ritual because that sentence within the context of the source is him discussing changing the ritual because it references the word on the triangle as a name, and he feels it should be an honorific. The ritual refers to the word on the triangle as a name because he's proposing they change it so it no longer does. Tydeman states clearly that they haven't changed the ritual in 149 years "Next year will be the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the last revision". Also as far as uniformity, if you study the history of the SGC and the Royal Arch, you will see that the SGC was created to standardize the practice of Royal Arch masonry in England. They standardize all the major parts of the ritual, and allow the chapters to change small details, tydeman makes clear in his address that Jahbulon is part of the standardized ritual "and the thing that our critics have seized upon as proof of our evil intentions is the composite word or words on the triangle in the very centre of every Chapter". Seraphim 07:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Serphim, you are still conflating three seperate issues... the first is probably a fact (that SGC used the word), the second is inference (how the SGC used the word), and the third is pure speculation (what the word means). Let us assume (an unprovable assumption, since we do not have a copy of SCG's ritual, but let's make it anyway) that the ritual used by SGC in 1985 was similar to that exposed by Duncan. If so, then how it was used is quite clear... the sylables "jah", "bul", and "on" are used together as a three part password. Nothing more. In fact, in Duncan's ritual, these three sylables are not said as a single "word". According to Duncan, three people gather and each says one sylable. This gathering and exchanging of sylables takes place in two places... at the opening of the chapter (ie to "prove" that all present are legitimate Companions), and later, when the new Companions are taught how to do it. THAT is how the word was used. Period.

Now, what confuses people is all the speculation as to where these sylables came from and what they mean. Unfortunately, here all we get is specualtion... even from the Masonic side of things. Duncan's oppinion is that they stand for the names of three gods worshiped in the ancient Middle East. In other words, "Jah" is an abreviation for the name of God in one language; "Bul" is an abreviation for the name of God in another; and "On" is an abreviation for the name of God in a third. Being a Mason, and used to the Masonic concept that we all worship the same God no matter what name we give Him, he states that these three sylables all stand for "name of God" in three different languages. So, according to Duncan, while Jahbulon does not mean anything... The words "Jah", "Bul", and "On" (seperately) do mean something. Unfortunately, this distinction is often missed. People take it as one word... and assume that the three sylables together is a name for God. That is what Tydeman was upset about in 1985... and why he presents a new interpretation of the meaning of each sylable. In his interpretation the sylables can be taken together as a single word, without condemnation by those who object to Duncan's interpretation. But all of this is speculation, and often erronious speculation. It is just as likely that the sylables were originally chosen at random and don't really mean anything. We just don't know.

What we do know is that the word "Jahbulon" is NOT the name of some sort of Masonic god, nor is it a secret name for Satan. That said, we also know that certain fringe Anti-Masons allege that it is. So again... the word "alleged" is correct. Blueboar 15:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your correct that we don't know exactly how in the SGC ritual the word is used, however we do know that in SGC ritual (during the time of tydemans speech) it is presented as a name. Also your 100% correct that the word alleged is correct if we are talking about Anti-Masons believing that the name is the name of a Masonic god or a secret name for satan. However that is not what the first line says. The first line does not confirm the word was used at all. The first line should be changed to say that the word was historically used by atleast two royal arch masonry jurisdictions, however the meaning of the word and it's use within the ritual is unclear, which has resulted in some anti-masons alleging that jahbulon is the name of a masonic god, or even a secret name for satan. Seraphim 22:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Then we have issues with undue weight for the article, specifically because 2 jurisdictions don't mean anything (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, again because our SGC source says nothing about appearance in ritual, and you really cannot assume what SGC does it what anyone else does) when there are 50 jurisdictions in the US alone. That means you think that this is important based on at most a verifiable 4% usage if we limit ourselves to UK and US jurisdictions (which skews the sdample anyway. It's more like 2%, and could even be less than that. MSJapan 22:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"because our SGC source says nothing about appearance in ritual" that's completly wrong. Read the source, the entire point of the address is tydeman suggesting they update the SGC ritual to reflect jahbulon as an honorific and not a name. That's the entire point of his addresss. That's the point that his translation leads up to. Seraphim 04:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

While I do not completely agree with Seraphim's take on all this (I think she does make an inference... a logical one, but an inference never the less).... in an attempt at compromise I have re-written the opening lines to make it clearer that the allegations are really about the meaning and not the historical use of the word. Blueboar 01:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article has problems with WP:FRINGE?

Can anyone tell me why this article should not be deleted as a Fringe Topic under WP:FRINGE? Blueboar 17:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is not grounds for deletion, the fringe articles would actually be deleted as being non-notable. Fringe theories are allowed on wikipedia as long as they are extencively referenced, and have atleast one mainstream reference. "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. " in this case we have 2 references that meet the requirement (Duncan's and Tydeman's address), and many many other non mainstream references. The idea behind WP:FRINGE is that if a theory is completly out there, you won't beable to add enough sources for either the article to be balanced (NPOV) since the people on the other side of the fence won't adknowlege it, or to keep from violating the No original research rules. A good example that they list on the WP:FRINGE page is the Apollo moon landing hoax sure the people that believe in it are wackos, however there are enough of them where even though it's a fringe idea, it's still notable enough to be on wikipedia. It even uses extremely biased websites in the correct manner as references, stating the contents of the website as the website owner's opinion not fact. We could learn alot from that page, for example this reference is obviously extremely biased and easially debunked, but the statmenent it references is "Dr. David Groves (who works for Quantech Image Processing) and worked on some of the NASA photos. He said he can pinpoint the exact point at which the artificial light was used. Using the focal length of the camera's lens and an actual boot, he has calculated (using ray-tracing) that the artificial light source is between 24 and 36 cm to the right of the camera.". The article says person X claims Y, and therefore using a source where person X is claiming Y is a valid reference, even though person X's claim of Y is completly false. Seraphim 21:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I very much question whether both Duncan and Tydeman count as "Mainstream" refereces. I would say that both sides in this so called controversy are proponants of Fringe theories. Blueboar 22:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Duncan's is published by Random House, which is a HUGE U.S. publisher [1] and Tydeman was speaking from a leadership role within the SGC. I find it funny that you feel that Tydeman is a proponant of a Fringe Theory. The fact that the word is used in masonry, and there is debate over it's meaning is fact, not theory. If the article was about the theory that Jahbulon is the name that Masons use while they worship Satan, then it would violate WP:FRINGE, however that's not what the article is about. Seraphim 06:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

But the theory that Jahbulon is the name that Masons use while they worship Satan is EXACTLY what this article is about! People keep saying that "it is the controversy that makes this article noteworthy"... Now, as you know, I question whether there really IS a controversy going on here... but, for the sake of argument, let's say there is one... without the whole satan thing, that controversy would not exist. So... without the Satan thing, this article would not be noteworthy and thus there would be no article (it probably would never have been written, and if it had been it would have been AfDed a long time ago).

As for Duncan and Tydeman being Manstream... no. Getting a book published, or being in the leadership of a relatively tiny sub-body of Masons does not make one "Mainstream". Read WP:FRINGE again... We start with:

• This page offers guidance on establishing which non-mainstream "theories" should have articles in Wikipedia. This refers to "theory" in a very broad sense, including (self-described) scientific thories, conspiracy theories, or things which in a stricter sense may be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations. The guidance refers specifically to the creation of entire articles about said topics, not to the inclusion of alternative points of view in individual articles. The guidance does not speak to the content of the articles, which are still completely subject to WP:NPOV and other policies.

This definitely fits this article. All of the etymologies (Tydeman's, Duncan's, and those of the Anti-Masons") are theories... hypotheses, conjectures or speculations.

We continue with

• "Mainstream" here refers to ideas which are accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications (large-circulation newspapers or magazines) or respected and peer-reviewed scientific publications. This should be understood in a commonsense sociological way and not as an attempt to create a rigorous philosophical demarcation between "mainstream" and "non-mainstream", which is likely impossible. The authors of non-mainstream theories sometimes explicitly proclaim their non-mainstream status in one form or another (for example, by arguing that they are ignored because of some great conspiracy, or because other practitioners aren't ready to accept their truths, and similar arguments).

None of this... whether Tydeman, Duncan, or the Anti-Masonic crap, is discussed at all in a large-circulation newpaper or magazine... nor in a peer-reviewed publication.

• 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.

Again... given that this guideline defines major mainstream publication as newspaper coverage or peer-reviewed publication... you can not say that these theories are referenced extensively (and even if you take your view that a published book counts, one exposé from the 1840s and one address from the 1980s do not equate to "extensive" in my book).

• Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of the small group of adherents.

I expect that you would say that Tydeman is a "debunking" reference... but as discussed above it is not one from a mainstream source.

• 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.

AH... now we get to the meat of the matter... what makes this all facinating and thus "notable" in the eyes of a lot of people is that this word was/is part of a Masonic ritual (oooooh). In other words, Masons are notable so anything they do or say must be notable as well. According to this guideline, however, we should not fall into that trap. Just because Duncan and Tydeman were Masons does not make their ideas about what a word might mean notable. the same is true for the religious anti-Masons.

I would contend that what we have here are three conflicting fringe theories: one put out by Duncan in the 1800 (ie that Jahbulon is the combination of the names of three ancient deities)... one put out by Tydeman (Jahbulon is a hebrew phrase describing God)... and one put out by a few Anti-Masons (Jahbulon is Satan). But all three are fringe. Indeed, I would contend that there IS no "Mainstream" theory... because the Mainstream has never even heard of this word. This is true even if you limit your definition of "Mainstream" to Masons... less than a tenth of all Masons belong to the Royal Arch, and probably half of those (and I'm being generous) belong to RA jurisdictions that either never used the word or used it in some other way that is not discussed in this article. This comes down to (perhaps) two or three thousand men (world wide) who belong to jurisdictions that do/did use the word. Talk about Fringe!

