Talk:Jahbulon/Archive 1

in the beginning...

I am reluctant to edit this as I am new to Wikipedia and do not yet fully feel comfortable with my editing skills. So perhaps others will edit for me? Here are my comments -

• The Title may incorrect. The spelling "Jahbulon" may be in error... From my understanding it should be "Jahbalon".
  • They are variants, i.e. Jahbalon Jahbelon Jahbolon Jehbalon Jehbulon Jehbolon Jahbulaum. Not to say which is most common, I don't know for sure, but it appears to be the one used here.Grye

I will take the rest sentence by sentince...

Jahbulon is alleged to be a name of God which was used among Freemasons.

• Not true. It is a word that is used by Freemasons of the Royal Arch Degree (Part of the York Rite) to ""represent"" the name of God.

It probably arose as a mixture of Jah (a Hebrew name of God) and Zebulon (a son of Jacob)".

• This is the first I have heard of this... Do we have a source for this?
  • Not I, & I looked... Grye

Among the Freemasons it is explained as being a combination of:-

Jah - bul, (a form of Baal.) - on, (explained as a name of the Egyptian god Osiris). This name arose by misunderstanding Genesis 46:20 (Bible): ".. Potiphera priest of On ...", where On is a version of the Ancient Egyptian name of the city of Heliopolis. Among Freemasons this name should only be pronounced with certain rituals.

• All true... but perhaps it should be clear that this ritual concerns Masons of the Royal Arch Degree.
  • Did so. izzit OK? Grye

This name escaping from Freemason secrecy into public knowledge, caused a quantity of doctrinal controversy between Freemasons and orthodox Christians.

• I would not use the word "escaping", but otherswise I would agree with this statement

The order in which this word was used has now changed its secret word to conform to the orthodox Judaeo-Christian tradition.

• Nope... it is still used by Royal Arch Masons today.

Blueboar 19:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Be Bold. As soon as you can find something to cite, go ahead and make your changes. Without a citation, though, we're just in a case of he-said-he-said.--SarekOfVulcan 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Unforunately, that is one of the main problems with this Article. It discusses an obsure word that is used in a somewhat obscure ritual. The only citation I could give is that very ritual - which is not a truly citable source (ie it not published, AFAIK). Even if I could find that ritual published so I could cite it, I would have personal problems with doing so ... being a Mason, I feel that I am under an obligation not to discuss it in context. In fact, the only reason I feel free to discuss it in abstract, is that it is already the subject of an article. But, since it IS already the subject of an article, I would at least like to see that the information the article gives is correct. As I grow more conversant in editing, I may go back and edit this so it conforms to my comments. Blueboar 21:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

OK... I have found several possible citation sites (most of these copy or quote from Duncan's Masonic Monitor of 1866). If I can find them, I am sure most non-Royal Arch Masons can do so as well. As I said before... I have a personal problem with simply quoting the ritual and do not feel comfortable updating this myself. But I would like it updated and have no problem with someone else doing so. Blueboar 21:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is sophistry, but you could say "Duncan's Masonic Monitor says that..." without actually taking a position on it yourself. Technically.--SarekOfVulcan 06:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sarek I don't think sophistry is the right word at all. he would simply be citing Duncan's Masonic Monitor [or any other text]. There's no back-handedness at all to that. Maybe I just don't see something? it is late here...Grye 08:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts Sarek and Grye... As I said, my hesitation is based on my personal interpretation of my obligations. I will wrestle with that, and if I can come up with a verson of this Article that meets that interpretation, I will try editing it. In the meantime, if anyone else wants to edit it, please go right ahead. 'Nuff said. Blueboar 13:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

UGLE use of Jahbulon

"This "word" is not in use within UGLE Freemasonry."

Skull 'n' Femurs, If UGLE Masonry does or not, let's post it here, no? If we post it on the main page, we might as well claim the same for PH, Co-Masonry, etc... If agreed, delete this my last post & just post your original comment here?

Or not... Grye

Grye, the edit history says the above was you - although you did not sign it. "This "word" is not in use within UGLE Freemasonry", is a fact not a claim. Anyway see an answer at "Necessity of the article", below. Skull 'n' Femurs 17:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I meant to sign it I used ``` on accident. Will read ahead for the rest Grye

Necessity of the article

I'm a little concerned with this, not because it's giving away "secrets", but because of the very important question "Is this necessary?" First off, this article will never be more than a stub because of its content; there's no way to make this useful, or very much longer. Furthermore, it sets a precedent to "Why don't we just explain everything?" which kind of defeats the purpose, which is, rather than "to keep inviolate the secrets of Masonry" (though that is an issue as well) is "to not ruin things for people who don't know about it yet." You don't see WP articles explaining the Eagle Scout handshake, do you? It's because that is benign, and Freemasonry supposedly is not, but I probably don't need to illustrate the irony of Pat Robrtson and his comments here. Frankly, I think we need t just toss this article completely, because it's not possible to get it up to standard. MSJapan 14:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

MSJapan. Now Grye edited out my addition, "This "word" is not in use within UGLE Freemasonry”. My addition was very carefully worded. I’m guessing that you know how this relates to, “ This name escaping from Freemason secrecy into public knowledge, caused a quantity of doctrinal controversy between Freemasons and orthodox Christians.” Skull 'n' Femurs 17:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The sentence, “ This name escaping from Freemason secrecy into public knowledge, caused a quantity of doctrinal controversy between Freemasons and orthodox Christians.”, is misleading from my POV and should be more like, “This ritual word being brought to the notice of the uninitiated has caused a quantity of controversy between Freemasons of various jurisdictions and some, anti-Masonic, Christians.” Skull 'n' Femurs 17:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

On balance, I would not necessarily subscribe to the taxonomy or etymology of the “word” or the “parts” as described. You may or may not want to comment. Since, "This "word" is not in use within UGLE Freemasonry”, my jurisdiction – it is not a “secret” for me – but I support your “sage” comments MSJapan. The article is a flawed stub. It could be added to the “York Rite”, (another flawed article), left here and edited somewhat, or just removed root and branch. I must add that it is not my intention to hunt down the work of Grye just for the sake of it. Removing the article would entail removing ALL comments about the “word” as well, for example at Freemasonry and York Rite would it not? Skull 'n' Femurs 17:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"This "word" is not in use within Blue Lodge Freemasonry." SarekOfVulcan I do not know if this is true or not, I'm not a member or expert in other juristictions, and "Craft" not "Blue Lodge" is used in my juristiction anyway. UGLE Freemasonry directly means "Craft" and HRA in that juristiction - and indirectly all English "Orders", since all these have English Craft Masons as members. I'm a small "o" orthodox Christian, so the that sentence there is simply wrong. Skull 'n' Femurs 20:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This "word" is said to be used in a Rite system called York Rite. I cannot confirm, that as true or faulse. The "system" is not in England. None of the "Orders" in England are systemised in this way, but any found as both "York" and as "individual" do not use the "word" here, as the "word" is not in use within England, full stop. With my hand on the VSL this is correct. Any "secret" words used in any of my rituals will be subject to removal without notice, if I find them on Wiki. That is my POV. As a side issue, as far as I know, Junior boy and girl "Orders" or "Prince Hall" are not found in England (outside of US Military bases) either. Well, now I'm going to change the orthodox Christian stuff. Sorry, missed the tildes then. Note all this is said in good faith and a happy face -see :) Skull 'n' Femurs 22:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"Freemasons of various jurisdictions and some Christians". This edit ok, oh great Sage-o-da-East. (lol) :) Skull 'n' Femurs 22:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

But: This being a definition of a word. Period. How about we move this to wiktionary:Jahbulon?

• I agree it is definitely not a subject for encyclopediac explanation, irregardless of where one's from & it being used there or no;
• The word does exist, and (some) of the uninitiated world knows about it, + it is a known issue here, so not really delete, maybe. I dunno, I'm not going to cry if it disappears tho.
• It being in Wiktionary means: No opinions; No comments; Just "This is the word, this is the ent.; next?"

P.S. Y'all know I'm not the source of this article in the first place right? Anyway, I agree also with the questionability the article at all, & again I didn't start this page, but it's here, so if it's going to be here, then it needs to be more correct than not. & removing it brings up the "merciless editing by Freemasons" issue. As far as I know, executive decisions of Wiki- are not all in Freemason's hands, so we can't really just say "delete that and that and that...." Grye 00:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I am concerned about something Skull 'n' Femurs said above...

"Any "secret" words used in any of my rituals will be subject to removal without notice, if I find them on Wiki."

While I understand this attitude, I can not accept it. Most (if not all) of our so called "secret" words have been exposed multiple times through the years, and are part of the public record. Indeed, at least one is part of common English usage. Just because we Masons still treat our Words as being "secret", does not make them so for non-Masons. Our obligations require us to not write them ... but they say nothing about our preventing others from doing so.

That said, I agree that this article is not necessary for an Encyclopedia. There is only one reason for including it: the fact that certain Anti-Masons have concerns about this word. And that is a topic that is better included in the Anti-Masonry article.Blueboar

"Just because we Masons still treat our Words as being "secret", does not make them so for non-Masons." If your a Mason, then yes it does! Millennium Sentinel

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing here, just a note: a word is often just that: a word (or a name...). It's use in Freemasonry does not [should not] need to be explained to the world, unless perhaps there is a significant reason, i.e. it (or the term) is in common usage. See "third degree" for an example. & a word's Masonic usage is nearly unprovable. With that said, we can try & make sure a word stays just a word, & be justified in the move, & protect any actual or percieved Masonic duties, by getting them over to wiktionary ASAP... Grye

Millennium Sentinel, I must correct your statement above. The Masonic obligations all say "I" will or will not do such and such. Thus, the obligation to keep specific things secret is a personal statement ... that, as a Mason, "I" will not divulge them. No where does it say that I must prevent others from doing so (even fellow Masons). By your logic, the kidnapping and probable murder of William Morgan was justified ... yes, I know that there is a huge difference between deleting something on an on-line encyclopedia and kidnapping... but both are forms of censorship based on misunderstanding the obligations. It is only a matter of degree.

But this is not the place to discuss Masonic obligations. I support the move of any articles about supposed Masonic Words (be they actual words or erronious ones) to Wiktionary - for the simple fact that they are "words". Any article written about them would have to amount to a defiition of the word... and such definitions by... er... definition... belong in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. That is what a dictionary is for. 'Nuf said (at least by me).Blueboar 14:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a perfectly good explanation of the compound word JAH-BUL-ON, using only the Hebrew language. Reference, The Rev’d Canon Richard Tydeman, An Address to Grand Chapter, (of England), 13th November 1985 – as reported in the public domain. The first syllable indicates eternal existence, the continuing and never-ending I AM. The second syllable really does mean in Hebrew, "in heaven" or "on high". The third syllable is a Hebrew word for Strength or Power. Thus we do not need to go into apologies for faulty scholarship in the past, and we can leave Syria and Egypt and Chaldaea out of it altogether; for what is pronounced are not three names of God (or worse still the names of three gods, as some would suggest) but three aspects or qualities of the Deity which are well known and well used, in Christianity and in other religions, namely His Eternal Existence, His Transcendence, and His Omnipotence. Unfortunately there are many printed rituals which still refer to a name and not a compound word. Now, nothing that is done in another Lodge or Chapter can be described as "wrong", it can only be described as "different". It is for this reason an Alternative View of an entirely Hebrew interpretation emphasises reverence for God and proclaims Him in no uncertain terms as "The True and Living God — The Most High — The Almighty". This is the explanation, which is now encouraged. Millennium Sentinel 14:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the comments regarding Obligations are correct. They are a personal statement, and clearly, for all practical purposes, how far and how literal one takes them is also a personal decision. This is not to put this entire type of debate into a category similar to The Morgan Affair, but just that different people have different ideas.

