Talk:Jahbulon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion

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

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

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.


Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] discussion of OTO rituals

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

Scarletwoman93 23:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

First, in reply to Scarletwoman93's two concerns:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Thank you for archiving!

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

[edit] summary; and suggestion for new approach

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Some misstatements, I think

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

We have a notable word deserving of an encyclopedia article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Comments requested: regarding placing a "disputed" or "NOPV" or "unreferenced" template on this article page

I believe it should be announced at the top of the main page that the editors of this article have not arrived at consensus about the content of the article or about the references. So today I posted a disputed-template and I am now placing this section here to ask for discussion by the other editors.

Do you believe we have a clear, undisputed, well-referenced article that Wikipedia readers should dive into and trust? Or is it possible that some of the information in the article is incorrect, misleading and unsupported by reliable sources? Most of all, do you believe that the editors working on the article have come to a consensus on those points? If we have a consensus, then let's remove the template from the article, but if we are not mostly in agreement that the article presents reliable information, then I believe the readers of the article deserve to know there might be a problem with some of the information. Further, I believe that by placing the template there, other editors could be attracted to help resolve the questions.

I am asking editors to respond here and determine whether the article should be tagged as disputed or not. For clarity: this is not a question about the specific tag I used. Maybe there is another tag that would explain the situation better. I chose this one since it seemed to me to be the best match, but to me the important thing is to alert the readers to a problem, not the exact form of the template.

[edit] how this question came to be posted here

When I first posted the template, I did not add a section to discuss it here, because it seemed to me to be very clear from the extremely long talk page discussions (and archives) that the article does not have consensus about lots of points and about sources.

But then, I was contacted by Jefferson Anderson on my talk page. The ensuing discussion is more relevant to this article talk page than to my personal talk page, so I am moving that whole section here, instead of linking to it on my talk page. I am adding a link on my talk page to this section here along with a note indicating that I moved the conversation here, so nothing is hidden and there is continuity.

Regarding the edits to the OTO section as mentioned in the following text, I will reply to those concerns separately below, because that is only one element of the article. The OTO edits are not the only reason I added the disputed template, they are only part of the larger issues.

Here is the complete conversation moved from my talk page:

[edit] controversial tag
The tag you moved was intended for the talk page, not the article. I've moved it back where it belongs. Jefferson Anderson 17:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
You're right, I misplaced that tag. Thanks for pointing that out. However the article is strongly disputed by many editors, so readers need to be notified so they can make their own decisions. I'll add a corrected tag. --Parzival418 17:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New tag
Please note that the new tag you have used requires you to list the issues you have on the article talk page. As I don't want to precipitate any edit wars, I will give you some time to add a new section (usually titled "NPOV dispute") listing the problems which led you to add the tag. Personally, I don't think the tag is justified. Jefferson Anderson 18:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't want edit wars either, I just want a good Wikipedia article that has consensus among the editors working on it. I have no other agenda besides that. As it is now, there is no consensus about either the text or the sources, that's why I placed the tag.
I appreciate that you'll allow some time for my response. I'll add the section you're requesting. The tag is based on many pages of archived and recent discussions showing ongoing disputes for more than a year. --Parzival418 19:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
If the dispute is specifically about the OTO section, you should use a section tag rather than an article tag. Also, I see you are the person who introduced the word "claims". This word is not considered NPOV, as it implies that the claim is false. You might want to read Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial especially Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Bias in attribution: Mind your nuances. The prefered words are "said", "wrote", or "stated". Another option, which I used, is "According to". I believe that I made the section more NPOV rather than less. I just want to make sure that you are familiar with NPOV processes on Wikipedia before we waste each other's time.... Jefferson Anderson 19:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
With the dispute tag I am referring to the entire article, not just the OTO section. Several editors have questioned many of the sources and conclusions in the article and there does not seem to be consensus about much of it.
Regarding your comments about my use of the word "claims" - I accept your point and I don't mind at all that you edited that word out. I have read those Wikipedia guides and more, but that was not until later after I had already made the edits you mentioned. If I were writing that section now, I would use the better NPOV words as you mentioned above. I do question some of your edits to that section and will mention those on the talk page later today when I add the section about the placement of the tag. Meanwhile,... your changes to correct the use of the word "claims" are fine with me, no dispute on that point. --Parzival418 20:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I disagree with you about the whole of the article having a problem. It's been through 3 AfDs and I think there is consensus on the rest of the article. At this time, my only concern was with the OTO section. I can anticipate your next objection, that of fair use. I see you said that you were removing the song b/c it was the whole song and couldn't be reduced any further. But it is not. The whole song was what was originally put into the section, and it was later reduced to the essential point which involved the word and mocking Freemasonry. The full song has several additional verses. Even to quote the full song would be acceptable under fair use. To quote two verses definitely is covered by fair use. Jefferson Anderson 21:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand your point though there is still room for discussion. And Fair Use is part of my argument but not the sum total of it. I have to leave for a while and don't have time to reply right now. I will return and address your points as well as adding the tag section to the article talk page as you requested. --Parzival418 22:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, I will reply about the OTO section edits separately. I moved the full conversation above to this page only so that the editors on this article have a complete record that does not require jumping over to my talk page to read it all. Continuing...