To me, the key here is that any "controversy" about this word exists among very fringe groups... and I just don't find that notable. Blueboar 14:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The first thing you should note when looking at WP:FRINGE is that it is a guideline that a user created to help show notability. The author It hasn't been involved in any arbcom rulings yet, and the only time it's been addressed on a AfD is if the article was already guarenteed deletion. WP:FRINGE is not a rule that your article can be deleted by. WP:FRINGE is simply an attempt at yet another notability/non notable guideline. One user without discussion randomly changed the tag on it from the proposed tag to the guideline tag with the comment "Actually, it might work as a content guideline" without going through the normal channels such as the policy pump. As a frequent editor on that talk page blueboar you should understand how shaky WP:FRINGE is and how it is far from enforcable. Especially when it comes to topics like this, when the article is clearly written to address conspiracy theories and scientific theories. Seraphim 19:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And what is this, if not a subtle version of a conspiracy theory page?... it is part of the whole "Devil worshiping Masons are out to controle the world", NWO conspiracy theory. Even with all the editing to add in alternative view points, it still comes down to being a conspiracy page. I find this to be an excellent example of EXACTLY the sort of thing WP:FRINGE was created for. Everything about this article is "Fringe" - from top to bottom. Please, find me one reference from a mainstream newspaper or peer-reviwed publication that discusses the word Jahbulon or any of its invented etymologies, and I will drop this. I have looked and can not find any.

And just so you know, WP:FRINGE has been referred to several times at WP:RS and on other guideline talk pages. It is generally considered quite sound. It may not have been the justification of a AdF ruling yet, but that is because it is still relatively new. Who knows, perhaps this will be it's first test. Blueboar 19:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This page is not about the devil worship thing. Infact nowhere on the page does it even mention the fact that some people believe it is related to masonic devil worship, since the only statements about that were thrown out months ago. The fact that there are no newspaper sources or peer-reviewed publications is irrelevant, since those are not required for an article to be notable, they were added to the WP:FRINGE page which is a user created guideline, and not a rule. Plus, if various editors of this article understood how references actually work, the page would be twice as long, with many many links showing the fact that the word is infact notable due to the contraversy surrounding it. However since people who edit this article are not able to understand the fact that even if someone makes an invalid claim, stating that they make that claim is 100% verifiable by using as a source where that person makes that claim. People need to start looking at the moon landing conspiracy article a bit closer. As far as WP:FRINGE being referred to on many pages and being "generally considered quite sound" that's simply not true. It's linked to by 23 pages, the most prominent being the RS page where it is used as a guideline about creating pages about exceptional claims, which this page is not about. This page is not about the claim that Jahbulon is the name of the masonic devil god. If it was then WP:FRINGE would apply. This page is not about a theory, it is not about a claim, it is about the contraversy surrounding the leak of the word Jahbulon in Duncan's. Of course, since you guys managed to remove all information about the religion contraversy I can see where some of the confusion is coming in. However I intend to start re-adding that information, so it is no longer represented in the article as a 2 sentence throwaway paragraph in the opening, that doesn't even mention that it's not only a christian issue. Seraphim 21:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• if various editors of this article understood how references actually work, the page would be twice as long, with many many links showing the fact that the word is infact notable due to the contraversy surrounding it.
• This page is not about a theory, it is not about a claim, it is about the contraversy surrounding the leak of the word Jahbulon in Duncan's.

You keep going back to the claim that this is about a controversy... So I say again: there is no "controversy"... all we have are compeating FRINGE theorys as to what these sylables might mean. That makes a mild debate at best... not a controversy. If there was a controversy there would be some form of reliable mainstream source that discusses that controversy. I can not find a single one, and I seriously doubt that you will find one either. Given that lack... I am beginning to think that the claim of controversy is OR. Blueboar 03:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unencyclopedic

Unencyclopedic articles do not survive two AfDs. Give it up or nom it again. —Hanuman Das 04:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Not true... the article has changed since the last AfD. Besides, an unencyclopedic tag does not mean someone thinks that the article should be put on AfD. It means what it says... someone does not think the article (as it is now) is encyclopedic. The tag is to alert people to this fact so that they can work on the article to solve the problem. We are still in discussion. It might be that someone will come up with a suggested change or an addition that will change my mind. The tag stays until the article is changed. Blueboar 04:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've started a poll and taken it to 2 RfCs, Religion and Philosophy and Language and Linguistics. One or two editors can't hold an article hostage with a tag just because they want to discredit it. —Hanuman Das 04:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poll: Tag on article

Shall the unencyclopedic tag be removed?

[edit] Vote

• Yes, article is perfectly encyclopedic and has survived two AfDs. —Hanuman Das 04:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• No, for all the reasons stated by many editors above. Blueboar 04:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, for the reasons I previously commented upon, and below.LessHeard vanU 11:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, article is clearly about a notable topic, it is (nearly) completely cited, and does not seem to violate any WP policy. The Freemasons are of course free to describe the current use and interpretation the word (if any), and NPOV requires that significant criticism of the type described here must be included as well. I'd say expansion is called for, and that it would be better to view discssion pages as for discussion, not debate. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I choose not to vote, the process is divisive and polarises debate which is not conducive to seeking a consensus decision.ALR 15:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• No. how many times is the term "the word" used in this "article"? if it is constantly described as a "word", how is it [this "article"} not discussion & cites on a dictionary entry?!? BTW, it is described as a word 18 times in this article. So it is, for sure, a word. Good. glad that's clear... Grye 05:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Hanuman Das, this isn't something you can settle with a poll. The tag says what it means...

An editor (in this case, me) has expressed a concern that the topic of this article may be unencyclopedic.

Please review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and try to resolve the objections on the discussion page.

As long as an editor (any editor) feels that the article is unencyclopedic, the tag has to stay. And since I know I am not the only editor to feel this way, I insist that it stay. You could try working with me at resolving the issue instead of just summarily removing the tag. Blueboar 04:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Not true. If there is a majority that thinks that single editor is being unreasonable, they can give him a reality check and DAS BOOT with the tag. —Hanuman Das 04:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, that is not the described use on the talk page of the official template. I invite all editors to take a look at how that template is intended to be used, Template_talk:Unencyclopedic. —Hanuman Das 04:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, since I know I am not the only editor who feels that this article is unencyclopedic, I don't think I am being at all unreasonable. So, instead of arguing over a tag... why not engage me in discussion about the issues I have been raising (see above)? Blueboar 04:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, after reading over the talk page of the template in question, it appears that it was intended simply as a courtesy notice before filing an AfD. It wasn't intended for the use you are putting it to, and I shall simply remove it. Please use a more appropriate tag to express your concerns. —Hanuman Das 05:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of the arguments, and the merits of the sources quoted, the article is properly cited and referenced. The merits of any context are not relevant to its encyclopedic status. See Flat Earth Society, where the controversy rather than the merits of the argument make the article viable. This not to say that the context of this article is on a par of Flat Earth, simply that the stance that it is not (may not be) correct is not sufficient reason of itself for removal providing there is documented support. Both parties to this controversy are able to offer examples in counterarguments to the claims of the other side, so it appears that the debate exists outside of Wikipedia - and thus this is a legit subject.LessHeard vanU 11:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference being that Flat Earth meets the threasholds for inclusion that are listed at WP:FRINGE, while this article does not. Unlike Flat Earth, none of the theories as to Jahbulon's possible meaning have been discussed in newspapers or accademic journals. People keep saying that there is a controversy... but there isn't. All we have are several conflicting theories as to what a (made up) word might mean. If someone could come up with a source that did meat this threshold, I would be much more willing to stand down on this. Blueboar 15:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary

To summarise, 3 for the proposition, 1 explicitely against and two explicit absentions is not a clear decision either way. I'd be tempted to re-add the tag but I'm conscious that it'll prbably end up in an edit war.ALR 13:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC response

Firstly, I would discourage the use of a straw poll here (or anywhere)-we're looking for consensus, not how many think this/how many think that. As such, I decline to "vote". Given that, however, I would speak to two points here:

• If strong consensus does indeed form that a dispute tag is unwarranted or that the dispute it refers to is settled or unfounded, the tag could be removed, even if a couple people still disagree. My opinion, of course, does not a consensus make, but it would be perfectly justified in such a situation to remove the tag even over a small minority's objections.

• There are some weasel wording problems (I corrected one), such as "claims in a footnote" (changed to "states in a footnote"), "seems to have started" (stuff like this either needs to be sourced as having started there or simply unsaid), and the like. However, these are minor and largely stylistic issues that can certainly be resolved. The article itself is well-sourced, presents both sides of the argument, and is, generally speaking, encyclopedic in its handling of the situation. The subject, similarly, is encyclopedic-notability is not subjective. If this has caused significant and verifiable controversy, it is notable, especially when that controversy is as well-sourced as it is here. Seraphimblade 04:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

...Well, I like the article, and the tag. That's not a contradiction, because both are encyclopedic (though very borderline): it is a notable fact that some people feel all parties to this debate are fringe. I say, leave them both indefinitely, that way, nobody is censored, and everyone wins. I would not advocate this situation generally, I think this is a relatively special case.--Homunq 05:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

To Seraphimblade: A comment... you say the controversy is well-sourced... but to me that is one of my problems... it ISN'T well sourced that there is a controversy about all this. This article does not cite a single independant source discussing this so called controversy. There isn't an argument... just differing etymologies (about a made up word at that). Blueboar 05:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact of the controversy is now well sourced, in an article by a Ph.D. who also happens to be a Mason. Now, the tags you used imply that your problem has to do with original research and unsupported facts. So where are the specific citation needed tags? Which parts of the article do you challange? —Hanuman Das 05:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you point me to the article are you talking about? Blueboar 15:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's the one that he added to the References section without actually referencing it in the text. It's a paper presented to a research Lodge which points to the Church of England paper on compatibility and identifies the various points made by the CofE, hardly conclusive and it doesn't identify what the authors PhD is in. could be completely unrelated.ALR 16:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I added it to the references section. Being a Masonic response to church vs. Masonry controversy, and specificly mentioning the use of the word as part of the controversy, it seems silly to deny the controversy or that the word is involved, don't you think? —Hanuman Das 16:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hardly a response. It's a paper presented to a research lodge, a purely Masonic audience and the opinion of the author.ALR 16:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And published by a Lodge of Research. Are you saying the Lodges of Research are given to publishing responses to extreme fringe theories as if they really existed? That'd make an interesting topic for an article comparing Masonic to Fortean research :-) —Hanuman Das 16:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Research Lodge spublish all papers presented to them in their annual transactions, regardless of the merits or otherwise. It's a condition of the submission. Quatuor Coronati publish AQC which includes all papers presented plus a number of others submitted to the Lodge.ALR 16:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