I would support this being an entry if it was a word (however archaic) that was in common use. However, I can unequivocally state that I have never seen this word in any other context other than a Masonic one (a google search will in fact bring up a lot of anti-Masonic links), so there is a real question of general utility - since it is clearly a specialized word or pseudo-word (as are many of the other words), I do not believe that they are really of any use as an article. Tyler is a notable exception, since it was indeed a general-use word (as is Warden, etc.), but I really think that, even when considering that certain things within Freemasonry need to be explained in order to create an objective view of Freemasonry, it does not require the degree of specialist discussion that this stub article on a "word" is creating. Neither will this ever be an adequate article - credible information simply does not exist. I would rather that this was AfDed, as well as a number of the other word-related articles like Mahabone - they clearly belong in Wiktionary, if anywhere at all, and not in Wikipedia. MSJapan 23:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Jahbulon at Wiktionary

a note on Jahbulon on wiktionary:

edits have been made, often pretty good, & similar to those here.

It is up for deletion.

Redirected this page to the page on Wiktionary. Everything that was on this page is there, except some informative but POV & opinion stuff. If adding it back into the wiktionary page, please consider putting it in the discussion page? Grye 00:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

26 Jan 2006

I am sorry if I am annoying anyone by again restoring Jahbulon as a separate full description, instead of a pointer to wikt:Jahbulon, but there is currently an attempt to delete wikt:Jahbulon, and the word "Jahbulon" is noteworthy enough to need its own article. Anthony Appleyard 17:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This Article was already deleted from Wikipedia. It should not have been restored. The attempt to delete it at Wiktionary is due to similar reasons... it is a bogus word that does not merit either an encyclopedia article or a dictionary article Blueboar 18:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. It does not meet the criteria for either Wikipedia or Wiktionary, and does not belong on either of them. MSJapan 18:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about Tydeman's address being public domain. It only dates to 1985, and Tydeman is still living (and writes for Freemasonry Today); therefore it should be a copyrighted work. If it was published (I don't know how else one would have the text), it is copywritten by default, and we can't use it here. MSJapan 19:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

At what point was it deleted from Wikipedia? There are no deleted edits in the edit history, nor is there any link to a VfD or AfD discussion. I'm removing the speedy deletion tag for now. If you can prove that this is a repost of previously deleted content, then I'll be happy to delete it. howcheng {chat} 19:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I am very confused. I thought it was deleted sometime around the end of December last year. I know I had it on my watch list around that time, and the link changed to red... when I checked it, the article had disappeared. I assumed it was due to a deletion. Perhaps not, but then why would it go away? In any case, I am sure we could go through a (another?) AfD review if needed. The article is a sure AfD candidate. Blueboar 20:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is it an AfD candidate? A large international organization's idea of God is important enough to be noteworthy. Anthony Appleyard 23:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Because it isn't a large international organization's idea of God.--SarekOfVulcan 23:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Howcheng, try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jahbulon&oldid=36117335 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jahbulon&direction=prev&oldid=36023602 as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jahbulon&direction=prev&oldid=32665472, nothing but links to wiktionary.--Vidkun 01:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Those are not deleted edits. Howcheng is right. This article has not been deleted. Uncle G 18:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct. AfD started. MSJapan 19:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is Yogy Bear not cited for using Jabbadabbadoo? Or is that another word? We should be told! Skull 'n' Femurs 17:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

OK: "do not remove the wiktionary redirect. what about "To begin an article here, feel free to edit this page, but please do not create merely a dictionary definition" does anyone not understand? Grye 08:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It re-appeared, so Jabbadahut forced me to edit it, with his special powers. Skull 'n' Femurs 09:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

torn up

I edited this article apart, with summary statements to each. There's nothing here. Nothing valid at all. there is not one valid source to this article. There is nothing. Grye 09:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the article and provided ISBN links for the quotations section, all of which were trivial to find. Blanking an article (even if it is done a little bit at a time) just days after the AfD in which you voted delete was closed as no consensus does seem like you're trying to circumvent the AfD process. -- AJR | Talk 14:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Page needs to exist

It is indisputable that alot of people out there believe this word to be related to freemasonry. I think this page should consist of merely the history of the allogations surrounding this word. Not the content of the allogation, but just stating the fact that the allogations exist. I feel that the current status of the page goes against the spirit of the AFD being shot down. I don't want to get involved in this however since the last thing I need is another page like this to get involved with, so instead i'm going to file a RfC and see what other editors feel. Seraphim 08:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment? I'll never get back the last 10 minutes of my life that I spent reading this discussion. I'd like to request my 10 minutes in exchange for this comment. Actually, I'd like to comment, but I don't see a page; nothing exists right now. At least restore a version of it, so there's something to comment on. Anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffmichaud (talk • contribs) .

Um.. how about reading what is on the page? "...To begin an article here, feel free to edit this page, but please do not create merely a dictionary definition." Grye 22:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, everything about this article is very disputable: every etymology is speculative, and in particular Stephen Knight's work is fanciful in the extreme. The etymology isn't done properly in any case - you can't propose an etymology in a language in which the word has not been shown to exist. The sources are historical, yet conclusions are made that supposedly apply to the modern day, and every quote was made not by a researcher, but by people with agendas to prove and faulty methods to prove them. I've actually gone ahead and corrected the Wiktionary article somewhat, because while the term may be historically accurate, what it is said to refer to is not. MSJapan 22:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about a defination of the word, or an etymology, the word obviously is notable or you guys wouldn't be editing this page :) This page should outline the history of the contraversy surrounding the word, not attempt to define the word. Seraphim 22:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

For the nine-billionth time, fine. Do whatever. grow the word, on wiktionary. Should it become an encyclopedic article, transwiki it here. Whatever. But as-is, 1) it isn't an encyclopedic article, & 2) what there is, be it dictionary or encyclopedic, isn't actually true. & it's a notable pain in the butt. If someone wrote an article about "jamahabubone", & called it Masonic whatever of whatever used whenever by so-n-so wingnut, we'd probably be editing that article too ;~D Grye 22:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

True or false: people love claiming that this word is a masonic "secret word" and have done so numerous times through history. The answer is true. That is what this page should be about, the history of the contravercy around the word, not what the word itself means, that would be a wiktionary article. Seraphim 23:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It'd still most likely be a stub. & that's been tried countless times, but w/ really poor or no citations, loads of POV, & otherwise just really bad writing. But go to it, if you can do it right, but I'd read the history here & on wiktionary first. Oh, & probably the Summary comments'd help too... Grye 23:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That's fine I'll problary toss something together soon. However i'd like to point out, that even if something has been proven false, the fact that the accusation was made is the historical aspect. Text like "some catholics in the past has claimed that jahbulon is a masonic god and therefore does not allow masonry to co-exist with catholisim, which masons vehemently deny"(obviously with cites) is npov and 100% valid to include in the article. Seraphim 23:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

OK... good luck. Blueboar 23:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is about to go to Wiktionary. Again.

• I have Marked yhis a dictionary article
• Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary
• & will again Transwiki this article, this time 1000% correctly.

Grye 08:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I just added an opening paragraph to show where this page should be going. This is NOT a defination, there is a history of contravercy that surrounds this word, and that alone make it notable and able to stand on it's own as an article. Seraphim 11:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

A for effort, but the citations were not in a good place, one was silly-poor (TLEM), it & a lot of the section were POV, & it would still be, maybe, added to the talk pages of the wiktionaried article. Grye 11:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Citations were all valid. The TLEM link was to show that some religious groups do adress the word, and it was used as such. It was in no way claiming that their interpertation was correct. Seraphim 20:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

When was the word first brought into the public?

I am trying to find the first instance of the word being made public. I think explaining the situation of the word first being disclosed would be very interesting material to have in the article. I see from older edits here that when it first came out the Orthodox Christians were the first group to jump on it. But I can't find out the exact circumstances, does anyone know? Seraphim 11:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you see that this article was transwikified by cut-and-paste a while ago, & that the wiktionary & "please do not create a disctionary article" tag is valid? Grye 11:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Part of the tag requests that if it is possible to modify the article into a encyclopedic article that you do so and remove the tag. I did. Seraphim 20:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but no. You didn't. Grye 11:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This page's history, questions answered, & transwikification

• Listed as a candidate for Transwikification 02:52, 12 December 2005
• Created on wiktionary 05:43, 12 December 2005
• Removed from Wikipedia, with note:
• finally pointed to wikyionary 07:00, 25 December 2005

• recreated on wikipedia 23:56, 20 January 2006

1. Anthony Appleyard's comment, "...but there is currently an attempt to delete wikt:Jahbulon, and the word "Jahbulon" is noteworthy enough to need its own article"

this is a blatant attempt to keep this an article, despite it's unencyclopedic content & subject. The reversion amounts to vandalism. Grye 12:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

1. User:Howcheng asks "At what point was it deleted from Wikipedia? There are no deleted edits in the edit history, nor is there any link to a VfD or AfD discussion. I'm removing the speedy deletion tag for now. If you can prove that this is a repost of previously deleted content, then I'll be happy to delete it."

   OK, so it was never at any point deleted. Thus, I'm still correct that the speedy deletion tag for CSD G4 (reposted content) is invalid. The article then survived an AfD with no consensus, so A5 doesn't apply either. howcheng {chat} 16:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the answer to that question:

Here's the history:

• Listed as a candidate for Transwikification 02:52, 12 December 2005
• Created on wiktionary 05:43, 12 December 2005
• Removed from Wikipedia, with note:
• finally pointed to wikyionary 07:00, 25 December 2005

• recreated on wikipedia 23:56, 20 January 2006, w/ the summary comment "revert either vandalism or POV-inspired blanking; make it nPOV)"

This Has been transwikified to wiktionary, it was recreated here, & remains a wiktionary article. The tag is being replaced, & dictionary edits can be made on wiktionary. If you want the new edits, use the history to grab them & bring them over to wiktionary. I've already done it once, this article was mistakenly recreated here, I'm not doing it again. Grye 12:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that a user deleting a page's contents, is completly different from an Admin Deleting the page. If that was the case I could delete the entire contents of any page on the wiki, and then claim that the user who reverts my change is recreating the article after it was deleted. The only AfD proposal for the page ended without reaching consensus. This page is in no way shape or form the recreation of deleted content. Seraphim 03:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If you do actually create more than a stub of a stub of an article...

• Wikipedia is not a dictionary & this soft redirect template in this article helps prevents the creation of a dicdef.

So, how about we stop recreating dictionary content here, & instead enhance the article on wiktionary, & link to it here with this tag:

• [[wikt:jahbulon]], which will make a link to Jahbulon on wiktionary

• {{wiktionary}} (on it's own line, at the top), which will make this:

Note

I did add a note on the Wiktionary talk page that there had possibly been good work done on this dictionary article, & linked to the history page w/ them. Grye 14:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

TLEM Reference

Just to be clear, at no point am I saying that I believe TLEM to be correct in it's assessment. The link to TLEM is to reference some sections. TLEM is obviously an anti-masonic religious group.

1) "The word "Jahbulon" throughout history has been portrayed by Anti-Masonic religious groups as a Masonic "God". The groups believe that the word comes from combining the names of 3 seperate gods: Jehovah, Baal, and Osiris"

The reference line on the TLEM page " At the beginning stages they teach that God's name was lost with the death of Hiram Abrif. Then, in the higher order, the Royal Arch degree (York Rite) they learn his name is Jahbulon. The name Jahbulon is a composite term, joining Jehovah with two pagan gods - the evil Canaanite deity Baal (Jer. 19:5; Judges 3:7;10:6) and the Egyptian god Osiris.".