[edit] a few comments about lack of sources

It seems to me pretty clear that there was not (and is not yet) consensus among the editors that the article is sufficiently support by reliable references; that much of the article is derived from only a small number of historical sources of questionable authority, who have then been repeatedly quoted by others, thereby creating what appears to be multiple references (when really those references are all based on the same few writings). It seems that much of the historical conflict around this word also resulted from the statements by those same few writers.

For references to be reliable, there needs to be independent corroboration between more than one source. If the information all comes from one source, or several sources that are not independent because they all quote one original source, then it is not reliable, it's just something someone said or wrote.

In addition, it has been impossible to find any references at all (so far) in etymological writings to indicate that this word exists in any historical context, either as a proper name or any other sort of word. As far as the science of linguistics is concerned (from what I have been able to find on Google and in several etymological dictionaries), this word seems not to exist. The only sources of information about the word are either Masons, ex-Masons, anti-Masons quoting those former sources, and one writer describing OTO usages, whose writings have been called incorrect by at least a few OTO members. So while it appears that this word has been used in some way in Freemasonry and the OTO, and that some people have been castigated for its alleged use, there are no valid secondary references supporting the details about the word that are currently in the article.

This is only a short summary. Much more discussion about this appears earlier on this page and in the archives.

If we don't have some sort of template on this article stating that some of its contents are disputed, then readers will see it as an authoritive encyclopedia article, and in its current state that is not accurate.

I'm not going to try and keep that template in place on my own, it's not my job to do that. If there is no support for marking the article as disputed or unreferenced, so be it, then remove the template. But I hope there is support to keep it there because the article as it is now does not have consensus.

Comments invited. Thanks 06:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC) [re-editing to correct the signature - used the wrong wikimarkup, user name got skipped - that comment was written by me at the listed time stamp... --Parzival418 09:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC) ]

[edit] Comments requested: regarding the OTO section of the article

This comment is in response to Jefferson Anderson's recent edits to the OTO section, including adding back in the poem from the King book, and to his comments on my talk page that I included in the preceding section on this page.

First, I want to state I have no agenda about the OTO part of the article as such. I don't feel like I own that part of the article just because I edited it. If there is consensus to keep the poem in, then leave the poem in. The OTO does not need my protection to stop its poem being published here (if that poem really is used by the OTO). The secret is already out anyway - it's been published in the King book and copied on many web pages, so nothing done here can affect that.

Second, I'd like to say I assume good faith with Jefferson Anderson. Most of the changes he made to the OTO section seem OK to me and don't cause a problem to the article. I appreciate his improvements in the wording in some places as noted in the discussion above from my talk page.

But there are two of his edits that I feel diminish the article: one is the inclusion of the text of the poem or song from King's book, and the other is this phrase he used to introduce the quote of the poem:

"in which King records a song mocking Freemasonry."

The reason I don't agree with that wording to describe the poem is that even if King's book were accurate (we don't know if it is or not), this wording is an interpretation of the poem that does not account for the context in which the poem appears in the sequence of rituals as described in the book. The ritual in which the song is used is a transitionary degree, Prince of Jerusalem, following the fourth degree. The word "Jahbalon" appears much more prominently in the 4th degree section of King's book than in the degree where the song is placed, and in the 4th degree the word has an exalted position, not "mocked" as in the subsequent usage. In fact in the King book, the meaning of every letter of the word is explained. Under the reasoning of including the poem, that lecture would be even more important to include. I don't think it should be included, since it is un-supported by secondary sources, but it is certainly more important than the subsequent usage in the poem.