They do indeed, as do many other research groups, and it's in no way an endorsement of the research - most people don't see those papers unless they are members of the Lodge in question. These materials also come under no scrutiny by any official part of the GL under whose jurisdiction they work. MSJapan 17:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also coming from RfC:

1. I've looked over the article and Talk page, and I don't understand exactly what, in the current text of the article, is claimed not to meet our content policies. There doesn't seem to be much original research; the language is fairly neutral; the citations do seem a bit tenuous, but not beyond reason. Please clarify, and perhaps select a more specific tag.
2. The etymological information does not seem encyclopedic, and should go -- either to Wiktionary, or just away.
3. We could really do without all of the verbatim quotes in the notes section, too.
4. If the current text is all that can verifiably be said about this topic, this needs to be merged to a more general article. -- Visviva 07:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

On point 2, I don't believe the material is intended to be etymological, but rather that the word is an intentionally constructed word and the reasons behind its construction. I agree that this should be made clear in that section, so that it is not confused as etymological but clearly noted as an interpretive exegetic device. —Hanuman Das 16:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Then where's the controversy? If it's simply an interpretive exegetic device, then there's no way to claim any one person's idea is authoritative, which means you simply can't say "This is what it means", because it becomes an impossible statement. Thusly, the whole point of the article disappears. MSJapan 17:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a rather naive view. Many controversies are about interpretations of fact. Wars are fought over interpretations of treaties for example. If the contoversy exists, and it clearly does, then it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not demand truth, merely verifiability. The fact that there is a controversy is verifiable and cited. At least some of the details are verifiable and cited. If you believe the article should be deleted, then nominate if for deletion and specify precisely which policy you think it violates and why. Don't endlessly "debate" it on the article talk page. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As I see it there are a few different threads to the issue, although re-reviewing the afd discussions it is notable that much of the opposition to deletion was based on the affiliations of those who felt it should go, rather than the merits or otherwise of the subject. Anyway:

• 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. Most of them also tend to support the transfer of the explanation to Wiktionary, and changing the title of the section away from etymology doesn't actually change the substance of what is there.
• 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.

With all this in mind I don't think that the topic is independently notable. Given the appearance amongst the points raised by several churches it might be reasonable to include it in the Freemasonry and Christianity or the Anti-Masonry articles where it can be placed in context. I can forecast some resistance to that though perceived article ownership.

ALR 19:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the article needs to stay separate, since there is independent usage in a non-Masonic organization, namely Ordo Templi Orientis. 999, who is on wikibreak, responded to my query about this by email and stated that he intends to make sure that someone with access to Secret Rituals of the O.T.O. adds information about its usage in that organization. That means that the word is not exclusively referred to in Church vs. Mason contexts, so merging into either topic would not be at all correct. —Hanuman Das 19:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That's straightforward enough to deal with, confirmed usage in OTO can be dealt with here, the purported usage in FM can be mentioned but discussed in context in a more appropriate article.ALR 19:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but the OTO usage is derived from the Masonic, through Crowley's clandestine initiations. Such intimately related topics should not be separated. —Hanuman Das 19:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear what was, and was not, derived from the many associations Crowley had when he created the OTO rituals. It's also not known how representative the ritual undertaken in his, as you rightly point out, clandestine initiations may have been. Of course if you can provide an explicit reference which identifies how reliable his initiations were and what he took from Masonry compared to elsewhere then I'd be fascinated to see it.ALR 19:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that such could be done, though I don't have the materials myself. Of course, a direct comparison between the OTO Holy Royal Arch of Enoch and other Royal Arch materials has, as far as I know, not been done. But I suggest you obtain a copy of Secret Rituals of the O.T.O. as I am sure that you would be able to make much more use of it than I. Let's at least wait until 999 gets back from Wikibreak in January to see whether the material warrants keeping the article together. —Hanuman Das 19:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That would, as you point out elsewhere, constitute Original Research. However since the HR is not a fourth degree and OTO has even more beyond the RAoE it wouldn't be a reasonable comparison.ALR 19:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

A further thought. Crowley was not permitted to join the HRA, since the craft Lodge which he joined was irregular. So again, unless there is some form of conclusive evidence then the linkage is specious.ALR 22:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• I can't see why one would claim the article isn't encyclopedic. It certainly appears to be, though the point that a definition of a word belongs in a dictionary rather than an encyclopedia has some merit. The article probably should be entitled "The Jahbulon Controversy", except that a search by those looking for just this analysis might not find it with that heading. Maybe the definition should be at the top, and the rest under such a title, or even "Royal Arch Masonry and the Jahbulon Controversy". That would also justify the presence of the definition of Royal Arch Masonry in the article rather than just a link to its own article. However, if the subject of the article is notable - and there certainly seem to be several people with strong views about it who have written both here and in referenced material about it - I'd say that the treatment of the subject here IS encyclopedic and the article should stay. The controversy is obviously real, the etymological information is KEY to the controversy, and the fact that "there's no way to claim any one person's idea is authoritative" is WHY there's a controversy (rather than "making the point disappear"). I can't see penalizing this article because so many others have NOT been developed with the detail and energy the contributors to this one have applied. I just think a lot of the article needs a heading like the one I've recommended.

• However, I wonder about characterizing Stephen Knight with the title "Anti-masonic author" (I'm not saying he doesn't have problems with Masons or Masonry, but is that a proper way to quote a dissenting view?). Rosencomet 21:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It had to be qualified as a statement, because Knight's writing was not objective, and again, it was an RS issue that couldn't be resolved any other way. MSJapan 00:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why IS this encyclopedic

So far, the debate going on here has centered on why the article is not encyclopedic... I would like to give those who feel otherwise a chance to state why they feel it IS encyclopedic. What makes this word notable? So far, the only explanation i have seen is: "the controversy that makes it notable"... so I would also like to ask those who feel this way the following question: just what IS this controversy? Blueboar 03:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

hahahahahaha! your Masonic mind-control technique won't work on me. You are the one who says it is not encyclopedic. Prove it! (if you can). Bwahahahaha. —Hanuman Das 05:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL please. This is an honest question. Blueboar 14:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

And here's the serious version of the answer. You're the one claiming it unencyclopedic. I'm from the US. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. You're the prosecuting attorney trying to convict the article. A number of character witnesses have just taken the stand and said that the suspect seems encyclopedic to them. Your turn. Call your witnesses. —Hanuman Das 15:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Somebody's been watching too much Shark. "seems' is not the same as "is". In a similar vein Ann Rule always thought Ted Bundy "seemed" like a nice man. If you are unwilling or unable to state your own case (with concrete evidence) on an issue you are involved in, and you prefer others to speak for you who aren't involved in editing this article, why should any other editor consider your edits valid? Between this and the oaths "article", are you interested in writing an article, or are you interested in haranguing people and causing trouble? MSJapan 22:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why, after failing two AfD's previously and a CfD yesterday, are people still attempting to declare the article unencyclopedic? The existence, or the interpretation, of the word may not exist in Freemasonry, but there are books, pamphlets, websites and other sources that say it does - and it appears that there also the same types of sources that says it doesn't in counterargument. Thus the debate exists outside of Wikipedia, and this article references it.

In all honesty, it appears that there are Masonic related individuals who appear to be eager that reference to the name be removed - and if there is anything a conspiricist needs is the appearance of censorship to make them more certain in their viewpoint. The article is deemed (yet again) valid, so stop attempting to wipe it out and make sure that the counterarguments are as well documented as the claims. In short, act like Wikipedians and not parties with an agenda.LessHeard vanU 23:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC) ps. Calling into question the motives of the claimants leaves open the accusation that those sources disputing the claim are Freemason related and are equally unreliable.

And so far, we've cited FRINGE and RS to point out that this is not really a controversy, except in the eyes of a small group of people who believe that Jahbulon is indicative of Satan worship among Masons. These same individuals do not understand how the Royal Arch works in different countries, as well as what it is and what it is not. If the claim is that the word is simply a device, the controversy is over interpretation, and what people who don't understand the context think about the interpretation, never mind the fact that as far as we've been able to ascertain, the "word" isn't in use. Thus, this is effectively an article about something that doesn't exist. The further issue is that the points made are sourced by sources given undue weight, again by those without understanding of the workings of a Grand Chapter. Tydeman's speech only applies to his jurisdiction, which is one country out of many. That means that what he says has no bearing on what any other jurisdiction may do. It may have had no bearing on what his own jurisdiction does, as we do not know if the speech was official or informal. The etymologies are not created by linguists, but rather by individuals, and some by authors who have a noted bias against Masonry. They are therefore unreliable as universal statements. Wikipedia does not serve as a soapbox to further nonsensical arguments. Without the supposed "controversy" (which is largely Internet-based), this article becomes nothing but a speculative dicdef and a mass of speculation. Otherwise, the article says nothing that is of any use to the reader. MSJapan 01:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider the debate on either of the AfDs to be conclusive. Much of the objection to deletion appears to be predicate on the fact that there was quite a lot of argument about it and the fact that it had been raised for deletion at all.

The point is, it's as adequately sourced as it can be and that sourcing doesn't demonstrate significance, much of it being predicated on a single appearance in a questionable work.

It'd be laughable really.

ALR 12:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

And I have yet to receive an anser to my questions... 1) why IS the article encyclopedic? and 2) if the answer is that there is a conrtoversy, please explain what that controversy IS? Blueboar 02:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Put up or shut up. Either AfD it, which is the only process by which it can be deleted, or give it up. Nothing will be deleted on the basis of a feeble argument on a talk page. —Hanuman Das 05:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's entirely reasonable to invite you to provide some substance behind your position. The topic would be much more useful from an encyclopedic perspective if it were adequately contextualised within the existing articles. I have to say I don't really understand the fascination with retaining a discrete existence.

ALR 12:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you need substance just go to google and type in "Jahbulon". There are many sources of religious or fringe groups taking offence with freemasonry due to the words leak and existance, and many masonic sources addressing the groups claims. The definations of Controversy are "1. a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion. 2. contention, strife, or argument.", if you look at number 1, you have starting with the pike reference over 100 years of debate/contention between people claiming the word is the name of a masonic god and masons pointing out that it isn't. Which fits "prolonged public dispute" or "Prolonged public contention". For the second defination there is plenty of argument over the word, which fits as well. Seraphim 19:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

We've been round this particular buoy many times before. Instances in Google do not make something significant. Most of these fringe groups do not have independent derivations, if they demonstrate any derivation at all. One instance which is touted around does not make something significant.