2) " Some religious groups belive that Freemasonry teaches it's members that "Jahbulon" is the the true name of god, and some groups feel that this is proof that Freemasonry is a religion of it's own and therefore uncompatable with other religious teachings"

The reference line on the TLEM page " The Masons refer to God as "Supreme Architect of the Universe, Supreme Grand Master, or the Nameless One of a hundred Names." At the beginning stages they teach that God's name was lost with the death of Hiram Abrif. Then, in the higher order, the Royal Arch degree (York Rite) they learn his name is Jahbulon." and "Scripture clearly states that man can not serve two gods (Matthew 6:24; 1 Cor. 10:21). When we compare the teachings of Freemasonry to Christianity one can easily see that they are totally opposite. "

As you can see the lines in the article are fully referenced. There is no reason to remove them. Seraphim 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually,all your quotes & citations of any kind are proven to have one source. Read up the histories. MSJapan, you did all that work I think, acn you cut-n-Paste or point to it? Grye 02:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that is relevant is that it is information that is put out by a religious group. That is all I am claiming it to be in the article. Seraphim 02:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, most of the work is at the Wiktionary article, and there's a lot to be desired. The only source I can find that's cited properly is the 1866 Duncan's, and it's got a completely different quote in the ritual than anything else that was here before. I've got a very long and very objective statement on the quotes over at Wiktionary, so if someone wants to C&P it over here, that's fine. I've got my own comments to make as well, which I will put in another section. MSJapan 03:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This is what i've found from Duncan's:

1. JAH. This name of God is found in the 68th Psalm, v. 4. [Yahweh]

2. BAAL or BEL. This word signifies a lord, master, or possessor, and hence it was applied by many of the nations of the East to denote the Lord of all things, and the Master of the world.

3. ON. This was the name by which JEHOVAH was worshipped among the Egyptians."

- Duncan's Masonic Ritual and Monitor or Guide to the Three Symbolic Degrees of the Ancient York Rite

I found it at http://www.sacred-texts.com//mas/dun/dun08.htm which is the site that MSJapan talks about on the wikitionary page, it's located right here under 226:1 Seraphim 03:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Blanking

Grye please explain why you keep blanking the page here. It is in no way a defination of a word. You are removing referenced material without a reason. This is in no way shape or form a defination of the word. Please explain why you feel it necessary to blank these changes that were made with the results and comments from the AfD discussion in mind. 02:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Seraphin, Your actions are alike to some banned editors, and you have been casually warned several times,but that's for a different investigation.

This is what's up:

1. "The word "Jahbulon" throughout history" throughout what history?!? All Masonic history?!?' Your oldest cite is 1875. That's a couple breaths in Masonry's history. The statement is simply wrong.

History is a generic term, that just means through the past, I'll change it to since 1875. Seraphim 02:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

1. "Anti-Masonic religious groups:" who are...??????????????

Any religious group that is anti-masonic... it's impossible to make a complete list of them and not include a false positive or omit a group. The correct label is "Anti-Masonic religious groups".Seraphim 02:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I noted in the article that the most common groups are catholic, and then linked to a list of other non-catholic groups that have had issues with freemasonry Seraphim 09:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

1. "a Masonic "God". in those people's definition of god, that could be true, but for the rest of the sane world, no.

I took that quote from TLEM, that is stating what they believe that is all. It does not matter if they are sane or not, it is what they believe, and that is how it's being used.Seraphim 02:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

1. "Masonic antiquarians" who are ...........? What, all of 'em? & if you say "TLEM" again....... I'll sneeze. & I hate sneexing... ;~D

I took that line from the entymology in the old version of the article. I'll change it to "some Masonic antiquarians". Seraphim 02:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I dug through the history of the page, and managed to find that the guy's name is Richard Tydeman and made the relevant changes. Seraphim 09:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

1. "Some religious groups" which are..........? & who cares anyway? Is this a dictionary about the beliefs of some specific religious groups? Yup, sure is, so go write up their article & put that quote there

As I said earlier it is impossible to create a comprehensive list, therefore the word some is the only way to cover it. Seraphim 02:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

See above for my new changes. Seraphim 09:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

1. The citations are all over the place. This being the 3+ times you've been asked to cite properly, or even close to properly, I'll say this: "At this point, learn. Then edit."

If you would point out what I am doing incorrectly i'll gladly fix it. I'll change it to fit the standard reference methods. Seraphim 02:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed the article to match the new reference guidelines. Every single piece of information in the article is properly referenced, I even checked all the book references to make sure they were valid. If you see something wrong with one of the references, please change it to the proper version instead of deleting it. Seraphim 09:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Your little diatribe devolves into a mini-article of Freemasonry...

No it's about the word only, and some of the contravercy around the word which is all centered on freemasonry. Seraphim 02:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Of which you seem to know an aweful lot about... Anyone else... see... anything?

Grye 02:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to accuse me of being a sockpuppet please put up a checkuser request with any "evidence" you have so I can be cleared. Posting snide comments is not the appropriate way of doing this. Seraphim 02:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out, that your comment "The user is trying to Change this interwiki redirect into the article it never was." as the revert reason is completly invalid. The "Candidate to be copied to Wikitionary" tag says "If this article can be modified to be more than a dictionary entry, please do so and remove this message." I am doing so. It's not my fault that you decided to revert my changes and then carry out the copy anyway. Seraphim 02:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

My suggested changes

"Tydeman a high-ranking Mason" - based on? Giving a lecture (which is unsourced, BTW, and might be copyvio) says nothing about his "rank". A Mason is a Mason.

See Wiktionary for a lengthier treatment on sources. MSJapan 04:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I assumed he was high ranking since it was an official letter from the UGLE to all the Grand Officers and Secretaries to the Lodges. I assumed only high ranking masons could send out official documents, I removed the "high ranking" from the article.

Yeah, you assume a lot of things, like this word is actually a word, just because some wingnuts think so, & then they are quotable... Grye 10:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

All the sources aren't anti-masonic sources. Also if you read the article and discussion instead of just bashing me, you will see that he is infact a high ranking mason. Seraphim 10:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It is properly sourced. The relevant quote is:

"So what can we offer instead of this Egypto-Syriac conglomeration? Fortunately there is a perfectly good explanation of the words on the triangle, using only the Hebrew language — an explanation that cannot be faulted in any way, and here it is.

Unreliable aources are your sources. Grye 10:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The first syllable indicates eternal existence, the continuing and never-ending I AM. The second syllable, as we are told later (unfortunately only as an alternative) really does mean in Hebrew, "in heaven" or "on high" and the third syllable is a Hebrew word for Strength or Power.". Seraphim 05:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

On review, it's problary not a good idea to link to the entire text in the article's references, just incase it is under copyright so i'm gonna remove the link I added. However it is properly sourced, and it's obviously not plagarism so no copy-vio issues. Seraphim 09:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

User:SeraphimXI is not User:Mahabone

Funny thing is, it's a sockpuppet of another user, I just haven't recognized & documented which. Look & yee shall see. Grye 10:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Freemasonry#User:SeraphimXI_is_.28not.29_User:Mahabone. Lets not get too paranoid here. WegianWarrior 11:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI... David Gerard ran a check and says that the IP addresses are completely different ("They're not related in the slightest" are his exact words). I do think we may be a bit jumpy about this. Blueboar 15:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting that out of the way. Now can we move on? Seraphim 16:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA Grye 22:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was at a library, & for some reason I couldn't see past the 6th, & it looked like SeraphimXI's first edits were the 7th. I have a feeling, but dismissed a lot of suspicions based on SeraphimXI's edits mostly in gameboyland. But for some reason's I'm suspicious:

• On 29 January 2006, SeraphimXI made the following statement about their experience with Freemasonry: "I came here randomly, not knowing anything about the masons..."
• About 12 hours later, added added NPOV disputed and merge tags to the article.

Why? & How? How can someone Possibly learn enough about anything in 12 hours to add these tags? Unless is was ridiculously POV, which it was not. This is pretty much vandalism, as far as I can tell.

You don't need to be an expert on a subject to see that an article is written in a POV way. The Puffery on the first paragraph that was being protected by a few editors was justification enough to post that tag. Also creating a seperate "Anti-Freemasonry" page, that was created to keep so called "crazy" editors off of the main freemasonry page is the absolute defination of a POV fork.

I can look at a random article and within 2 minutes even if I don't know anything about the subject determine if it is written in a POV manner or not. It's not very hard to do so. Seraphim 23:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• And then: This user has been making POV comments, & reverting Wiktionary tags on Jahbulon, & will not listen to 2 words of reasoning. Very much like Mahabone, but even more so like another user, but I can't quite place 'em.

Really I didn't think it was Mahabone until I mistook that edit pattern, as this user has some clue to wikipedia editing etc, & Mahabone didn't.

Reasoning? You reverted an edit I made because I was "trying to Change this interwiki redirect into the article it never was". ????????? how is that a reason to revert an edit? It's completly invalid. Also according to your reasoning, since you decided to blank the page, that somehow constitutes that the page was deleted and reverting that change is re-creating deleted content, and therefore able to be speedy deleted???? I could blank any page on wikipedia I wanted, I could blank the page on George W Bush if I wanted to. That is what wikipedia allows people to do. However that would not in any way shape or form make restoring the page recreation of deleted material. Deleted material means the page is deleted by an admin after a AfD was passed. Your reasoning is ignored because it doesn't make any sence. Seraphim 23:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Your wrong. Yes, the tag had been on the article for at least a month, w/ "do not create merely a dictionary definition"; a dictionary article was replaced, almost 100% cut-and-paste. THAT'S creating merely a dictionary definition. Then you try to preserve it, with weak, poor edits & straight up vandalism & harassment. No you're close to having a STUB. Restoring it to the redirect is not blanking. So, yeah, you could do whatever you want to whatever article you want, have fun with that. Should we start doing that to your little video game articles you care so much about? I played Atari like 20 years ago, & I saw those articles 12 hours ago. I'm qualified.... Get off it. you're wrong. Period. But whatever, have your fun. Grye 21:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You apparently are having problems with understanding what a Dictionary is. The history of contravercy surrounding a word is beyond the scope of a dictionary article. If you feel I have vandalised this article in anyway, or harassed anyone in any way, please file an RFC for user conduct against me, your constant posturing here is counter-productive. Seraphim 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Don't criticize other's knowledge of dictionaries while using words like contravercy. Did you mean controversy? Or possibly contrivance? I'd say the latter.... ;~D
2. Engaging you and especially some others at all in discussion is what's counter-productive.