In the intermediary ritual, when the song "mocks" the "Simple Mason", it is not at all clear that those words refer specifically to Freemasonry. To assume that is making a guess at what the writer meant. In the experience of the ritual, the initiate has just completed the 4th degree and been taught the exaltation of that name, and has learned some Masonic-related imagery and principles. The next "pendant" initiation tears down what the initiate believes he has just learned about the truth. That is a psychological technique to create a certain experience in the initiate, to teach something about what it means to "know" or to believe one "knows", and to prepare the initiate for the next step on the path.

There is nothing in the King book that specifically states the poem is meant to mock Freemasonry in the real world. That is not stated in the book other than in the poem itself. And there, the word "Mason" is used, not "Freemason". The poem refers to the building of the Temple, which has just been done symbolically in the prior ritual, so the mocking is figurative, directed towards the pysche of the initiate, not the Brotherhood of Freemasons. Sure, I could be wrong about this, but the point is, there is doubt and that makes it wrong for us to state it as a fact.

Further: Stating that the poem mocks the Freemasons implies there is conflict between the OTO and Freemasonry. There has been conflict at times of course, it's a long and complex relationship. Today though there is a generally congenial relationship between the Orders and some members belong to both, quite comfortably. Considering that the OTO degree structure and rituals have so much in common with the earlier Masonic rites, it seems to me a bad idea to write the article in such a way as to imply that the OTO mocks Freemasonry.

Then there is the question of whether the song should be quoted at all in the article. I previously set forth the Fair Use argument, and I still feel that's valid, but I am not interested in arguing on a legal basis about this. What I want to ask is: Why would we want to include the song? It does nothing but stir up conflict and does not provide insight or value. If we include the song, why not also include the core of the 4th degree ritual where the word is used in an exalted manner? What is it about this song that makes it worthy of being in the article?

For that matter, if we include the song, maybe we should include sections quoting the 4th degree use of the word Jahbulon. And if we include that, then what about the Freemason rituals that use that word? We have sources of questionable reliability stating the supposed meaning of the word in another section of the article. Why not dig up some books revealing the secret Masonic rites that include the word and quote from them here too?

Just because the song is published in a book and can be quoted does not mean it should be quoted, does not mean the song is helping a reader understand the word or how it's used or why it exists.

One more point about another problem caused by including the text of the poem: It makes the OTO usage section of the article longer than the Masonic usage section. That lends undue weight to the OTO usage, when really the Masonic use of the word predates OTO usage and is more widely noted. The Freemasons coined or discovered the word, so the casual reader of this article should see more information about the Masonic usage, not a long poem from a controversial book about the OTO, seeming to mock the Masons, and overshadowing the Masonic usage information that appears near it in the same section of the article.

That's about it for my arguments on this. I wrote more than I planned to, but this is where logic lead me so here I am!

I'm interested in other's thoughts on this and seeing how the article turns out.

-- Parzival418 06:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to the principle that it is not Wikipedias place to interpret the context of any reference, but simply to state where the cited material appears. Also, if the meaning of the song is open to debate and simply including it does not cast any light on the matter then it is best not to publish it here but just to cite it. The same would apply to the 4th Degree.
As for the matter of the rituals and stuff, that is way beyond any vestiges of knowledge I may have. LessHeard vanU 13:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Less... don't we have the same issue with interpreting the context of all the references? For example, the various cited "etymologies" for Jahbulon are open to debate, so should we publish them? Indeed, the entire usage and even the existance of the word in Masonic ritual is open to debate... so should we publish anything on this at all? Where do we draw the line? Blueboar 14:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
We draw the line at our making inferences of what the text means. If the author descibes his work as an exposure of the devil worshipping rituals of... then we note that

"So's and So's book entitled "Yadda Yadda", advertised as an exposure of..., claims that Jahbulon is the..."

and place a page reference at the appropriate point. We can do no more and no less, we do not make the claim but report it. As far as I am concerned, this is all these sources do - claim. However, where the claim is unambiguous it can form part of the text only if it helps to make sense of the entire article. Where, as Parzival points out, that the interpretation of the original source is unclear it is better to not put it into the article text.
What, IMO, is more important is that we also record the reactions to these revelations by society and organised religion. This why I referred to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion; it isn't that they were true, but how they were used. If a subsequent source takes the original and says "...in the book "Yadda Yadda" the contents of the poem prove Jahbulon is..." then it may be permissable to state that

"..."Yadda Yadda" has been used by various parties as proof that Jahbulon is..."