ALR 19:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, what she said. Clearly nobody is answering you because your question is clearly ludicrous in light of the content of the article. Do you deny your nose, too? Frater Xyzzy 19:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Here ya go ALR, from the version of the page found here before you guys replaced the entire article without consensus, read the section titled ""Jahbulon" and religion". That's all the proof needed that the word is Controversial. Seraphim 19:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Almost all of which was removed due to the fact that the sources did not meet the guidelines set out in WP:RS (which you don't need consensus to do). Please give us ONE citation to a reliable independant mainstream source (such as a newspaper) that talks about this "controversy" (which, by the way, I still am confused about. I really would like someone to articluate what the controversy IS). Blueboar 20:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

How about you articulate right now, with sourcing which meets the requirements of WP:RS, what you think is particularly controversial.ALR 21:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, you've got this whole thing backwards. The person or persons tagging an article or claiming it unencyclopedic are the ones who have to prove that claim to other editors. Nobody else is at all convinced by your Wikilawyering. You're beating a dead horse and it's not helping your cause. Quite the contrary. The more you continue to make demands after having already been answered repeatedly, the more ridiculous your arguments look. But go right ahead and continue. Every further stroke of the whip brings another keep vote. Cheer! Frater Xyzzy 22:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

ALR you simply are not understanding the point. If I make a statement in an article that Group X claims Y and use source S to back that statement up, all that is required for a source to be reliable is a that the source must be written by Group X where they are claiming Y. Look at WP:RS under "Self-published sources as secondary sources" "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book." if i'm simply stating that group X claims Y using source S that group X themselves wrote, then there is no issue with WP:RS. Seraphim 22:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You're still not answering the question you're being asked, I'm not sure whether you're not understanding it or avoiding it but I'll try to make it even clearer.

• Is the word notable? There is one unique instance of it and a number of potential interpretations, no dispute about that. Is there something which actually makes it notable in any way. The alleged usage is amongst a small percentage of Masons who belong to a related order. I'm not convinced that it is notable in that sense.
• Is there actually a controversy about it? A number of organisations use it as one of, generally, six objections. That's an argument for including it in the Christianity and Freemasonry article. There is no official response to the point, hence no controversy.
• You say that providing multiple, independently verifiable and authoritative sources wich meets the needs of verifiability with regard to these points is easy, but you haven't actually done it. It seems like a very simple question to me, so why won't you answer it?

ALR 08:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You've been answered. The answers have been clear and reasonably well articulated. The problem is that you

a) don't understand WP:RS, and

b) won't accept the answers given

—Hanuman Das 13:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering that ALR has had a major roll in writing WP:RS, I think it is a little rediculous to say that he doesn't understand it. And I would love to see those sources myself. Blueboar 13:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting

Now here's an interesting report on a use of the word! I wonder if someone who has the book can verify and add this. It would certainly spice up the article! —Hanuman Das 06:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Short's information is wrong, so it doesn't really matter what he says - Pike didn't say it or write it, Short is repeating Taxil - and the author of the blog has no idea what he's talking about either, because OTO officially severed its ties (tenuous as they were) with Freemasonry a logn time ago. MSJapan 22:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to the little poem or song about the Masons. —Hanuman Das 05:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean the one that the author explicitly attributes to OTO then?ALR 12:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and posts in full, violating copyright.--Vidkun 17:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

A couple of stanzas out of a several hundred page book in the context of this article is certainly fair use. Frater Xyzzy 17:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Except that the author of THAT book might not have had permission to use it (OTO still exists, and has fought various copyright issues based on their rituals), and we can't tell one way or another if he did, so, as derivative of SUSPECT source, it's not fair use.--Vidkun 17:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There's been no court ruling on whether that book violates copyright, for the simple fact that OTO is understandably hesitant to sue its own primary publisher. Without a court order, quoting from the book is perfectly valid. Frater Xyzzy 17:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It also doesn't actually add anything to the arguments. All it indicates is that OTO might use the term, although one could infer that clearly Masonry doesn't. However that would be OR.ALR 17:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Weir quotation

I think before we go any further with using it that we understand what the quotation actually says in context. Trying to force feed it to users in support of an unintroduced argument does not add value, particularly bolting it into the introduction.

The quote used alludes to the report by the Church of England which uses the Duncans interpretation as one of a number of objections to the craft. It is one line in the paper.

The argument that some people choose to interpret the meaning of the Duncans source as satanic is not easily inferred from the discussion and may demonstate other prejudice rather than a balanced reading of the few sources available.

In summary the proposed amendment is not required.ALR 17:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that it's Satanic. They are saying that Jahbulon is used as a name of God and that it is taken blasphemously in vain. This answers the question "what is the controversy about" and it is disingenous to request that that be clarified and then keep removing the clarification from the article. Frater Xyzzy 17:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You yourself suggested in your edit summary that the reason for the clarification was related to highlighting that it wasn't about Satanism. I'd suggest that the cited text is not independent since it is merely an extract from an extant criticism of the purported meaning in Duncans.

The point was already made in the article in a coherent and literate manner. Stuffing the quote without context into the opening does nothing for readability of understandability.

It's not a clarification because it's not independent and only repeats something already said in the article.

ALR 17:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As one compromise, I have moved the quotation out of the opening paragraph (and specificly away from the statement about percieved satan worship, since that is not mentioned in the Weir article)... and expanded it to demonstrate Weir is mearly quoting someone else... and that his views are very different. Blueboar 17:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd go one further and mention under the Hannah interpretation that this is one of a number of criticisms of the craft by the CofE and reference the CofE report, cut out the middleman so to speak. I'll think about it, just back from a run so not yet.ALR 19:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, 'tis done. I've gone direct to the CofE report as identified by Weir, in the absence of an official response it'll just have to be a bald statement but I'm reluctant to caveat the discussion with the other 5 points as they're discussed already in the Christianity and Freemasonry article.

[edit] Mainstream sources

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 15:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and before you question the author's credentials: Alan Aldridge is a senior lecturer in sociology at the University of Nottingham. Frater Xyzzy 16:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What would indicate the existence of a controversy would be an indication of an official response from a Grand Lodge or Grand Chapter to the suggestion. Does the reference actually identify one?

Can you put the discussion in a bit more context, if this is a sociology work is there any more detailed discussion of thiss particular case study? How many cases are used to illustrate the point and how diverse are they?

ALR 16:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it mentions a response. Here's a brief quote:

"It emphatically denies that it is a religion at all. The brotherhood says that its rituals are not religious, that it has no sacraments, and that discussion of religion is forbidden within the lodge."

Not sure whether the last part is true, but that's what it says. Frater Xyzzy 16:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

So it's not clear whether the position of the craft is based on the alleged use of Jahbulon or the 5 broader points about the use of ritual, etc as articulated by the CofE? Without that explicit linkage then it doesn't indicate much except the general points in Christianity and Freemasonry.

I'm just trying to establish what it would be reasonable to say based on the reference.

ALR 17:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not satified. WP:FRINGE asks for extensive discussion (the emphysis is in the guideline). This is not extensive. Blueboar 17:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You not being satisified is irrelevant, since nothing we provide will make you change your mind. I've already shown that WP:FRINGE does not apply to this article since it's not about the theory that Jahbulon is a masonic god. Trying to find a mainstream source is just an example of trying to destroy the argument even further. Me not being satisfied with the version you guys worked on and replaced the entire article with wasn't enough to prevent you from posting it. Seraphim 17:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Seraphim, if this article is not about the theory that Jahbulon is a masonic god, then what is it about? Several people at the AfD have stated that this is what the article is about. Blueboar 18:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's about 1) the word "Jahbulon", it's origin in Freemasonry 2) various meanings ascribed to it in various sources, Freemasonic and/or alleged Freemasonic sources, Christian sources critical of Masonry, Islamic sources critical of Masonry, and I understand that OTO interpretations may be added as well. 3) the controversies related to these various views , both Christian objections and Islamic objections, to name two. 4) other uses of the word in non-Masonic contexts (e.g. OTO). That's a pretty broad range, but what it all has in common is the word itself, thus the title of the article. :-) Frater Xyzzy 18:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Bingo. I'm up for changing the title to "The Jahbulon Controversy" and have the page Jahbulon redirect there, it might solve alot of the confusion. Seraphim 18:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I'm for that. But let's let the AfD play out (and archive this damnably long page) before discussing. Frater Xyzzy 18:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Seraphim, what I'm trying to establish is how to give the topic it's due weight, in context, and using sourcing to support it as advocated by the content policies and guidance. I'm surprised that you're still harbouring a grudge about the process which we chose to take with improving the article in the past, an approach advocated by someone you brought in to the debate.

Given that we're all trying to develop a credible encyclopedia here can I ask you to put that aside and actually contribute to the debate rather than just rake over the coals.

I'm sure you don't mean to be intentionally abrasive, but it's useful to focus on the point of what we're trying to do here.

ALR 18:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Contribute to the debate? What debate? Your just not looking for a debate, a debate has two sides, you just keep repeating stuff about WP:RS and WP:FRINGE and WP:NOR that are flat out wrong, and when you recieve an answer to a question you ignore it, that is not a debate. In a debate people adknowledge what other people are saying, they don't just keep repeating their talking points, especially once those talking points have been shot down. People seem to forget that before I started editing or researching this article it was a dic def about to be deleted because it was interwiki'ed over to wikitionary. I've already pointed out quite clearly. 1) The controversy exists and can be proven in accordance with WP:RS. 2) WP:FRINGE does not apply since the article is not about a theory, but the controversy surrounding the word. It's not my fault you guys are trying to grasp onto straws to get the article deleted even though the AFD's have been shut down twice already, and this time it's even stronger Keep then ever before. I suggest you guys find some other "attack" on the article. Since the WP:RS and WP:FRINGE ones aren't panning out. Your gonna need a new angle when you AFD it again in 3 months. Seraphim 18:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask you again to stop ranting, and actually answer the question that I've asked. I've asked you a number of times to articulate in what way the word is notable and in what way any controversy actually exists and is consequently notable. All you've really done is rant about how nasty I am both here and on peoples talk pages and keep harking back to a previous instance of the article which was incoherent and relied on a large number of unreliable sources.

I'd tend to agree with BB that WP:FRINGE applies here and I'm not yet convinced that any of the sources actually meet the requirements of WP:RS for demonstrating the existence of a controversy. There is a notable absence of interest from any official Masonic authority.