Grye 22:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Congrats I made a spelling error. Your still ignoring my point. Stop with this passive agressive stuff. If I have vandalized anything report me, If I have broken any wikipedia policies report me, that is the correct course of action to take if you believe I have done any of this. If you do not do so, it is merely harassment and I will treat it as such. Accusing me of being a sock, with no evidence, and not even bothering to post a checkuser request, followed by a threat to go vandalize video-game related articles that I work on are clear indications of harassment. Either file an RFC against me, or stop with the harassment. Also I find it funny that you feel that I believe I can do whatever I want to whatever article I want, I believe your the one that decided to ignore the results of an AfD and delete the contents of the page anyway, and then claim that the page was a candidate for speedy deletion because people added back information that you unilaterally deleted. Seraphim 22:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I find you funny too, actually. Not "funny haha." Grye 22:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• But whatever. What I realised is editors like Mahabone & SeraphimXI, oh & all of the reincarnations of Lightbringer (which these 2 might be) are just keeping all the Freemasons from being out there ruling the world, keeping the Bruthas & women down in the dirt, & practicing Satanic rituals, so if the Freemasons would just stop worrying about these fools, they can all go back to having all that fun... !~D Grye 22:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please show me one instance or example of me doing this? I'm just acting in the best interest of wikipedia. If I was going around insisting that all these articles turn into freemasonrywatch pages like some people then you would have a valid point. However I have never ever ever ever done that, and never will. Seraphim 23:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

& I would mention that "...a list of non-catholic groups..." external link needs to go to the bottom of the page under "external links", but I'm busy right now, hunting 3rd worlders with 50-cal full auto depleted uranium rounds. Try it, it's fun. Grye 23:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not an external link. Seraphim 23:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wow. You're right. It's an html wikilink. Your bad!Grye 10:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize you could point to subsections in wikilinks. Seraphim 19:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That's cool, not to know. there's very few people here that know more than anyone else in any two subjects wiki. Just don't tell someone else 10 times they are wrong, if you might not know. Know what I mean? Cool. Grye 21:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Defination of a Stub

"Another way to define a stub is an article so incomplete that an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial internet search or a few minutes in a reference library. An article that can be improved by only a rather knowledgeable editor, or after significant research, may not be a stub." If you can find more information on the topic please add it. Article length alone does not make an article a stub. Seraphim 22:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, stubby. It's a stub. it's staying a stub until it isn't. Get over it, or learn how to edit, & write, & do it. Grye 22:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA Seraphim 22:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Anthony Addition

"[This on, explained as a name of the Egyptian god Osiris, arose by misunderstanding Genesis 46:20 (Bible): "... Potiphera priest of On ...", where On is a version of the Ancient Egyptian name of the city of Heliopolis. Some Christians object to this mixing of the Judaeo-Christian God with two other religions' gods.] " If you can find references for that please add it back in up in the top section of the article where the "on" defination is adressed. Please make sure it is fully referenced, so you have something to stand on when another editor decides to contest it's verifiability. The section you added it to isn't for commentary on each quotation, cause that would get super messy. If you want to address a certain quotation make a section about the book in particular the quote came from. Right now making a commentary on each quotation would make this article relapse into a POV mess very very quickly. Seraphim 00:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I would have moved it up myself, but it needs sources. Seraphim 00:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Go dig around in the history here, but especially on [Wiktionary]. That's a link to an old example. You may find a source back in there. Also, it's an acurate statement, but I didn't say that... ;~D Grye 01:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Like I said I like the content, however it isn't sourced. Seraphim 07:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Did you even think about looking, as mentioned above, never mind look?
2. Did you even try to source yourself?

Grye 10:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Amendments

• Canon Tydeman is Grand Chaplain of UGLE and a Hebrew Scholar, merely describing him as a Mason somewhat trivialises his research.

I agree, I had masonic scholars, and then changed it to him being a high ranking mason, but Grye was opposed to both. Seraphim 10:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

How now, Brown Cow? Exactly how was I actually opposed, that is to say? Grye 10:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

He's a Hebrew and Theology scholar who happens to be a Mason, he has done scholarly work on Masonry as well but primarally he is a theologian.ALR 10:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• True Light Educational Ministry is a website and is itself unreferenced. Using WP:RS it quite reasonably constitutes a partisan website and hence is unreliable. Actually it's factually incorret in stating that no dicumentary evidence exists before 1717. One unreliable citation doesn't support the statement 'Some Religious Groups' hence I'm going to remove it and ask for a citation.

& it is rediculous to say that nothing in Freemasonry is documentable before 1717. Have fun with that. I'll watch... ;~D Grye 10:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Knight is clearly a partisan source and should not be considered reliable.ALR 09:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that TLEM and Knight are not reliable sources, they are not being used in a way where their information is being portrayed as true. The TLEM page is a great example of a christian anti-masonic group, and I use them to show that a religious group does make the assertions I claim they make in the article. And Knight is never used as a reference, there is just a quote from his book, the examples of Jahbulon in literature section is mainly to show that the word is indeed notable. Seraphim 10:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but "the word is indeed notable" is entirely your POV, when all your refs can be directly traced to one ref . Grye 10:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

They are being used in a manner which implies that they have a degree of validity, inasmuch as they are cited as references here. If you're planning on using these sources then you have to comment on their low level of academic integrity, both of them fail WP:POV which carries through to their reliability, they are clearly partisan. Merely showing that the word appears in a number of unreliable texts does not constitute notable.ALR 10:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article does it say that their claims are valid, infact I give the masonic viewpoint the stronger position by presenting it as a counter-argument. The source does not have to be NPOV only the article. The source is only being used to show that a religious group makes those claims, if you don't like the TLEM source I can find many other religious sources that make the claims.

The counter argument shouldn't be here, it's inappropriate in the context of the article. The validity of the assertions need to be able to stand in their own right. Thats why I removed it.ALR 22:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article is a stance ever taken one way or the other on any of the information presented. Just because the sources are biased information does not mean they cannot be contained in this article. THey are not being used in any way that implies that they have any validity to them whatsoever. They are being used to show that the accusations have been made. The word appearing in a number of texts does make it notable. I'd also like to point out that by removing what you claim to be "unreliable" texts while leaving Tydeman's address is extremely POV.

The bias of the sources should be made clear in the discussion WP:RS the sources have a clearly partisan perspective and this should be madde clear to the reader. Tydemans text is the work of a scholar and reflects that position, the TLEM site is not. And most of the sources are all predicated on Duncans, so they're not independent sources, they're all secondary or tertiary based on Duncans as a candidate primary source. And it could be argued that two of them constitute pseudoscience.ALR 22:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The facts are that some religious groups believe jahbulon is a masonic god, and that they feel that ths proves masonry is a religion and that it is uncompatable with their religions, to the point where catholics were told that to join freemasonry would result in their excommunication. Just because you disagree with the source does not mean you can just delete the facts that you know are correct. The sources are being used to show that the allogations exist, not in any way does the article claim that they are correct accusations. Seraphim 21:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Read the Catholic encyclicals, they are not predicated on anything being taught as 'the name of G*D' but are based on more fundamental objections to Freemasonry.ALR 22:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV:

I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the enemy." I don't want to write for the enemy. Most of them rely on stating as fact many things which are demonstrably false. Are you saying that, to be neutral in writing an article, I must lie, in order to represent the view I disagree with?

Who said anything about writing for the enemy, if you're going to pick a contentious topic then reference it effectively and articulate your position in a meaningful and robust manner.ALR 22:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding of what the neutrality policy says. You aren't claiming anything, except to say, "So-and-so argues that ____________, and therefore, ___________." This can be done with a straight face, with no moral compunctions, because you are attributing the claim to someone else. It's worth observing that scholars are trained so that, even when trying to prove a point, counter-arguments are included, so that they can explain why the counter-arguments fail.

That is exactly what i'm doing. It is not a POV violation because I clearly state that it is the pov of anti-masonic religious groups. Seraphim 21:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Make clear in the text that this is an example typical of what might be used by a Christian group in their objections, I'd also suggest getting hold of something that is in itself recognisable as an academic text, that means referenceing. I can pick up several factual inaccuracies in the web page, not least is the assertion that no documentary evidence exists before 1717, I have copies of documents from 1598 which demonstrate that is inaccurate. If you're going to rely on things like this then rely on something that can't get ripped apart without any critical thought, AT LEAST PRESENT SOME KIND OF INTELLECTUAL CHALLENGE. You don't Clearly state anything, you make an assertion then justify it with very fragile sources. If you want to try these things get hold of Ars Quatuor Coronatum which are the transactions of Quatuor Coronati Lodge, they all have ISBNs so your college/ uni library can get hold of them.ALR 22:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You'll note that I've re-inserted that link after restoring my restructuring of the discussion to flow better, not that it can flow I don't believe this is a valid article but since it's stuck here then the least that can be done is improve it to the stage where it doesn't provide too much disinformation.ALR 22:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Lets just cut this entire argument off at the head. What reference do you suggest we replace the TLEM reference with, or do you feel that none exist. Seraphim 23:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that a reliable source exists which would meet the requirements of academic rigour.ALR 09:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

There-in lies the reason why TLEM can't be removed as a source. The fact that some religious groups believe jahbulon to be a masonic god is obviously a truth. However since wikipedia requires everything to be verifiable we must use outside references to back up every claim. In this case every single reference I could add to substanciate that claim would be considered invalid just like the TLEM link, and unreferenced information cannot stay in the article. However this information is true, and the TLEM link does verify it, biased source or not. Seraphim 09:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

TLEM doesn't withstand any attempt at applying academic rigour, it's not even clear from the website whether thats a verbatim lift from something else or not. Some formally issued document, such as the Methodist congregation, the Church of Scotland document (which I could pick substantial holes in, but it is a verifiable source), the papal encyclical etc I'd accept as a valid reference, whilst I'd disagree with their rigour and conclusions. Something that's clearly attributable as being a policy of the religious organisation rather than just a diatribe on a website. TLEM doesn't constitute a reliable source, so find something more reliable to support your statements.ALR 20:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Who cares what TLEM thinks?!? Or who they are? Or what they do or believe? If I did, if (if), I'dput TLEM into Wiktionary & see what came up, as an article. Same goes with most any of your citations. Why don't you write an article, "what TLEM (or whoever) thinks about some word someone made up once. called JAHBULON"? Grye 10:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Your finally coming around. The article is not about the word itself, it's about what people believe the word signifies and what has resulted because of that belief. If it was an article that was only about the word it would be a dictionary entry. Seraphim 10:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

So what you're advocating is a survey of various understandings of the word, surely that would constitute original research? With the criticism of the meaning of the word in question coming from sects of Christianity then it should be discussed in that context?ALR 11:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

From WP:RS "An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion. " alot of religious groups have the opinion that Jahbulon is the name of the masonic god, and they feel (in most cases) that this is a direct attack on their religion. That is the notable issue. Also it's not just christianity i've added some islamic links now. It's really easy to find other religious groups that have mentioned the word, you just have to google for like 3 minutes. Seraphim 13:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"historically" vs "since 1875"

I changed that word to "since 1875" due to Grye making the comment ""The word "Jahbulon" throughout history" throughout what history?!? All Masonic history?!?' Your oldest cite is 1875. That's a couple breaths in Masonry's history. The statement is simply wrong." I agree with using the generic word history, however expect to need to revert Grye's changes to that line. Seraphim 00:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