and again use some part of that text if it helps with the article.
To be perfectly clear I would prefer that no portion of any source or reference should be quoted in the article since, as there is no available counter quotations, they may appear to constitute a bias. All we can fairly do is, again IMO, offer a digest of the main points of claim and add cites for further reading. As editors we make no claim for the accuracy of any of the points and claims contained in the sources, we just note them (and subsequent use of them).LessHeard vanU 20:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
But by their nature, encyclopedias are meant to be accurate. If a source is unreliable, it should not be used, since we aren't allowed to pass value judgments. In this case, also, from the wording, it seems that King printed the song, and someone else made the claim, so I'll go with "King printed what he said was an OTO song", but anything else either needs to be left out or clarified. MSJapan 21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
King is actually a reliable source. Jefferson Anderson 21:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Provide independent confirmation of his claims then. LessHeard vanU 21:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree. The crux of accuracy is not what was written, but that it was written. That is why we add cites, so it can be proven that it was written. As part of an encyclopedia we offer a digest of what was written, so any other sources cited in the article can be referred to the points mentioned, and a digest given of their points. An article that consists of; "Jahbulon. See King <ref>, and Other <ref>, and AN Other <ref>" is no article. The claims, poor and unreliable as they are, should be briefly noted, and subsequently how they were used by the other referenced works. This is why I keep referring to "The Protocols...". They were LIES, but they were used by a number of others to propogate hatred; therefore the accuracy of the original source is irrelevant in the context of the article. The lies need to be noted, however, otherwise the hatred engendered is not understood. On a smaller scale the claims of the original source needs to be mentioned to understand why Freemasonary has been perceived as incompatible to Christianity, which of course has lead to some difficulty in Western Society. LessHeard vanU 21:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I've updated the article with material supporting the accuracy and use by OTO. The book was actually used for initiations as recently as the late 1970s. This is not just a case of King making claims. King published the actual ritual in use from official OTO documents at the time of Crowley's death. Those rituals continued to be used, and there is supporting evidence for that. Jefferson Anderson 21:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I see the reference you supplied for continued use, it is simply an open letter from one person, who signs it mysteriously "Frater A." That seems a rather flimsy support. I don't see any reference stating that (as you wrote) "King published the actual ritual in use from official OTO documents at the time of Crowley's death. ". If you provided references for these points and I missed them, please point them out. Parzival418 01:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, please note that the use of the word claims is POV. See Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Bias_in_attribution:_Mind_your_nuances and Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid. The recommended words to use are "said", "wrote", or "stated". Jefferson Anderson 21:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
That is a repeat of what you told me in the discussion quoted above. But this is a different situation. In general, when reporting an author's comments, yes, the word "claims" should be avoided as it can imply bias. However we are on the talk page here, not the article and we can use "claims" as a shorthand to discuss a situation where we believe from our research an author seems to actually be making a "claim" that is doubted by others. That's a fine use of the word "claims". Then if that discussion is translated to the article, care needs to be taken to report the facts in an unbiased way, which usually would avoid use of that word. But this returns to the points of LessHeard vanU that when there is a claim that has been contradicted and we don't have solid references supporting one or the other or both, maybe both should be reported, or as MSJapan said, all should be left out other than if it seems valuable to state that an author printed a song and said that it was used for something. We have no basis for stating that it actually was used, that is at this point simply a "claim.," all we really know is the author wrote it down and the book was published. Parzival418 01:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
"LessHeard vanU stated that the sky is yellow, and clouds have a generally square shape." Care to look out of any window? If someone makes a statement, and writes it down, without providing proof, then it is a claim. By simply noting what someone said, without evidence and in the absence of rebuttal, is far more POV than commenting that it is a claim. LessHeard vanU 12:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm getting at - if we're not allowed to clarify per policy and say "claim", it limits things a bit. Now, if a controversy is caused by an erroneous assumption, that "claim" as such is important, though evidence to the contrary is important. If, on the other hand, an author says something no one else says, and uses sources no one else can verify (see Holy Blood, Holy Grail for example, where their "central figure who had the key to everything", so to speak, turned out to be a con man who planted the info pertaining to himself), especially if it is contrary to accepted fact, needs to be noted somehow. MSJapan 15:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] moved the song lyric to a footnote

I figured out a way to retain the King song while reducing its excessive prominence in the article. By moving it to a footnote it no longer dominates the article as the only quoted ritual segment in the main text. There are quotes in the footnotes from the text of Masonic rites too. If the King song is in the main article, then why are the Masonic ritual quotes only in the footnotes?