I'm sure you'll continue ranting about my lack of understanding of WP:RS and you're welcome to that opinion, but you may not appreciate that I am a knowledge management consultant, it's my job to understand information and it's sourcing.

You say that the existence of the controversy can be demonstrated, but you haven't actually stated which source you'd like to use to back that up. Until you can demonstrate that then this discussion is about a theory.

I look forward to your contribution.

ALR 19:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The word is notable due to the controversy surrounding it, the controversy is shown in the version of the article I linked to. You claim that it relies on a large number of unreliable sources because you fail to understand how WP:RS works specifically the "Self-published sources as secondary sources", it's not my fault that you are unable to comprehend the section that I have pointed out atleast three times now. I don't even feel there is a need to continue this discussion, since it's just 3 of you who have previously said plainly that you wish to see the article deleted, that are against the super-majority on the AFD still trying to kick up straws. It's obvious the AFD isn't going to pass, and if the Admin who closes it feels like it he might actually post a "keep" for the first time. The best thing about this AFD is we got more wikipedians to look at the article. You guys can keep grasping to your WP:RS and WP:FRINGE arguments, but i'm not the person you have to convince, you have to convince all the other people on the AFD, and guess what, your failing miserably. Time to move on, since you obviously don't have consensus or even close to consensus that the article should be deleted. As a side note, i'll try to explain one more time how citing the religious groups works. Pretend your a news agency, the white house just issued a press release, you write a news article that states that the whitehouse stated what's in the press release. It doesn't matter what the whitehouse said in the press release, the fact that they said it is what your discussing. I'm done discussing this topic, it's not making the article any better, and the AFD is obviously not going to pass. Your WP:RS and WP:FRINGE crusade is over, let it go. Seraphim 19:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please stop ranting.

Can you also try to break up your text a little.

I don't see what the difficulty is, all I'm asking you to do is to state which reference in the article which you keep referring to actually supports your position. That way we all know which one you're on about.

ALR 19:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that your hiding your real motive behind a veil of fake ignorance, with lots of incorrect wikilawyering. 1234[allaahuakbar.net/free-masons/dajjal.htm 5]67 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 19:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, in my experience as a consultant, when we're dealing with contentious issues such as this it's useful for all players to be explicit about what they're discussing. Without that clarity it can be very easy to end up at loggerheads over misunderstandings of what point is being discussed rather than actually addressing the issue itself. None of the first set of sources that you mention actually meet the requirements of WP:RS in general.

With regard to Islam, which I note you've raised elsewhere, I'd advise reading the Prescott pdf which outlines the origins for that particular issue.

Anyway, thankyou for finally being explicit about what you're relying on. BB and JAS had detailed discussions about each of them in the intervening period and I'm not planning on re-opening that particular debate but I'm sure you'll find it if you go through the archive.

ALR 19:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The "debate" which was just JAS posting all the sources and then you guys callign them all biased, ended with blueboar stating that they were all removed because "Personal webpages, Partisan webpages, Books that say things without ANY indication of where the author got his or her information. NONE of this is reliable under wikipedia guidelines" which is incorrect. WP:RS allows for the use of biased sources and self published sources if they are being used as primary sources when talking about the source's author. You don't have to "re-open" any "debate" this is wikipedia, your asking for sources for claims, and they will be provided. The fact that you do not understand WP:RS doesn't mean I or the other editors of wikipedia have to all adhere to your incorrect interpertation of WP:RS. Seraphim 20:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

So can I just clarify what you're trying to say, for the purposes of being explicit around the debate.

You're identifying that these are sources which make a statement about the position of $church with regard to Freemasonry?

ALR 20:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

They are self-published sources where the individual religious groups are making claims about freemasonry. Which according to WP:RS are valid to be used as sources if they are used as primary sources, which means, we cannot present the information in the sources as fact, but what we can present as fact, is that the group that published the source makes the claims in the source. For example if I was to add the following statement to the article:

"The True Light Educational Ministry, which represents itself as a Christian ministry of evangelism who's stated goal is "to educate and lead Christians in learning how to witness to those involved with the cults and occult."claims that Royal Arch masons are taught that Jahbulon is the name of god, and TLEM also claims that the name Jahbulon is a composite term, joining Jehovah with two pagan gods - the evil Canaanite deity Baal and the Egyptian god Osiris."

The only sources that would be required would be http://www.tlem.net/freemasonry.htm for the freemasonry related claims, and [http://www.tlem.net/whoweare.htm] for where they assert they are a christian ministry and state their goal. This would be fully compliant with WP:RS since it's a self published article being used as a primary source. The only problem is that since this is a controversial subject the line "and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial" requires multiple sources. Unless you want 2-3 sentences in the article about each individual ministry source that we find, it's completly acceptable to group them all up into one sentence that states that "The word Jahbulon is a source of controversy between some religious groups and freemasony.". Of course if you disagree with that, I will gladly write up an individual statement for each seperate source, however that would get quite wordy, and in my opinion, detract from the article's readability. Seraphim 21:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, so what you're saying is that a number of churches object to Freemasonry. The reasons for that objection are various, a total of six in the case of TLEM. they don't appear to explicitly object to the use of Jahbulon but use it as an illustration of an objection.

Can we compare that with the Church of England report, might I suggest that the CofE has a little more credibility, which explictly identifies Knights interpretation of Jahbulon as an objection amongst its six. Although I'll note that objection six is and stuff, which amuses me greatly. You'll see that I've done some work on including that point.

So we can demonstrate that a number of churches object to Freemasonry and we can point to one which officially uses this issue as one of its objections?

ALR 21:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not have access to the Church of England report, so I cannot comment on what is included in it. Also nowhere are you going to see a religious group simply state "We don't like freemasons because they use the word Jahbulon" they present arguments that usually end up with Jahbulon being a masonic god, and therefore being incompatible with their own religion. If your looking for a source that simply says "We don't like masons because they use the word Jahbulon" one will not exist, since these people actually present arguments as to why they object, they don't simply object. Seraphim 21:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The CofE report is referenced and should you wish to do the work then I'm sure you'd be able to get hold of a copy. Writing to your local Anglican Bishop would probably manage to produce a copy. However if you take a look at the Weir reference on page 6 it itemises the CofEs objections, four of which are adequately dealt with on the Christianity and Freemasonry page, one is the Jahbulon issue and the sixth is and more stuff knight said. So we have one very explicit objection in an officially endorsed publication, which does meet the requirements of RS, and that objection is listed in the article.

ALR 21:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Seraphim, just for the record, the sources that I removed several months ago were indeed all unreliable under WP:RS. The sources and citations that are currently being added are significantly better. Blueboar 21:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The only sources that are able on their own to be considered "unreliable" by WP:RS are bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, for all other sources their reliability depends on how the source is being used in the article. None of the sources you removed fit those 4 examples, therefore on their own they cannot be "unreliable under WP:RS", since they can all be used if the provided guidelines are followed. Both Biased sources, and Self Published sources, 'are allowed' to be used in certain situations on wikipedia if no other sources are avaliable. And how can "the sources and citations that are currently being added" be better? The religion argument isn't even discussed in the article anymore, therefore there are no new sources or citations that address the actually the religious controversy being added. Seraphim 21:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

However there is now quite an extensive section in WP:RS about how to assess a source in the context of its usage in an article, if you look at the supporting page to WP:RS, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples then you'll see some amplification on religious websites. and how they might be used. I'm not wanting to split my discussion so won't go any further since I've responded to your point above.ALR 21:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You're simply adding more strength to my point. From WP:Reliable_sources/examples "Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view." I rest my case. Seraphim 21:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is addressed above.ALR 21:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No point is addressed above, you are simply talking about a single source. I'm explaining how all of the other sources you guys have removed from the article, were removed with false justification. Bias is not a valid reason for removing a source, if the source is being used to "present the viewpoints of these groups". Seraphim 21:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid branching the discussion, we're trying to have a mature debate and splitting things up doesn't help that.ALR 22:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another mention of Jahbulon in a mainstream book

From the science book Up from Dragons (co-authored by Carl Sagan's son no less), in a section titled "The Symbolic Brain":

Symbols can serve as a secret bonding language within a group. ... Freemasons have their secret symbols. The ropes, daggers, white gloves, aprons, and blindfolds used in the initiation ceremony have meanings that only Masons are aware of, as do certain words such as "Jahbulon," "Tubalcain," and "Boaz." They are the mortar and cement that bond Mason to Mason. Like the early Christians, Masons bind themselves together by what outsiders cannot (or should not be able to) grasp.

I thought you guys said no mainstream author had even heard of the word, much less published it. Frater Xyzzy 16:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This does not solve the issues with WP:FRINGE, which says:

• 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.

Both Aldridge and Sagan's son (is that an academic credential?) give Jahbulon but a passing reference and not extensive one (Note that the italics are in the guideline, which makes it clear that that this is a key condition). Please provide a reference in "major publication (large-circulation newspapers or magazines) or respected and peer-reviewed academic publication" that reference all this "extensively and in a serious manner". Blueboar 17:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

See previous section. This is simply additional information. Frater Xyzzy 17:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said... the issue with WP:FRINGE applies to Aldridge. BOTH are but passing references and are not extensive discussion. Blueboar 17:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE doesn't require extensive discussion in a mainstream source, it only requires extensive referencing. 19:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question wrt OTO

FraterXyzzy, I'm assuming that you have a copy of the reference for OTO usage, since you corrected my assumption that the degrees ran in sequence. You mention that in the mystical lecture there are a number of explanations for Jahbulon, it would be useful to illustrate their usage in OTO so can you provide that clarification. Presumably if the lecture is in full then you can provide that?ALR 19:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the ref handy right now (packed away as I am about to move), but I do know the sequence of degrees (see Ordo Templi Orientis article, for example). It'll probably be a couple weeks before I can dig the book out. Frater Xyzzy 19:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraph

Well now that we have some indication that Jahbulon is used in OTO there must be some merit in amending the opening paragraphs? Of course it'll become clearer what needs to be done once there is some evidence around the usage in OTO.

Given that we have a very clear comment from OTO that it's not related to Freemasonry, it would be useful to identify something which elaborates on that song extract and why OTO sees itself as superior to Freemasonry.