"Commentary on the term" section is un-encyclopedic

Your presenting the information in a very un-encyclopedic manner, infact after removing bits of information I added to expand the section past a simple Etymology of the word, it is now reverting back to an Etymology of the word. That is unacceptable on wikipedia. Please stop making changes that turn this page back into a dictionary article, that will result in the page being deleted. Seraphim 05:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to "Jahbulon" and religion, since that is mainly what the article is about. I also added alot more about tydeman's description that I got from reading his address. I also changed the section back into an encyclopedia style article instead of an Etymology/Defination section. Seraphim 07:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The whole article is un-encyclopaedic since it's predicated on one source and overheated ill informed meanderings.ALR 08:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is about those "overheated ill informed meanderings" that were caused by that one source. That is a completly valid encyclopedia article. The article isn't on "Jahbulon" it's on the contravercy around the word. Seraphim 09:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well if you think that the noteworthy aspect is that there is dispute about the validity and meaning of the word, make that clear in your edits. Merely making a statement and linking to an unreliable source does not add value, add some qualitative analysis of the arguments and the quality of the various sources. and change the title of the article to make that clear. The word is not sufficiently noteworthy to justify an article, the debate may do but I remain to be convinced and at the moment the article doesn't warrant being here.ALR 16:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't allow us to post analysis that we do. TLEM is being used as a religious group that makes the statements, and tydeman is being used as a rebuttal to the TLEM accusations. That is all wikipedia allows us to do. Also i'd like to point out that the AFD result was to not remove the page. Your opinion that the article shouldn't be here is not a valid one, if the older version of the article reached a no consensus, this one will be a strong keep. If you feel it doesn't belong here file an AfD again, but I can guarentee it will end up with a keep verdict. Seraphim 21:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't allow original research, analysis of the various arguments is not original research. The work I'm doing on implementing Knowledge Management culture and philosophies using technical mechanisms such as Wikis in a hierarchical technical organisation is original research and hence inadmissible in the Knowledge Management article which sorely needs work. My opinion is that the article shouldn't be here, you cannot tell me what opinions I may or may not have! Those that contributed to the debate couldn't reach a consensus, but that doesn't invalidate the opinions of anyone as to its' value as an encyclopaedic article. Given that the article has to remain then it has to be as realistic as possible, and that means highlighting the weakness of some of the sources. I doubt that it would be a strong keep, reviewing the discussion suggests at least one vote was 'because we can't agree to get rid of it' which is wooly thinking in the extreme. Interesting how you could assure a strong keep, because it couldn't be on the basis of the article or the supporting argument itself. If you're going to persist in reverting any effort to actually improve the article rather than fill it with content free verbage then it just weakens the case to keep it, in its' present form.ALR 21:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It is against wikipedia policy for editors to add their own commentary into articles. We can't post our own subjective analysis of the sources in articles, we can just explain what they are. Also all of the Delete votes on the AFD were posted citing that the article is non-notable, unverifiable, or a dictionary article. None of which are true anymore. Seraphim 21:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Also if you read WP:V it clearly states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.". TLEM's "Who we are" page says "The True Light Educational Ministry (TLEM, pronounced Tellem) is a Christian Ministry.". In the article the text says "The word "Jahbulon" has been historically been portrayed by some Christian groups as the name of the Masonic "God". The groups assert that the word comes from combining the names of 3 seperate gods: Jehovah, Baal, and Osiris. The groups also claim that masons are taught that Jahbulon is the true name of god which is seen as proof by at least one Christian ministry that Freemasonry is a self contained religion and therefore incompatable with other religious philosophies." since TLEM is a christian ministry that makes those claims, all of those statements are completly verifiable. Nowhere in the article is the TLEM source ever considered to be the "Truth", it's just used to show that religious groups make the listed claims. Seraphim 22:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Key words Reliable and published, WP:RS. TLEM can claim all they like but a web-site like that does not constitute published. If you're going to use them as an example then make that clear in your text, it's not clear that it's being used as an example at present, TLEM is not SOME Christian groups, its ONE, and it's using text thats been lifted from elsewhere and not attributed, so probably a copyvio in it's own right. Articulate your points, don't try and veil them.ALR 22:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

TLEM is reliable in the way it is being used. They are a christian ministry that is making the accusations the article claims they make. Published just means that it is a source that is avaliable for inspection. A website is a published source. WP:RS says "However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it" and "Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source." the fact that they have views that you feel are not based on fact is not a valid reason to remove it as a source. Also the information that they are using that has been lifted comes from Duncans and the Bible both of which are public domain texts, there is no copyvio there. Seraphim 23:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, your usage of it appears to be lacking in that case. I think you'll find that it's pretty much a cut and paste from some of the other clearly anti-masonic sites, rather than sourcing from open source material, which is what I meant. And the rest of the paragraph related to partisan websites should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source. clearly indicates that you need to substantiate with additional material, or provide a health warning on the quality of the source. Personally I'd recommend just rewording the section to make it clear it's single sourced.ALR 23:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I can find other sources for it (which is obvious from the examples in literature section), however you have already stated that you will not believe any of the sources to be valid. If you want me to I can easially find more. Also the quote "should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source." that doesn't apply to this article, it's not talking about a group like TLEM. It's talking about "Widely acknowledged extremist political or religious websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party". TLEM is not on the same level as Hamas, nor is it a "Widely acknowledged extremist religious website". Seraphim 23:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out also that in the Lightbringer ARBCom case they decided that freemasonrywatch is able to be used as a source. I would consider freemasonry watch to be extremist and require a warning, not TLEM. Seraphim 23:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, Canon Tydeman appears to be a Past Junior Grand Warden, based on what I can find online http://www.bilderberg.org/ukofficers.rtf.ALR 16:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The Triangle Picture

Now I know this is going to meet a ton of resistance so please hear me out.

Wikipedia encourages the use of images on article pages. In Tydeman's section he refers to Jahbulon as the word on the triangle in numerous occasions. Also a few Royal Arch Masonry websites have on them an image of the triangle. Example Rising Star Royal Arch Chapter No. 298 click on the "Office Bearers" link and scroll down. I believe that putting a picture of the Triangle and Circle on this page would add alot of weight to Tydeman's claim that the name of god is on the circle and the triangle contains descriptive words, since the word on the circle is clearly Jehovah and on the triangle is 3 seperate words Jah, Bul, and On.

Copyright is not an issue since the image would fall under fair use as long as it is used only in this article, and to reinforce Tydeman's claims.

Comments? Seraphim 06:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Only with a very strong health warning that its' use is unsubstantiated. Let me put it this way, I am a Royal Arch Mason and have never seen that formation in any Chapter I have visited.ALR 08:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It's use is substantiated, in tydeman's address he explicitly discusses the triangle and the circle, and that some masons do use it. The actual title of his address is "THE WORDS ON THE TRIANGLE - AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW". I think a high ranking mason writing a long letter about "the words on the triangle" shows that it's use is substantiated. You actually removed my little disclaimer about how different lodges have different secrets. I forgot to re-add it earlier so I will do so now. Seraphim 09:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Appendant order ranks

There is a significant cultural difference between the US use of the degree attained in appendant bodies, and the usage in the UK. Whereas in the US many Masons use their rank attained in the Scottish Rite, and do not discriminate between that an craft Masonry, in the UK Masons rarely allude to their membership attainments in appendant orders. As a Mason Tydeman is a Grand Officer, the highest degree he has attained in that sense is that of a Master Mason. The example cited is in addressed to Supreme Grand Royal Arch Chapter, within which he is a Companion and as such his words are as a Royal Arch Mason. His membership of the Antient and Accepted Rite (note that it is not called Scottish Rite in England) has no relevance to his Royal Arch position as they are different bodies, governed from different offices. If you wish to cite his A&AR membership then please also research his membership of other orders and cite them all.ALR 16:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not supposed to cross over here either, but it tends to if an AASR officer becomes a GL officer or vice-versa (and even then, it's not "official", or if an AASR officer (such as the SGC) is visiting a lodge for purposes of talking about AASR. Most 33rds don't even wear their rings to Lodge, only to official AASR functions. Some people just forget about the level at times, or perhaps they think that adding the 32 will impress the uninitiated. Who knows? Anyhow, it's not so much "cultural" as personal. I would be surprised if Tydeman wasn't a PPGHP+ at this point, though. MSJapan 19:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And things don't cross over the other way either... While I am a Past Master of my blue Lodge, and thus called "Worshipful Brother" there... in the appendant bodies I am simply a plain old "Companion". I leave the Past Masters jewel at home when going to Chapter, and the Chapter pin off my lapel when going to lodge. Blueboar 20:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference with England, we wear our RA Jewel in craft but don't wear PMs jewel in Chapter. But in Scotland I can't wear the chapter jewel in craft, but can wear my PMs Jewel when we work the Mark in a craft lodge.ALR 20:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

He's got Grand Rank in most orders, I can't remember what he is in SGRAC and don't have a current year book to check anyway. He was Sov Grand Commander A&AR in 2002, I don't have the resources to check as I'm not in A&AR myself yet (next month to the 18th). My allusion to cultural was that it seems to be referred to frequently, at least online in sof, the various fora etcALR 20:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

So I should say Master Mason instead of 33rd degree? Seraphim 20:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

His title really depends on the context in which he was addressing the Grand Chapter. However, you definitely should not say 33rd degree. However, Master Mason does not really work either... as he probably was not addressing them as a Master Mason. The point is that the degree rank is irrelevant in this context. If you were to list anything, I would say list his office in Grand Chapter at the time he addressed them.

This may be a good time to explain the difference between rank, office and title. Your rank is your degree. While there no "higher rank than Master Mason", Masons who belong to York or Scottish Rite do use their York or Scottish rite rank when in a York or Scottish Rite context. Thus, within the York Rite alone someone might be Royal Arch Companion, AND a Knight of Malta (if he has not yet finished the Knights Templar degrees). In addition he might be a 32nd degree in the ASSR (but not nessessarily a 20th degree). None apply or are used in other bodies.

Office refers to what office you hold or once held. One might be the Junior Steward in Lodge, have no office in Chapter, and be a Past Grand Commander in the Commandry (Knights Templar). None give you more status when outside of that particular group.

Title is how one is called. The standard is "Brother" for Lodge, "Companion" for Chapter, "Sir Knight" for Commandry (I am not sure what titles Scottish Rite uses). Masters of Lodges and Past Masters titled "Worshipful Brother", and a current or Past Grand Lodge officer is usually titled "Right Worshipful Brother". Grand Masters and Past Grand Masters are either Right Worshipful Brother or Most Worshipful Brother depending on the jurisdiction. (note: Just to confuse you, in some jurisdictions the "Right" and "Most" only is used by the current Grand Office holder... a Past office holder goes back to being Brother or Worshipful Brother when done with office.)

So, getting back to Tydeman ... don't list his Rank at all, give the Office he was holding at the time of his address (in context) and since you are not addressing him, don't give a Title. Got it? Blueboar 21:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Just listing the position he holds in UGLE doesn't make it clear to the uninformed reader that he is a high ranking mason, which should be made clear in the article. Seraphim 21:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually you mean a Royal Arch Mason holding senior office ;) ALR 22:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever works :p the word "Mason" has to be in there somewhere that's all. Seraphim 22:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Seraphim, I'm confused your phrase "high ranking Mason". It sounds like you have fallen into the trap of thinking that the more degrees you have taken, the "higher" or more important you are in Masonry. The fact that Tydeman may be 33rd degree, or a Royal Arch Mason is irrelevant. It does not make what he says worth listening to. His standing as a Theologian and Masonic Scholar might. When a Mason reads something like Tydeman's statement, he if far more impressed by his being Grand Chaplain than by his being a 33rd degree or a Royal Arch Mason. Anyone can sit through degrees, but only qualified individuals can be Grand Chaplain. I know that may not be the impression that non-Masons have, but it is true. So, if you need to puff up his credentials for the uninformed reader, you should stress his office or better yet his non-Masonic credentials. Blueboar 02:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously ranking is the wrong word for me to be using. For NPOV purposes his ties to masonry need to be clearly demonstrated, most readers will not understand that he is a mason when they read "Royal Arch Companion who currently holds a senior position in Supreme Grand Royal Arch Chapter in England". This page is to educate people who know nothing about the topic, and people coming here problary don't know what UGLE is, or what a "royal arch companion" is. I'm trying to figure out how to puff up his office but don't know how to get the fact that he is a freemason accross to the average leader. Also his masonic credentials are very important to include since in his address he's speaking as a freemason to other freemasons, he's not speaking as a hebrew scholar/theologian, that's just a side benefit. If you read his address you realize very quickly that he is a freemason, and that he is a man of faith, not that he is a scholar or theologian. Seraphim 02:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So don't engage in Puffery... If you need to explain his offices to the uninformed reader, do so in simple language. If you need to explain Royal Arch, point the reader to York Rite. But my point is that his masonic credentials are the offices he has held and his standing as a scholar, not what degrees he may have taken. Besides, I would think that saying he was "Grand Whatever of the United Grand Lodge of England" would spell it out for the uninformed, and be impressive enough as puffery. Blueboar 04:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok so how do I do it then? Where do I add in clear wording that he is a mason. Uninformed people are not going to understand when reading the wording "Grand Whatever of the United Grand Lodge of England" that he is a mason. If I add that he's a Master mason it's removed, if I add his 33rd degree mason stature that's removed, if I add that he is simply a mason that gets removed. It needs to be obvious for the uneducated reader that he is a Mason. The uneducated reader is not going to understand what UGLE is, or a rank in UGLE. So what wording do you guys suggest we add? Seraphim 06:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