If those who want to keep the song in the article will concur with the footnote placement, I'll concur to drop my argument to delete it completely. --Parzival418 09:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Jefferson Anderson 17:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a bit of careful refactoring

I did some reorganizing of the text. I didn't remove anything (if I did it was not intentional). I changed a few words to help with NPOV. I consolodated the Masonic usages into one paragraph where they had been in different sections previously.

The Masonic and OTO usage sections now each contain examples of how writers have described the word being used, and they each contain questions about the reliability of the writings. The York rite section is now subordinate to the Masonic mention, where it can clarify that relationship; previously it was in its own section and did not seem to connect to anything else. The criticism section now has only criticisms whereas previously it had some usage descriptions.

Overall I think the article reads better now. Hope you agree. --Parzival418 09:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I do agree... a good reorganizing that seems both fair and accurate. I think our next step is to expand upon this and provide a more extensive analysis and discussion of how the critics have interpreted this word. After all, the main argument for why this article should be kept (as repeatedly stated in three AfD debates) was that there was some sort of controvercy about the word... we don't really mention such a controversy, much less discussing how it developed and why. Perhaps we should create a subsection as part of the Usages section for "Anti-Masonry" Hannah and Steven Knight and other anti-masonic authors, and how they have interpreted the word (although that is not really a usage issue). Alternatively, we could keep current format and expand the Interpretations section in some way. My point is that we should put Hannah, Knight etc. under the same microscope as Duncan and King. Blueboar 16:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I argee with your idea for the next steps for the article. The controversy (plus the "castigation" etc that has resulted as we've discussed) is notable in that it has affected real people's lives, ie, it's not just rhetorical or mystical, it's part of history. I don't know much about the details, so I can't write that part, but I support its inclusion.
I don't think it belongs in the Usages or Interpretations sections though. Those sections are about the word itself and not about reactionary responses to the Mason's uses of the word. Instead, I suggest the heading of the Criticisms section would be better changed to use the word Controversy instead, then a subsection heading could be added there with a heading referring to "Anti-Masonry". That subsection could provide a good laboratory for your microscope! I wonder what the best heading would be for the Controversy section. It seems like all the complaints about the word come from major religions, I wonder if it would be good to modify the Criticism or Controversy section heading to note that somehow. --Parzival418 05:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Something to watch for is that the majority of criticism from various churches, predominantly Christian, is that they're derived from the Knight interpretation. As I recall the RCC doesn't have a view on this. Regrettably this is a bit OR, but there does appear to be a lineage of church reports, many of them derived from the CofE.
The Muslim criticism is even more recent and limited to a very small subset, mainly Wahabi converts.
Framing any discussion in a meaningful way becomes a bit tricky with that in mind.
ALR 07:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I think OR can be negated simply by citing (with dates) evidence of the criticism, allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions. As for which interpretation it is that has caused the most damage, it does seem to be the case that most parties do not know or care who said that Freemasonary is incompatible with Christianity (or for what specific reason) or that is their only "reason" for distrusting its adherents; it is often included in a general dislike of secret societies that are deemed exclusive (i.e. it doesn't include the malcontent). LessHeard vanU 12:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's a question of damage as such, given the paucity of evidence of a controversy anyway, but I'm uncomfortable about implying an overwhelming body of evidence when in most cases they're rehashes of the same material time and time again. CofE references Knight, the majority of the rest either don't attribute or reference Knight as well however don't appear to have had the same depth of research that the CofE and CofS studies had. A couple of them are also ridden with errors about the structure of Freemasonry and the relationship of craft masonry with various appendant bodies. That distinction is alluded to in the body of the text already.
Notwithstanding that I think Parzival is making some progress with the article, I'm still not convinced it says anything substantive though.
ALR 14:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "disputed" template on the main article page no longer needed

I removed the "disputed" template from the main article page. Based on our talk page discussions, I don't see this as a disputed article anymore, it's just not finished yet (and that's pretty usual for most Wikipedia articles). There is still plenty room for improvement, certainly, but that's different than an article whose editors are disputing its content.

I feel that our recent discussions and edits have made a big difference. Topics that could have become edit wars did not, and we as a group found positive ways of working together. That feels good. This is a difficult subject; after all we're writing about a secret word and somehow coming up with references and histories. While we don't all agree about all the details, I believe we did find consensus on the overall approach.

So, I removed the tag. If someone feels it should still be there, you're welcome to put it back. If you do, please explain your thoughts.

Meanwhile, ...thanks to all for editing in collaborative spirit. --Parzival418 05:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. LessHeard vanU 12:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)