ALR 21:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't understand why the OTO reference is even being included. The word is being used in a song that is mocking freemasonry. Unless I haven't looked at one of the ref's being used, OTO themselves aren't actually using the word, they are just making fun of masons who use the word. Seraphim 21:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the section again. You'll note that there are two instances of the word in the OTO ritual, one in their fourth degree and one in something which appears to refer to Freemasonry. I'd agree that the need for the latter is unclear but you'll note that I've asked for FraterXyyzz to provide us with some more material from that source which, apparently, has several explanations as used in the OTO ritual.

ALR 21:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block cut and paste from legacy versions

Can we discuss things on that talk page before cutting in huge chunks of legacy material. I'm trying to continue a mature discussion with you Seraphim about how to represent the situation in a reliable manner.ALR 22:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to change the section to accuratly reflect the controversy between Freemasonry and Religion that the article is suppossed to be about. I simply copied back a slightly edited version of the legacy section since it's a starting point, and people commenting on the AFD have stated that they adknowldge that the page is suppossed to be about the controversy, not the word itself. Seraphim 22:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well up above I've been trying to work with you to crystalise a form of words which we can use, meaningfully and reliably. I'd suggest that chopping in that huge chunk wasn't particularly likely to be seen as collaborative and if I was feeling particularly cynical I might suggest that it was intentionally done to provoke a reaction.

Now where we've managed to get to up above is the statement that a number of churches object to Freemasonry based on a number of of issues, we have one reliable quote which we can use to illustrate that. That was already in the article and to be perfectly honest throwing in a huge chunk without crafting it's inclusion doesn't really help readability.

I'm conscious that if I try to do anything to the section then on previous experience you'll just keep reverting me, so I'm going to continue striving to engage you in a mature debate about it until we can actually find something meaningful to say.

ALR 22:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You have not been trying to work together to form words that can be used. You still refuse to adknowledge that any controversy exists, and you refuse to adknowledge that the article does not violate WP:RS or WP:NOR or WP:FRINGE. If you were actually trying to work together by now you would have adknowldged that religious ministry websites are biased, however they are still allowed to be used as sources if they are presented in a certain way. You are holding out against the clear supermajority opinion shown in both the RFC and the AFD that somehow there is no Controversy. So inorder to break this rediculious stalemate I decided to WP:BOLD and just add in alot of the old content, so the newer editors can review it and make their own changes to benefit the article. There is plenty of material that shows that there is a controversy between freemasons and some religious groups, there is no reason for all of that to not be represented in the article. The quote that you chose just happens to be rediculiously weak, and non notable. The only way to show that the controversy exists, and it's not just between christianity and freemasonry is to include the claims from many christian ministries and the islamic groups. If you can figure out another way to represent that in the article feel free to do so. I'll be back tomorrow to see how the Jahbulon and Religion section has progressed, and how the editors other then me have decided to demonstrate the controversy in the article, since both the RFC and AFD have shown that the supermajority of users all agree that the controversy does exist, and the people that haven't conceeded that point all happen to be admitted masons, which I must admit makes WP:AGF alittle hard, since even when presented with a supermajority that disagrees with you, you continue to ignore facts that are blatantly obvious, and attempt to wikilawyer this article to the point where it would be a candidate for speedy deletion. Seraphim 22:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The issues which I've removed are already covered in the article. The Islamic issue is mentioned in the final paragraph of the Exigetic device section, using an extract from a paper by Prof Prescott at Sheffield University. I've removed it again and would suggest that you look at the paragraph and the associated source material. Notwithstanding that the Islamic issue does need more detailed discussion.

I'll leave the UGLE point for the moment.ALR 22:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, we now have a form of words which makes the position of these various ministries clear, I'm not convinced that it adds anything since we had a credible source for the CofE position, I don't believe that the remaining sources can be considered as reliable for the various reasons outlined for assessing sources in RS, but I'll leave that for others to deal with for the moment.

I'm really not convinced that UGLEs position is required or useful, but I recognise that removing it will just end up being reverted without real justification.

The islamic stuff was already credibly sourced.

ALR 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I must go study for finals, however just so you know what i'm thinking when I get back. The claims that relate Jah bul On with the other 2 gods cannot be definitavely sourced to Knight, they can also be sourced to the Duncan's footnotes (that were published about 100 years before Knight's book) ""But the Royal Arch Degree is founded on the number three, and therefore each member of the word ought to have been triliteral. Among the Syrians, the Chaldeans, the Phœnicians and others, the ineffable name of the Deity was Bel, Bal, Bul, Baal, or Belin. . . . Again, the Egyptians and Hindoos reverenced On or Om, i.e., Aun, or Aum, as the name of their chief Deity."". Also the reason the UGLE statment must be in there is so both sides are represented, and the islamic stuff needs to be mentioned so it's clear that it's not just a christianity vs freemasonry issue, which results in the merger discussions, Cya tomorrow! Seraphim 23:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

They can't be authoritatively sourced to anything, hence they fail RS from my perspective. Given their age, ie very recent, then they're likely to have been stimulated by Knight or the mainstream church reports, the ones of which I've seen, reference Knight.

The islamic issue is mentioned, and indeed you'll now have seen the block quote taken from the Prescott source.

And frankly UGLEs view is irelevant, what you need is a statement from a Grand Chapter.

And you're unlikely to see me tommorow, I'm running a workshop on knowledge architectures for a client.

ALR 23:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As a note, Again, the Egyptians and Hindoos reverenced On or Om, i.e., Aun, or Aum, as the name of their chief Deity. seems to be a bit of speculation on the part of the footnotes with out any real proof, as was the wont at the time. As far as factual evidence goes, the statement is incorrect - the chief Hindu deity is Brahman, and maybe I'll take "Aun" as "Amun", but otherwise that's wrong too. See Hinduism and Ancient Egyptian religion. Similarly, saying that the moon is made of cheese might be popular, but it doesn't make it correct. It's poor form to take an inaccurate source at face value to prove a point. MSJapan 02:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there are quite a number of issues which fail to meet he requirements of RS. Since the portion quoted by Seraphim is speculation about the ritual in the context of speculation about two religions, and we don't know the authority of the author with repsect to either the ritual or these religions it fails to meet the requirements of attributability. It also fails to identify any editorial oversight and it's not corroborated so it fails to meet those other points. I don't think the age, replicability and persistence issues are relevant here because we're talking about an acknowledged single source.

So not so much bad form as non-compliant.

ALR 08:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The section I quoted was in the footnotes of the version of Duncan's that was published in the late 1800's. The only thing that matters in this discussion is that Knight is not the first, nor the only person to make the assertion that Jahbulon was a name created by combining the names of three gods. It's impossible therefore, to prove or even claim, that all of the ministry websites (unless the specifically mention knight) are the result of the Knight book. That's a HUGE assumption that your attempting to make. And it's impossible to back up what your attempting to show with a reference. For example, the TLEM link http://www.tlem.net/freemasonry.htm does not mention the Knight book at all, it's impossible to prove that the TLEM discussion stems from the knight book. Seraphim 17:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Knight himself doesn't come to the conclusion independently, and as the CofE appears to be the only explicit usage of Jahbulon as an objection and it references Knight then that's a fairly clear indicator of it's origination. If you look at the timing the majority of the church objections it becomes clear that they're all derived from the mild media coverage of Knight, as a whole.

In the absence of any attribution on the sites you mention then it becomes difficult to demonstrate that the interpretation in the site has been arrived at independently. In any case all you're using the sites to do is to demonstrate that some churches object to Masonry on the grounds that it is a competitor in the religion marketplace. That's a reasonable statement to make and it's discussed at length in another article, with the wider picture as to why they come to that conclusion, although clearly not explicitly in each case.

ALR 19:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further reading

(After a minor flurry of reverting) ... Seraphim, you state in an edit summary that three of the sources mentioned in "further reading" should be acceptable. I have no problem with that, but would you please clarify your reasoning. Thanks. Blueboar 16:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"An ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader." if someone actually typed in Jahbulon on the searchbox to the left, the three items that I left up would more then likely be of interest to the reader. I know I somehow have to find that Church of England report, since it's not avaliable to me :/. Seraphim 17:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Blueboar 18:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Web of Hiram reference

I've just had a more detailed look at the reference to the Web of Hiram website and I have some concerns about it:

• The site doesn't credit the ritual that it cites, just saying that it was once used in Scotland. Now that could mean one of a couple of things, up until very recently the majority of rituals in Scotland were local and privately produced, so we have no way of knowing how representative it is.
• The page cited doesn't actually mention the word Jahbulon, it just talks about what appears to be a trigram and attributes similar meanings to that of Tydeman. I would suggest that inferring that it's on about Jahbulon from the explanation and using that to support a similar explanation is difficult. Particularly when the section essentially says we dont know what it means, here are two alternatives.

Thoughts?ALR 19:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, as ALR notes, Knight and Lomas' "Masonic Testament" is culled together from very old, sometimes unworked and usually private ritual. Therefore, it was never ratified by a governing body, meaning that the interpretations are strictly those of the authors, and may have no status outside the Lodge or Chapter for which it was created. Therefore, I agree that we cannot generalize based on this, nor should be really be using any works of Knight and Lomas for citation, because they are very much in keeping with a speculative and alternative history for which there has been little evidential support. MSJapan 23:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pike

Those of you who know me, will not be surprised to hear me say that I am sceptical of the following statement:

• "It was this interpretation that was reported to have disturbed Albert Pike, the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite when he first heard the name, who called it a "mongrel word" partly composed of an "appellation of the Devil". (with the citation: Pike, The Holy Triad, 1873, from p. 35, Darkness Visible, Walton Hannah)

Basically, Pike has been mis-quoted by so many Anti-Masons, so many times, that I have to ask... has anyone verified whether Hannah has quoted Pike correctly? I have no objection to including the statement if it can be verified that Pike actually said it, but I am inclined not to accept Hannah's word on the subject. For the moment, I will settle for inclusion with attribution... ie I changing the wording to say

• "According to Walton Hannah, in his book Darkness Visible, it was this interpretation...." Blueboar 19:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to check that today, but I was unable to get to the library. Pike did write a book of that title, though, and he has some very interesting pieces about Royal Arch which I will attempt to locate by the end of next week. MSJapan 23:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UGLE Quote cf SGRAC quote