For the purposes of the discussion he was/ is a Royal Arch Companion, Grand Superintendent of the Province of Sussex at the time. If you look at http://www.grandchapter.org.uk/sgc/ra-regulations-update2-141205.pdf Paragraph 2, you'll see how high up the food chain that is. There is no article on Supreme Grand Chapter, and I don't intend on writing one at this time. The most appropriate (least inappropriate) link is probably to York Rite which still needs work to make clear that the blobbing up of a number of orders is a US contrivance. The uneducated reader needs cross referred to other articles, to avoid huge levels of duplicaiton.ALR 08:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok just made a change. Added in "(Companion is the title given to Masons belonging to a chapter)" after "Royal Arch Companion". I'm sure that's going to turn out to be wrong even though that's what I gathered from BlueBoar's post so change it to whatever it's suppossed to be. All i'm trying to do is make it obvious to the uneducated reader that the source material was written by a mason. If they come to this page and just see titles thrown around everywhere they will have no idea what the guy's position or relevance to the material is, the word mason is very clear and shows his affiliation clearly. I know you guys think it it redundant since it's impossible to be a Royal Arch Companion that isn't a mason, and that it's simply re-stating what has already been said, but this article and the other articles on wikipedia aren't meant to be read by people that already know the subject matter, it's suppossed to be read by people that want to be educated on a topic, and if Tydeman's masonic relation is not made perfectly clear to that reader they will assume that he is an unbiased source since he is a historian, however the address he made is not an unbiased source, it's a speech he made to other masons educating them about the new history of the word he came up with. Seraphim 08:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Not a new history, but an etymology, which leads us back to the debate about whether this is a valid article or not. It reads to me like an etymology on steroids at the moment.ALR 08:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"limited use" of the word

According to tydeman's address the word was in widespread use. He's speaking to UGLE masons and says "I am sure that when our ritual was revised in 1836 it all made perfectly good sense to those who revised it. Whether it still makes sense today is a matter of opinion, for there are so many "differences" that the situation has become absurd.". You can clearly see that the differences all popped up after the 1836 revision that included the Jahbulon as being the name of 3 gods. He is adressing all the UGLE Grand Officers and Secretaries, not just one small jurisdiction. Seraphim 22:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that according to Tydeman the triangle is shown at the center of every chapter. "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" that is proof that it isn't a word that was in limited use in only one jurisdiction, and was still in use in 1985. Seraphim 22:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

In England, maybe. I've seen a few Chapter rooms, and haven't seen that particular design at all. So, basically, you do have just one jurisdiction (Grand Chapter of England), and it is entirely possible that post-1985, something changed, given the tone of Tydeman's address. Therefore, there's still no proof outside of what we already have said to show that what was said was wrong.

Also, Grand Officer or not, you need to consider audience. When Tydeman speaks to a group of Masons in England, and says "Freemasonry" he implicitly means "in England", because he's not qualified to speak about any other jurisdiction apart from the one he is a part of, and the same with HRA Chapter - he is referring to HRA Chapter in England, not anywhere else. What he is saying simply does not apply anywhere else, and if you say otherwise, you're violating the basic principle that no one person speaks for all of Freemasonry.

If you instead realize that Tydeman does not speak for all Freemasonry (or Chapters, for that matter), which is a true statement, there is no way your statement is correct. MSJapan 01:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So your using the word "jurisdiction" to apply to all of the UGLE lodges?(the address was in the "United Grand Lodge’s" letter) I think we need a better word. When I read jurisdiction it implies that it's a small subset. Same with "limited use" limited means small, all of england I would not consider small. Also he makes it clear that it was still in use in 1985. A source is still needed to show that it is no longer in use. Seraphim 03:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

UGLE is a small subset of all of Masonry. It is one jursidiction out of hundreds - List of Masonic Grand Lodges. Each of those Grand Lodges listed there is what we refer to when we say jurisdiction.--Vidkun 03:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

We need a better wording then "jurisdiction" then, because obviously it means something more when it's used in the context of Freemasonry which uneducated readers will be confused by. UGLE is the oldest grand lodge in freemasonry, mabey change it to say that it was used in lodges in the jurisdiction led by UGLE. When I see jurisdiction I think 1 small area. Adding the word "lodges" shows that it's used in more then that 1 small area. Also since UGLE lodges are the only regular freemasons in england, can't we change "one jurisdiction" to all regular lodges in England? Seraphim 03:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Size has nothing to do with it. A jurisdiction is a jurisdiction. The Grand Lodge of India is also one jurisdiction, equal to UGLE even though it has jurisdiction over a far larger area. Also, in the context of "Jahbulon" I think it would be incorrect to say "Lodges under the jurisdiction of UGLE" or "all regular Lodges in England" or some such... UGLE really has nothing to do with Royal Arch (that falls under the Grand Chapter of England, not the United Grand Lodge of England). Blueboar 04:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

As a note, one definition of jurisdiction is "the territorial range of authority or control", and as such, has no bearing on size whatsoever. Furthermore, jurisdiction is the proper term used in all cases, so to change it would be incorrect. MSJapan 04:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I know what jurisdiction means. The problem is in the article saying "only one jurisdiction" makes it look to the uninformed reader that it was only used in one small area, not all regular freemasons in england. I have no problem leaving the word Jurisdiction in there, we just have to explain the size of UGLE better. Seraphim 06:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again, Royal Arch is not "all regular Freemasons", except in England (and I may be slightly incorrect here, as the particular rule is a bit vague; ALR knows better than I would about that). Everywhere else, Royal Arch is those Masons who elect to go beyond the initial Craft degrees, and choose York Rite as opposed to (or along with) AA(S)R. Furthermore, as stated, in England, RAC is independent in every aspect from UGLE (RAC is also independent of every GL it coexists with); it just so happens that many of the same people are involved. So it is a small subset (if that is your argument), and therefore the usage is entirely correct. In any case, no matter how large it is, it is still only one jurisdiction. MSJapan 06:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok for like the 5th time, I know it's only one jurisdiction. The problem is that when most people read this article they will not understand what Jurisdiction means. It is a small subset of freemasonry as a whole, but it's more then a single lodge/small group of lodges, which is what most people will assume when they read that word. I have no problem with using the word jurisdiction, I think we should add something like "lodges under the jurisdiction of _______" to get the meaning accross better. Seraphim 06:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This applies to Supreme Grand Chapter, http://www.grandchapter.org.uk/, which is a different organisation to UGLE. A member of the Royal Arch is referred to as a Companion, so the applicability is to Royal Arch Chapters under SGC, which is the Jurisdiction concerned. We don't tend to use Jurisdiction much in the UK, it's another US'ism. What you're demonstrating is that the article needs to be read in conjunction with others to fully elaborate on the depth.ALR 08:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The address was printed in a UGLE letter. I agree that it's obviously applying to royal arch chapters, since in duncan's jahbulon is only mentioned in the royal arch section. However what i'm trying to say is, the wording in the article as it is right now downplays how widespread the usage of the word was. Saying "only" makes it seem to the uneducated reader that it was some little fringe group using the word, which is obviously not the case. I think we should change the unreferenced lines "in one jurisdiction" and "which was applicable only in that jurisdiction" lines to say that it was used by Royal Arch masons in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Grand Chapter, since that is verifiable. Seraphim 08:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to use that language, the correct usage would be "used by Royal Arch Masons under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Grand Chapter of England." Blueboar 15:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The source at the link is an annex to a Church of England report which identifies the content as a letter from UGLE based on a talk by Tydeman to Supreme Grand Chapter. The content of that talk also highlights that many different rituals are in use which means that the actual usage of the word is unclear based on a single source.ALR 08:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced Comments in the article

Are you guys looking for references for them?

"and is applicable only in that jurisdiction"

"and now has been discarded"

"who was at that time Grand Superintendent of the Province of Sussex, a senior position in Supreme Grand Royal Arch Chapter in England"

"and is also a Theologian and Hebrew Scholar"

"an example of an historical ritual book used in one Masonic jurisdiction"

"of the United States at one time"

Whoever added the lines needs to find a reference for them. Seraphim 23:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking for the "and is also a Theologian and Hebrew Scholar" line but the searches "Richard Tydeman +"theologian"" and "Richard Tydeman +"hebrew scholar"" are coming up with nothing on google. Nor am I finding anything for ""Richard Tydeman" "Grand Superintendent of the Province of Sussex"" Seraphim 00:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the top of the letter that you're referencing. his title is there.ALR 08:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

This article is nothing more than etymology on steriods. we're puttering about on the margins of proving whse etymology has greater validity, but it's merely etymology so doesn't justify an encyclopaedic entry.ALR 08:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Etymology???? I've never seen a 6 paragraph long 500 word etymology. I also didn't realize that explaining contraversy around a word qualified as etymology. Infact i'd argue that it is impossible to create an etymology for this word since nobody knows it's true history. Obviously I need to add more about the contraversy surrounding the word in the article. I cannot even comprehend how you feel that this is a dictionary entry in it's current state. Seraphim 10:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If you can't "create an etymology for this word", how could you possibly create an article for it?!?!?!? Not to mention that "nobody knows it's true history"... Oh BTW way we do know it's true history: 1 person wrote it donw a long time ago; a bunch of other critics of Freemasonry ran with it, & thus it is here today. Period. Grye 10:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That's funny, since 1/2 of the article claims that that origin is wrong. How does not knowing the exact origin of the word make it so we can't write an article about it???? The fact that we don't know the origin of the word, doesn't mean we can't write and article about the contraversy surrounding the word. Seraphim 10:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Etymology on steriods. Still having some difficulty with WP:AGF. It would be useful if you actually did some meaningful contribution which would probably encourage me towards assuming good faith rather than forcing me to assume it because to do otherwise would lead to an inflamatory escalation.ALR 11:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

We do indeed know this word's true history... it was made up out of whole cloth by a bunch of Masons in England, some time in the late 1600s or early 1700s. If you go with the Etymology in Duncan's then they took three sylables they thought represented the name of God in three archaic languages, strung them together and created a word out of them. If you believe Tydeman, they were a bit more scholarly in their work and used hebrew roots to do create a word (personlally I believe Tydeman, as the kind of men who joined Masonry at that time were very educated, and higher education at that time involved studying greek, latin and hebrew. It is a hold over from the days when you only went to university if you were planning on joining the clergy). In any case, they made it up.