I've replaced the UGLE quote with one from Supreme Grand Royal Arch Chapter, as with my concerns expressed above I'm not sure that the UGLE quote served any purpose other than to imply a defensive position. The UGLE position is base don the issues outlined in Christianity and Freemasonry not the issues here, so it's inappropriate, it also applies to the three degree of Craft Masonry since they have no authority over any other appendant body. It may be marginally useful to have SGRAC view on the RA ritual, since they are the governing body and their view of the ritual is legitimate. Unfortunately I couldn't get a deep link from the site, but I have identified the page that the position comes from.ALR 21:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Arch as part of York Rite

Just a question... we all know that the use of the word Jahbulon in the Royal Arch degree is often cited by Christian Anti-Masons as a reason why Masonry as a whole is incompatable with Christianity. And yet no one ever seems to carry this argument to its logical conclusion... that (at least in the US) the Royal Arch degree is part of the York Rite ... which is specificly Christian in character. The York Rite culminates in the Knight Templar degree, during which one must take an oath, in the name of Christ, to defend the Christian Faith. Every Masonic Knight Templar is a Royal Arch Mason (it is a prerequisite for joining). Doesn't this invalidate the claims of those who feel that Masonry is incompatable with Christianity? After all, if we are to accept the argument that something that occurs in the Royal Arch Degree can be applied to all of Masonry, shouldn't we also accept that something that happens in the Knight Templar Degree applies to Royal Arch Masonry? I'm not sure if this has ever been mentioned in a reliable source, so I am not sure if it could be put into the article... but it is an interesting question never the less. Blueboar 15:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why we don't accept the argument. :) I'm not sure how it works outside my jurisdiction, obviously, but I'm going to go out on a limb and wsay that in the US, the KT degrees are very different from anything else in York Rite - the preceding degrees are not Christian-themed at all, but build on the Drama. Only in KT is an affirmation of Christian faith required on the application, and obviously one is not required to take the Rite to its so-called "completion". I think yorkrite.com might have degree descriptions, BTW. MSJapan 15:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside the US whilst the HRA is independent, indeed all the appendant bodies have their own organisations, membership, or being an installed third principal, is a prerequisite for most of the explicitly Christian orders. From recall it isn't required for SocRos where one is required to proclaim the Trinitarian Christian faith. KT and Red Cross of Constantine require membership, HRA KT Priests requires one to be an installed Principal (and to be a Mark Mason as well. I can't remember about A&AR but that is explicitly Christian in character as well and most members are also HRA.ALR 18:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment after result of 3rd AfD

None of the claims regarding the use of the word Jahbulon have ever been officially responded to by the Freemasons. No independently verifiable transcript has been produced indicating the use of the word/name in any ritual. The independence of the original claimants has never been verified. As such all claims should be treated as such, as allegations. The allegations have been taken up by various parties, for their own reasons, and are in the public domain - but it cannot be proved (scientifically, not in the legal sense) that the word is used or even exists. Please adhere to WP:NPOV when editing this article, and please cite/reference every claim.LessHeard vanU 23:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "None of the claims regarding the use of the word Jahbulon have ever been officially responded to by the Freemasons"... if you mean that no Grand Body, speaking on behalf of Freemasons has ever officially said "Yes, we use the word" you are correct (as far as I know). If, on the other hand, you mean that they have never commented on the claims that Jahbulon is some sort of Masonic god... then they have indeed officially responded: On this page of the official website of the Grand Lodge of England they state it quite clearly: "There is no separate Masonic God." Blueboar 01:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, there is no response to the claim that the word Jahbulon is used - whether in any of the forms suggested. The response that the Masons do have a seperate Masonic God would only make sense here if there was the acknowledgement that such an entity was/has been known by the name Jahbulon. There isn't.

Whilst I was and am very keen to keep the article, I am even more keen on the application of NPOV.LessHeard vanU 13:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

However the Masonic God suggestion is as a result of various issues already discussed at Christianity and Freemasonry and not merely because of use of dodgy sources to suggest there is a special name for one.ALR 08:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Appleyard edits

This morning we had a readable, accessible article which discussed the various points in a NPOV manner making use of references, questionable or otherwise, to state the facts. We've gone from that to a text dense regurgitation of various references without much regard to actually blending quotation and article.

My first inclination is just to revert the lot and invite discussion on the talk page, but I have things to do today. So I'll attempt to invite discussion this way, I don't see any justification for the current format, and indeed would suggest that it leans towards a very POV representation. It now reads as if it's been written by a schoolchild, and the usage of bullets goes against the WP style guidelines which recommend use of prose. ALR 09:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I was merely trying to save readers from having to keep on going to tne references and back for information. (Readers had the same nuisance in the page Placebo.) I put the (possibly non-NPOV) quotations in italics to distinguish them from Wikipedia text. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard 10:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

We probably need to discuss how information is conveyed to the reader and how articles should be structured with differing levels of detail. The normal approach is to give a broad overview, leading into a more detailed discussion of the topic which is supplemented by notes or extracts. That allows a reader to just read the summary or read the summary and main body to get an understanding of the topic. The use of notes allows a much greater level of detail than many readers are actually interested in.

The main body should normally present the various points and counter-points. the use of excessive reference extracts breaks up the flow of that prose, the differences in style being jarring to the reader and since the issues are not presented particularly coherently can become quite confusing.

Research done by Sun Corp, I don't have a clear reference because I was at a former employer when I was involved in it, demonstrates that most readers don't scroll down beyond two screen lengths, so by extending the article in this way you're probably turning off quite a lot of readers.

With all that in mind I'll roll back to the previous version but will include the linkages that you've put into the Prescott extract.

We can identify the Prescott extract with the link that you provide however since Prescott does not attribute it, merely uses it as an example of typical fringe Islamism, we can't specifically identify it as Prescotts source.

ALR 10:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, Prescott doesn't attribute the source so identifying it ourselves isn't appropriate. I think we have a NPOV representation of the point now anyway. I've changed to reflect that Prescott doesn't attribute rather than being unknown.ALR 10:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Mackey Quote

The article currently explains Mackey With Jah and On, it has been introduced into the Royal Arch system as a representative of the Tetragrammaton, which it and the accompanying words have sometimes ignorantly been made to displace. At the session of the General Grand Chapter of the United States, in 1871, this error was corrected; and while the Tetragrammaton was declared to be the true omnific word, the other three were permitted to be retained as merely explanatory. as indicating that the explanation in Duncans had been superseded. I would disagree with this interpretation of the quote, it clearly identifies that the displacement was erroneous and provided clarification. I'd suggest that we need to change the article wording to reflect that.ALR 11:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a readability issue there; I have no idea exactly what that is saying. What's the "it" that is referrred to? It's clearly not "Jah" and not "On". However, I will not dispute that it indeed points to a change in 1871 made by the GGC umbrella group, and clearly shows that Jahbulon is not in use and has not been for some time, as many of us have been saying.

I'm not 100% sure what GGC does, because my jurisdiction is one of the few that is not part of the GGC (it was, but something occurred some years ago, and now it is not, though it seems that may have been resolved, or is in the process thereof). I would gather, however, that they must oversee Chapter workings in the US, and have done so for quite a while. I'll try to get more information on that.

We will discuss this later, I'm sure, but the ramification is that if there was a definite change in 1871 and Mackey explains what the difference is, then the whole argument and controversy underpinning this article is false, because the word hasn't been used in the US for 135 years! People wonder why "the Masons" don't bother to respond to things like this - I'd wager that there are more important everyday things to do.

Anyhow, some rewriting will again be necessary. MSJapan 15:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I should perhaps have cut more from the source. It's a discussion of Bel in an online version of Mackeys Encyclopedia. I see it as saying that Jahbulon is not and never has been the word of the RA although a usage to represent the word had led to some sources displacing the word with Jahbulon.ALR 15:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure; it seems that Mackey is saying some people made a ritual mistake that was not corrected until 1871, but I'll have to think about it a bit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MSJapan (talk • contribs) 15:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Rewriting -- is it possible?

I was looking at the intro, and this is the extent of the introduction without going into suporting evidence: Jahbulon is a word which was used historically in the rituals of some jurisdictions of Royal Arch Masonry. The word's meaning, however, is unclear. I think the most important indicator here of the utility of the article is that it should not leave the reader going "So what?", and frankly, that's precisely what it does. I think people get too hung up on "Oooh! secrets! It's got value because it exposes secrets the Masons don't want us to have! Oooh!" to notice that as far as the article is concerned, it doesn't say anything. If the meaning of the word is unclear from the outset (and nobody uses it anymore, and it's entirely possible the controversy is due to a historical mistake, then what exactly is the point or value of multiple non-authoritative historical interpretations of the word that are also internally inconsistent?

Furthermore, how does this article therefore not exist as the result of a "controversy"? There's certainly nothing else notable about it. If one reads it, Jabberwocky doesn't attempt to make up meanings for words apart from what Carroll defined in Alice in Wonderland, and the word "Jabberwock" certainly doesn't have its own entry. So, as a serious question, does this article have any merits on its own, as a word, apart from "secrets", and if it does, is there any possible way to rewrite it so it looks like it has some merits that aren't subjective, like "secrets" or "controversy"? MSJapan 12:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, given the comments during the last AfD discussion, it seems that the whole point of this article is that there is a "controversy" about it. With that in mind, I think any discussion has to be mostly subjective. Blueboar 13:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'd agree that the foundation for the article is pretty shaky from an encyclopedic perspective, however there does appear to be an overwhelming ohhhhh secrets fetish about keeping it.

As I see it what we have is-

• Jahbulon is a word which may have been used in some RA rituals.
• Jahbulon is a word which appears to be used by OTO.
• Masonic sources, whilst not authoritative policy statements, indicate one meaning.
• One, unverified, source provides an alternate meaning.
• The unverified meaning is used by a number of Christian denominations as one of the reasons that they object to the craft. More fully discussed at Christianity and Freemasonry.
• Fringe islamic groups use the same explanation, second-hand based on Knight, as one of their objections to Freemaosnry. Very similar to the justifications at Christianity and Freemasonry.
• One author says that Freemasons are embarrassed by this explanation.

We can't demonstrate a controversy, which appears to ostensibly underpin the objection to deletion.

I think the article as it stands is about as NPOV as it can be, notwithstanding that the language ties itself in knots a little to try to make it into something it's not.

I still think that this is best dealt with by a merge, appreciating that some editors might have a knickers in a twist episode over that suggestion. A merge puts the point in context as one of around six explicit objections that some Christian denominations have to the craft.