As to this being a dictionary entry... well, no, I don't think it is just that anymore. Your first section does indeed discuss a conrtoversy... some Christian groups think that this is the name of some sort of Masonic God, and thus accuse Masonry of being a religion. Unfortunately, you fully discuss that controversy in the first paragraph. That does not make for much of an article so, to pad it out, you have added a second "controversy"... the etymological dispute as to the word's roots. The problem is that, whether the roots stem from three ancient languages or just one, this "dispute" is really about a nonsense word that was invented out of whole cloth. A word that may have been used by a very small sub-set of Freemasons (the vast majority of Freemasons have never taken the Royal Arch degree). In short, it is all much ado about nothing. Blueboar 13:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

All good points, however I don't consider the tydeman stuff to be "padding" at all. The religious arguments that JAHBULON is a masonic god or the true name of god are all based on the idea that it's a conglomeration of Yahweh Baal and Osiris. I consider tydeman's address to be a masonic responce to the allogations that jahbulon is a masonic god, obviously it's not irrelevant. Also as was pointed out on the AFD page, if it really was "much ado about nothing" we wouldn't be editing this page so heavially :p Seraphim 14:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well... there are not many of "us" editing the page (mostly it's just you, the rest of us were happy with a blank page) But that is besides the point. And no, the religious arguments of the various anti-masonic Christian groups are all based on the fact that one text, many years ago, (ie Duncan's) stated that this word is used by Masons as the "Name of God". If Duncan had never included those three words, there would be no "controversy". The etymology is simply gravy to "prove" that this is what Masons believe. Tydeman's etymology is no better. In fact it does nothing to counter the allegations because it repeats the false claim that the word is the Name of God... only in Tydeman's thesis it would be the Judeo-christian God and not Baal or something. To me, Tydeman is just as wrong as Duncan or those who cite that work, and his statement is indeed irrelevent since the true counter to the allogations is the fact that most Masons have never even heard of this word, much less believe it is the name of God. Blueboar 16:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

First off, i'm not the one that created this page, nor was I involved in the AFD that decided against deleting the page. I came here after someone mentioned this page in the Freemasonry FARC discussion and saw that Grye decided to delete the article against the AFD results, saying that "the rest of us" are happy with a blank page is incorrect. The fact that all of the contravercy is based off of Duncans in no way lessens the article. The contravercy exists, the fact that it all stems from one source doesn't diminish that fact at all. If you had bothered to read the article, or tydeman's address you would not have incorrectly stated that Tydeman "repeats the false claim that the word is the Name of God" he does no such thing. Also how is saying that very few masons have even heard of the word a counter at all? The fact is a group of masons did use the word jahbulon in their ritual, this is confirmed. The word got leaked and has become a popular target for religious groups attacking freemasonry, that is a fact. I don't understand how pretending the word doesn't exist is considered a rebuttal. Seraphim 17:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting the word doesn't or didn't exist, however whether it is sufficiently notable to be anything more than a Wiktionary entry is the point of debate. My view is that it is little more than an conflict over etymology, you disagree and keep vandalising any edit I make to try and improve the readibility of this entry. One point I would make that if this word was of significance in Royal Arch Masonry, as a Royal Arch Mason I wouldn't be able to contribute to the article. Given that I am attempting to improve the article, despite my misgivings about it's suitability, it is clearly not included in any obligations that I have taken. Catch 22.ALR 21:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Who says anything about pretending the word doesn't exist... given Duncan and Tydeman, I am sure it does (or at least did). What I am saying is that it is only used by a very small sub-set in Freemasonry. Only those who take the Royal Arch degree (and possibly only those who take it in England) have come into contact with this word. But that does not stop these religious groups from making the claim that ALL Masons, EVERYWHERE, worship a Masonic God named Jahbulon. That is why the responce that most Masons have never heard of the word is apt. If you pick a Mason at random and mention the word, he would probably not even know what you are talking about. 99 out of 100 Masons have never come into contact with it. Blueboar 19:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That's the exact reason I have the bit at the bottom of the section about what is true at one lodge is not automatically true at another lodge. Saying that mabey 1% of masons has come into contact with the word isn't a rebuttal, that would be considered downplaying the situation. A rebuttal is when you attempt to show that the core part of their argument is untrue, which is what Tydeman does. Seraphim 20:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sections

Jahbulon and Religion:

Para 1 needs to make clear the internal inconsistency in the criticisms by some Christian groups; the word is both three different names of god, and the True name of god?

The response from UGLE is inappropriate since the word does not apply to UGLE but Supreme Grand Chapter, a different organisation.

The paragraph about Freemasonry not being a single organisation is inappropriate and should be removed.

Tydemans etymology gets a disproportionate amount of coverage in the article, 3 paragraphs, compared to the two different and inconsistent etymologies from a single organisation in one paragraph.

Examples in literature:

I don't believe this adds value to the article. There is one distinct instance of the word in literature with the others deriving their authority from that. Repeated mentioning from the same source does not provide authority. Propose this section is deleted in it's entirety. Duncans is cited as a source, that should be enough. It can be mentioned that a number of documents duplicate that information.

ALR 08:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that the word is a compound made up of the names of 3 gods, and that the word is the true name of god is not an inconsistancy. The UGLE responce is appropriate because it was made in responce to the arguments that freemasonry is a religion. The paragraph about freemasonry not being a single organization is relevant because it shows that not all freemasons use the word Jahbulon. I agree that Tydeman's adress is disproportionate in the article, but all that information is good information, we should boost up the rest of the article around it not cut good information out of the article. You seem to be complaining that the page is an etymology, but then if any other information is added to the page addressing the issues around the word you call it irrelevant, that is not how this page is going to work. If you want to create a dictionary article on jahbulon go work on it over at wikitionary, i'm not going to sit here as you remove every piece of information added to make the page more then a simple attempt at creating a defination, and then claim the article should be deleted because it is simply a dictionary article. This is not going to work out that way, that goes against everything wikipedia stands for.

The examples in literature show that the word is notable, and shows how the word is interperted in different ways by different people. The fact that all the sources draw from the same original source has no bearing on the article at all. Every bit of research done has it's roots in another source, everyone who writes an article about DNA being a Double-Helix uses information from Watson and Crick but that doesn't mean that the new writings are non-notable. The section stays untill the article gets too long. Seraphim 10:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Um... what, exactly, are you calling literature ? Because that'll tell us a lot. Grye 10:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=literature "1. The body of written works of a language, period, or culture." Seraphim 10:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah... thus literature includes fiction. So if Harry Potter was to exclaim "Jahbulon" to turn Dumbledore into a newt, it would be a valid example of the word in literature. Got it. Blueboar 14:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes it would... that's why I chose the word literature because it doesn't make any assertations about the validity of the source material. I wasn't aware that you could use the word any other way, example masonic literature is a subset of literature that deals with masons. Seraphim 14:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a very debatable subject. By Seraphim's definition, dictionaries, comic books, and Sports Illustrated are all literature, and I don't think that's what we're getting at for purposes of this article. Methinks we need a better definition that what dictionary.com provides. MSJapan 15:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

They are literature... I can't believe you guys are actually arguing that we should change the defination of the word literature. Dictionaries, comic books, and Sports Illustrated are indeed literature. Our job is to create an encyclopedia article, not to re-define common english words. Seraphim 17:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is the definition of literature, but the use of non-accademic (or at least non-scholarly) literature. For example, a fiction novel is not really the best source for a topic such as this, as the author can say anything without being at all scholarly. I could write a novel and have my main character say that Mickey Mouse's first spoken word was Jahbulon, and it would be a use of the word in literature... but it would not be an accurate fact, nor would it be a very good citation for an encyclopedia. Blueboar 18:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is my reasoning for keeping the word literature. If it gets changed to "academic literature" then every single quote in there will eventually be deleted by one of the editors that feel this page should not exist, they will argue that due to the fact that their comments are based on Duncan's and no other information was avaliable to them, anything they say outside of what was contained in duncan's is ficticious, and then what is left they will delete because it will be a replication of what duncan's says, and it will eventually end up turning into a 100kb+ discussion on the talk page, with a ton of reverts on the article and nothing will get accomplished ever. Every single one of the books on the list are notable and should be included in the article. The previous title of the section was "anti-masonic literature" however when I added the duncan's quotes I removed "Anti-Masonic" since duncans is not anti masonic literature, but not having the actual quotes from duncan's in there would be a disservice to the article. If someone decides to make a book where their main character's first spoken word is jahublon obviously it is not relevant to this discussion and should be removed. Seraphim 19:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that anti-masonic literature was a wholly inappropriate title for the section, given that the latter citations are for pseudosciense publications that merely use the association of the word with Masonry to strengthen their own arguments, according to reviews I've now seen for both online. I have neither the time nor inclination to read them from what I've seen so-far. The notability of the citations in the context of this debate is very questionable, Knight I can understand but it needs a health warning about its clear bias. In the same way that you feel the need to add extranious detail about other things to reinforce your POV the legitimacy of Knight needs to be drawn to the readers attention. The point about what constitutes reliable literature is apposite. I still don't think the list adds any value to the article except obfuscate its weak legitimacy.ALR 21:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to make it very clear, I have no POV on this material. My "POV" is that censorship of information is never acceptable. I'm not some crazy religious nut that is out to get all freemasons. Now as to the books, the only book that i'd have no problem wiht removing is Black Athena. That's the only one that doesn't really add anything to the article. Duncan's is a given, Secret Societies ... is the first book to mention Jahbulon after Duncan's and it shows how a little bit of leaked information gets embelished the stuff about angels quaking with fear is inserted by Heckethorn with no sourcing, that is interesting to me. Obviously The Brotherhood should be included, black athena doesn't really add anything, It's just in there cause it's a notable book. Lure and Eden show that people still write about the word, and contain information that obviously did not come from duncan's. Seraphim 01:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I would also question the use of Bernal's Black Athena... first, the book has nothing to do with Freemasonry. It is about how western civilization is derived from African roots. The mention of Jahbulon is only in passing. Also, as the wikipedia article on Black Athena itself states: "Many critics are appalled by what they consider to be Bernal's ... unsystematic and linguistically incompetent handling of etymologies." Hardly a good source. The others are not much better. I suspect that whoever compiled this list (was it Basil? I can't remember) just did a search for the word on Google or something and picked the first four books he came across without checking to see if there was any scholarship involved. Blueboar 21:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll remove Black Athena. Seraphim 01:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

My edits this evening

Nothing of substance has been removed to try to avoid any more vandalism and improve the article despite it's lack of validity. the disclaimer about Freemasonry was in the wrong place, if anything it should be in the opening paragraph although I don't think it's required. If there is anything there it needs to be written in a clear, brief manner rather than appearing as a bit of a plea. I'm also going to remove UGLEs stance since I don't think it's appropriate. UGLEs position is stated in the Freemasonry page.ALR 21:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