ALR 13:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As Blueboar pointed out, this is precisely the aspect that was covered in the recent AfD. The oooooh secrets reaction is quite possibly the reason why related subjects get so many hits on Google, especially from sites with an anti Masonic bias. The points made by ALR are almost certainly correct - although I disagree with his conclusions - and the fact that these are unsubstantiated allegations should be pointed out in the article, and the language used should make this clear.LessHeard vanU 14:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Language... take a look at the paragraph on the C of E report. The way it is currently written, it implies that the statements in the quote are factual... we need to make it clearer that the report is an oppinion, based on one interpretation of the word's meaning (and a potentially flawed interpretation at that). As it is currently written, the language surounding the quote clearly implies that a) Jahbulon is indeed used in "all rituals" (we know it isn't), and b) that the word is indeed used as a name for God (we know it isn't, or at least there is doubt about it). We need to rewrite that section in language that makes it clear that the authors of the report are of the belief that these things are fact, and not that they are fact. Blueboar 16:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly it can be made clear that these are allegations, but in the absence of any official denial by the Freemasons it cannot be made to appear that the allegations are wrong - although you could reference those authors who claim otherwise. Again it should be made clear that this is claim and counterclaim.

Knowledge is one thing, proof is another. Also, since there is no publicly available reference by the Freemasons on how they are organised and conduct themselves, it cannot be argued that even a member of the group can certainly know every truth and/or "secret". I see no reason to doubt your assertions regarding the subject, but the absence of verifiable information to back it up hinders your position. I would comment that the claims would likely still be made even if there was an official statement, even with independent backing, at this late stage.LessHeard vanU 20:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see there as being any claim and counterclaim about it, since this is not something that is being debated, hence no controversy merely a collection of positions on different matters.

The CoE makes clear that it accepts Knight, Knight references Duncans which is unattributed so inherently unreliable. Mackey makes clear in his encyclopedia that the usage of Jahbulon as the Word of RA Freemasonry is wrong, and Tydeman presents an interpretation in a talk given to a knowledgeable audience.

To say anything meaningful in any direction, about this individual issue, constitutes Original Research.

Frankly I don't give a damn about the claims themselves, the justification for keeping the article as an independent entity was that a controversy is demonstrable. I have yet to see any evidence of a controversy, although I can understand why one might consider a single statement in a book related to embarrassment might be considered as evidence enough. I work to a higher standard than that.

I still think that this lacks context which is the biggest reason that it's difficult to make this article lead the reader to anything except so what. That is not to say that it doesn't merit mention, it just merits mention in context.

ALR 21:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of a verifiable statement and/or denial by the Freemasons, then everything is claim (including that which contests the allegation.)LessHeard vanU 22:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

A verifiable statement about what?ALR 06:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Then we're back to square one, in that the article violates WP:V, or we do a claim/counterclaim, which isn't very good either (tried that in Anti-Masonry at one point). I think the only way to get out of it is to take a new approach, and I think context will do it. So, how much context do we need, and what should we use? Clearly, Duncan's is related to the Anti-Masonic uprisings in NY, which brings in Morgan and the eventual Anti-Masonic party. Where do we go from there? MSJapan 01:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiktionary Vs. wikipedia

If for no other reason, then for the cause of a better entry/article, wouldn't all of us want this in one place or another? It has come along quite significantly, given that many (myself included) feel it isn't an actual word or/nor an encyclopedic entry. But forget POV. For it's own sake, can it be in one place or another? NOTE that it could still come up, & as "an article that is at wiktionary"... Grye 08:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. This article continues to center on the meaning of the word (which is properly the roll of Wiktionary). Since the AfD indicated that the reason for this article was the controversy surounding the word, we should probably rename it something like "The Jahbalon Controversy" and shift it's focus more to discussing that controversy, and spend less time discussing what the word supposedly means. Blueboar 14:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not rename. The title you propose is not accurate. The article is about the word AND the controversy. It survived AfD without a consensus or even much of a suggestion of renaming. It's time for you to drop your campaign to obfuscate this article. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How is renaming the article to reflect what the article is about a "camplaign to obfuscate this article"? ... At the AfD, people repeatedly said that it was the controversy that makes the word notable... so shouldn't the title reflect what the article is about? Blueboar 16:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the inability of anyone to demonstrate a controversy then I'd object to that, but my position has been made clear a number of times now.

I'm not convinced that Wiktionary is appropriate, given that the only real content to the article is that a number of Christian denominations include a flawed interpretation of the word as one of their objections to Freemasonry.

ALR 16:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I rewrote the article, but it was mostly reorganization. As a note regarding the further reading, Ankerberg is cited in refs already, and Harris' book is fundamentalist rhetoric and not a reputable source of information. MSJapan 00:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge 1

Why is all of this Royal Arch info here? It is &/or should be at York Rite. It looks to be filler content of a stub. if not merge, then at least cite the main article. Or not, could just delete it... Grye 16:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is an attempt to explain the link between York Rite and Freemasonry in general, and specifically why it is incorrect to connect something that shows up in a York Rite ritual to all of Freemasonry. In other words, it is an attempt to "prove" that Jahbulon is not a "Masonic God", even if one wants to interpret it as the name of God used in the Royal Arch degree. Given that so many people misinterpret the relationship between the various appendant bodies and Craft Freemasonry (the whole "higher degree" thing), I think some form of explanation is in order... but I can definitely agree that this is a poor way to do it. Blueboar 18:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I cut out a part, and linked to the main article (though I don't think it is necessary). That might solve the problem, and if not, just revert it. MSJapan 19:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you both are right, the link is relavant, but that's that. Establish the link, & "go here to decide for yourself what that means". That's the point of the Templars article(s), is that if you want to know the relevance, go & read up. Would one add 1/100th of the content from all the other Masonic pages, to show the relevance...?-) Grye 03:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Blueboar 03:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I came to this article to learn about the concept of Jahbulon as well as the controversy. I wish there was more on the theological concept and esoteric meaning from scholars less hostile towards freemasonry and the OTO, also graphics. I did a minor edit, correcting the spelling of two words.Berkeleysappho 07:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jefferson

I explained a long time ago that Ankerberg fails WP:RS, especially because it's four pages out of a book. Similarly, what use is one page in a journal article that's not even mentioned in the article? Picking and choosing which part of a book or article serves your purposes is highly suspicious, and poor research methodology. I'm not even going to point out the issues with using a Google cache page to shore up an argument. Thus, all these things were removed. Christianity and Freemasonry as main makes no sense, as we do not deal with this there in any more detail, if at all, as far as I can remember, and that article is much more broad than this - the connection is almost non-existent. MSJapan 18:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Selectively removing other editor's sources using various lame excuses doesn't seem right either. Also, I have no idea what you are refering to about a Google cache. Neither of the sources I restored involved Google cache. Jefferson Anderson 18:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I looked again, and what i thought was new was in fact a paragraph you moved (and shouldn't have), so I'll have to go and fix that. If the original is no longer available, too bad. The only reason to use Google cache is because a page is gone, and that really punches a hole in reliability of sourcing. Also, how can you claim to "restore sources" that aren't cited in the article, especially when you toss them into references in the wrong format? And from that, how can you expect anyone not to object and revert it? Have you even read those, or did you just think it was a good idea at the time? MSJapan 18:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive editing

MSJapan and ALR, I find your method of reverting first and then discussing to be disruptive. Please find a less contentious way of collaborating. Jefferson Anderson 18:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey! You sound just like Frater! Imagine that... Thanks for the sock accusation in the edit summary, too. MSJapan 18:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd advise you to be careful. Accusing people of being "anti-Masonic" or claiming that they are "openly hostile to Masonry (while apparently being a member of OTO)" as you do here could be considered personal attacks and disruptive to Wikipedia. I am not anti-Masonic, nor am I a member of a group opposed to Masonry. I just think that if you are going to use a reference that debunks another reference, both need to be listed as references, not only the one that debunks the other. Also, revert wars are not productive, but you seem to have singled me out and are reverting every improvement I make. Please reconsider your actions. Jefferson Anderson 18:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That was about Frater Xyzzy, not you, unless you're telling me you are. MSJapan 18:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm just heading off your typical uncivil accusations before you make them. I've brought the matter of you hounding my friend Frater Xyzzy up on WP:AN/I. He's also requested that I get him an advocate to pursue the matter of you and your uncivil attacks. I'm simply waiting to find out if it is permissable for me to open an advocacy request, but since you seem to be escalating your unpleasantness, I'll go ahead and do that now. As they say, sometimes it's better to ask forgiveness than permission. Jefferson Anderson 18:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

May I ask that you BOTH stop baiting each other. Jefferson, you know this is a contentious page. I can not believe that you did not know that the edits you made would be likely to be opposed. You should have taken the high ground from the start and discussed what you wanted changed here on the talk page BEFORE you edited. In any case, now that you DO know they are opposed, you should not simply undo the revert... you should discuss. So let's go through your concerns one at a time please. Blueboar 21:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm going to let the admins review the situation at this point. I've now been accused by ALR of meatpuppetry, but I don't see how three Masons triple-teaming to WP:OWN articles is not a form of meatpuppetry in itself. It has happened on a couple of articles and seems to be the same three editors: you, ALR and MSJapan. I'm also kinda confused why somebody in Japan and somebody in Great Britain always seem to be awake and editing at the same time to be able to back each other up. (Maybe I'm mistaken about MSJapan being in Japan, but I seem to have a vague recollection of seeing him say that he was once). No, this issue is too complex for me to expect you guys to conduct reasonable discussions. You back each other up over trivial objections to sources as well as keeping your spin on the article rather than a straight description of the facts. I'm bowing out for now: I'll let Xyzzy get an advocate to advocate for him, and wait for the admins to take a look at how you are excluding other editors from editing certain articles. Jefferson Anderson 22:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No one is "excluding other editors from editing certain articles"... anyone is free to edit. However, when an editor knows the edit is likely to be contentious, common wiki-edicate is to discuss the edit before hand. In the case of an editor who does not know that the edit is likely to be contentious, the editor should be bold and edit... but if the edit is reverted that editor knows that there is an issue about the edit, the editor should go to the talk page and discuss it. I am not saying that discussion will result in consensus... but it should be discussed. In this case, you didn't... you simply edited away when it was obvious that MSJapan and ALR had issues with your edit. Blueboar 13:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)