As an addendum. I don't think the section on Catholicism is appropriate, it comes across as padding to obfuscate the weakness of the article. If Jahbulon is not objected to by the Catholic hierarchy then it should be removed, if it is then reference that objection. As it stands the mention of Catholicism even draws attention to the fact it's inappropriate by saying 'Catholicism objects to FM, but it doesnt actually object to the subject of the article', there is a requirement for the article to be internally consistent.ALR 23:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The edits were all pretty good, thanks. The only thing was that there is nothing "Alleged" about the word's existance. Tydeman's address makes it pretty clear that the word was still in use in 1985. Also the section about catholisism I feel is quite appropriate, it notes that the vatican had issues with freemasonry before the leak, and that it's not the vatican but some christian ministries that have latched onto the word. Also UGLE's stance is appropriate because an opposing viewpoint is needed. It's not NPOV to have a paragraph that states that freemasonry is a religion and not have anything saying that it isn't. Seraphim 00:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

wrt the Catholic position I disagree and will remove the reference. Attempting to bolster the argument by the use of an unrelated aspect is intellectually fraudulent. If you can find a citation that supports the argument feel free to put it in, but using weasel words to include it to support your POV despite it's lack of relavence is not useful.ALR 20:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please explain what Weasel words or POV i'm trying to push? I'm trying to include both sides of the argument. It's obvious just from a google search that some catholic groups use "jahbulon" as evidence on their anti-masonic quest by saying that it's the name of the god that freemasons worship and therefore freemasonry(as a whole) is a religion, when including that information the counter-argument is that freemasonry is not a religion, which is what the UGLE statement that freemasonry is not a religion counters. Please explain what you feel my POV is? I would be really interested in what agenda you feel i'm trying to push, especially when i'm fighting to keep information from both sides in. My agenda, is to make sure all the relevant information is included and treated fairly, that is all. Seraphim 03:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You eem to be fighting to keep in irrelevant information regardless of either it's academic validity or appropriateness to the topic. The UGLE position is not relevant as the word is asserted to be used in Royal Arch Masonry. UGLE does not preside over the Royal Arch so their position does not apply. You are using extracts from books merely because the word appears, not discussing the context within which the word may appear. ALR 23:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The ugle position is relevant because alot of the places that make the accusations make them about freemasonry as a whole, not just royal arch masons. Seraphim 01:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

However I've already sought to make clear in the article that UGLE has no authority over the Royal Arch, so the position of UGLE is not relevant to the debate. Keeping it in only continues to obfuscate the point that there is no content of value in this article.ALR 15:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Relationship between Craft and Royal Arch

For Seraphim mainly

There is significant subtlety in the relationship between Craft Freemasonry, that which every Mason belongs to, and the various appendant bodies. Royal Arch is an appendant body, a Mason may elect to join it, different chapters have different approaches, some are invitation only, some may allow a potential candidate to show an interest, some may require one to ask to join. In the Aims and Relations of the Craft, a document which UGLE, Grand Lodge of Scotland and Grand Lodge of Ireland all subscribe to it says:

The Grand Lodge of Englad is a Sovreign and Independent body practicing Freemasonry only within the three Degrees and only within the limits defined in its Constitution as 'Pur Antient Masonry'. It does not recognise or admit the existence of any superior Masonic authority, however styled.

That should make clear that Royal Arch is not the same as Freemasonry.ALR 22:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Seraphim 00:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ellis and Medway

Now that we've finally gotten to reliability of sources:

Ellis, as shown by his site here, has a revisionist view of history, so the reliability of his book is debatable (Jesus: The Last Pharaoh?). He clearly wants to push Egypt as the source of all civilization and everything else. Objective sources show otherwise, of course.

Medway: From here Gareth J. Medway, "Lure of the Sinister: The Unnatural History of Satanism," New York University Press, (2001) This is debunks the outlandish accusations of abuse made against Satanists, Pagans and followers of other minority religions. The book discusses the history of SRA from the 19th century to the present day." - So where is the relevance to Freemasonry here? MSJapan 03:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. The content of the books is irrelevant. It's just showing that the word is used in them. Seraphim 03:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's very relevant - the crux of the article is that Jahbulon is a notable Royal Arch word. However, three of the books it is used in have nothing to do with either Royal Arch or Freemasonry at all. That's really very damaging to the initial argument, because it's now a Satanist word or a revisionist history word, so maybe it's not a Royal Arch word after all. I also don't believe that an article on the word "the" should include a list of places where the word "the" is used - that's not really beneficial, encyclopedically speaking. Also, literature isn't usually non-fiction (look in the bookstore, or better yet, see how Amazon categorizes these books here and how and what they call "literature"), so I really think this needs to be reevaluated as to its suitability. As it stands, it simply isn't. MSJapan 03:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The only one that doesn't mention the masons in the quoted section is "Lure of the Sinister" if you want to remove that one i'll have no problem with it. The other quotes all clearly show the author ties the word jahbulon to masonry, which makes them relevant. Also I cannot understand why you insist on trying to re-define the word literature. Anyone who has taken any lit classes knows that it is both fiction and non-fiction. Heck in English Lit I don't think we read any non-fiction books. The word literature does not only refer to non-fiction books, there is no valid argument that can debate that, it's simply the defination of the word. Seraphim 03:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I would think that not reading non-fiction in a Lit class would be a very good way to ascertain what literature is considered to be, and what it is not. MSJapan 04:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Literature is simply written work. That is the defination, that is what students are taught in school, it's not an arguable point. If you want to change the defination of the word go argue it on wiktionary since they agree with me. (1. the body of written work 2. the collected stories of a nation, people group or culture) This is a silly argument and it's pointless, your arguing that the dictionary is incorrect. Seraphim 04:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'd disagree with the point about Literature. Any academic work from first degree (Bachelors in the UK) and beyond would require a Literature review from the corpus of work written on the topic. From my perspective I originally trained as a Physicist at first degree, then as an Electronic Engineer and now in the business field at Masters level.ALR 23:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You can disagree all you want, however you cannot change the meaning of a word, you should go petition the Oxford Dictionary if you want to do that. Seraphim 01:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I was disagreeing with MSJ, read the words, not what you'd like to think the words say.ALR 02:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were just trying to push the thread over, sorry. Seraphim 05:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, you say above you want "relevant information treated fairly", and yet content is irrelevant? You have shown once again an inability to distinguish reliable sources from unreliable ones, or perhaps an inability to make a decision on your position on the topic. Frankly, this comes down to the fact that you have an idea, and you will not budge on that idea no matter how much counter-evidence is shown to you, because you've already convinced yourself that you're right and everyone else is wrong, except in your case, "right" and "wrong" seem to be able to mold themselves to the situation. MSJapan 03:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The content of those books are with the exception of Duncan's are not sutable for wikipedia. They are all agenda pushing or information that will not hold up to rigerous fact checking, it is for that reason that the information is only presented as "examples of jahbulon in literature" no comment on the context of the books are made. You seem to be under the false impression that dubious sources cannot be used on wikipedia. That is simply not correct. If that was correct we wouldn't be allowed to quote the bible, or explain in the article on Jesus that Christians believe that he was resurrected since any academic would obviously argue that it's impossible for someone to return from death. If a source is dubious inorder to use that source you simply have to make sure that the information in the source is not asserted by the article to be true. From WP:RS "An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion." it doesn't matter the content of what the person says if you are only posting that the person said it. Seraphim 03:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The content doesn't matter if you qualify the statement, and you do not. To present unqualified opinion is the same as presenting fact - you say nothing about the validity of the works in the list, thus according them the status of factual and uncontested works that can be taken as fact. All that aside, if they're not suitable for Wikipedia, then why even put them in the article at all? If they can't be used to prove anything reliably, what good are they to an encyclopedia article? MSJapan 04:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

MSJ has a very good point here. As they are presented, the "literature" section reads more like a bunch of factual footnotes, to back up the argument that this word means God to Masons. If this is the intent, then you really do need more accademically reputable examples ... or at least make it clear in the article that the authors of the examples have an extremely POV points to make and are recycling Duncan to "prove" their POV. Blueboar 04:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The section is titled "examples of jahbulon in literature" there is NOTHING in that section that talks about the content of the books, the only one that is actually even used in the article is Duncan's. If the statements were being used to make a point then yes the statements would be qualified and the content of them discussed, however they are only included in the article to show that the word is notable. The major reason for keeping the article in the AFD request was that "Being referred to in Black Athena by Martin Bernal suggests notability, even if that work is mostly bunk. ". That section proves the word's notabiliy, that's the only reason it's included in the article. If you want to post a disclaimer up at the top that some of the referenced works contain contraversial views that would be fine, but posting a rebuttal to each quotation is not appropriate in this article, since the information being presented is in no way being presented as factual, it's simply an "example of jahbulon in literature". Seraphim 04:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You know, I'd never heard of Bernal before this, and you're basing notability on one person's opinion, the validity of which you can't ascertain. This is not a new book, this review dates from 1989. This is, also, an isolated quote from a three volume set. Do you know that it is in there, or are you assuming AGF, and assuming notoriety, and assuming a lot of things without really applying thought to the matter? MSJapan 04:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It is in there. When I did the re-write I confirmed every single one. Also the fact that you have never heard of Bernal is no reason to claim it should be removed. Also if you actually had read the article this page is about instead of assuming the contents of it, you would have seen that I removed black athena a few days ago because it simply repeated duncan's claims. I also just did more research on the Lure of the Sinister book, and it seems that Jahbulon is being used with regard to the masons. The book is claiming that jahbulon is the name of the satanic masonic god, so therefore it is relevant and should remain. Seraphim 04:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Funny, Fortean Times states here that Medway is debunking stories, so it may in fact be a statement he then refutes, so in fact, he would be claiming the opposite, that it is not really the name of a "Satanic Masonic god", and you've taken the quote out of context (which is why content is relevant). MSJapan 05:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious??? The Book is a history of Satanism! Do some research before speaking next time, if you want you can read the book on google books, that's where I found the quote when I was checking it. I don't believe freemasonry is satanistic, that would be rediculious, I don't even believe that heaven/hell exist, if you want to accuse me of having an agenda please back it up with facts, I hardly believe that if I wanted to show that freemasonry is satanistic I would be fighting to include wording that shows that freemasonry is not a religion. Seraphim 05:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I want to remind everyone of why this section got put into the article in the first place: it got added when the article was part of Wiktionary. Wicktionary requires that a word be shown to have existed for many years, and one way to do that is to cite examples of the word appearing in written texts several years apart. They do not care about how the word is used, the context of the citation, or the respectability of the text being cited (I had a big argument with another contributor over there on that)... they only care about it appearing in print. A work of complete fiction such as a novel would have been ok. Thus, whoever added the examples section just needed to find a bunch of examples, without needing to worry about their reliability or accuracy. The standard here at Wikipedia is quite a bit different. Here, citations and source material has to relate directly to the topic, be reliable and somewhat accademic. Seraphim states that she finds these quotes are notable. OK... then she needs to explain why they are notable and what they mean as far as the article's main thesis is concerned. My real problem with the examples section at the moment is how it is presented. It has the appearance of being a citation section, a "see also" that "proves" masons worship a god named Jahbulon. I know that is not Seraphim's intent, but that is how it reads. Again, if these quotes are notable, then further explanation of why they are notable is needed. Blueboar 13:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct, and especially since many of the quotes are out of context - we don't know that Medway is talking about Masonry 'from the quote', and I will bet that Ellis' quote is from a footnote - Jahbulon (with or without the "h") does appear in the Old Testament (Genesis, IIRC), and as Ellis is making a case for the Bible being an Egyptian book (as his site shows), I would assume he's trying to find a so-called "Egyptian" etymology for the words, which does not make it Masonically related at all. Yet this is 'supposedly' from an NPOV. However, last time I checked, NPOV does not mean "uncritical acceptance of every instance of something as equally valid and supportable". Is it really too much to ask that people maybe go and look at these books before insisting that material is relevant?

Also, here's something that may be of use etymologically speaking [1], and scroll down a bit. MSJapan 05:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to state yet again, the quotes are not being portrayed in any way shape or form to be valid. They are only there to show that the contravercy around the word still exists. There is nothing POV about stating "this person claims this", or "this author wrote that". If you can find some other books that talk about jahbulon in a pro-masonic manner go ahead and add them. The real reason I feel for the word to appear in mainly anti-masonic sources is that most masons don't like to adknowledge the word and they pass it off as nonsence. Also before guessing what Medway is talking about I suggest you actually read the book. The section is indeed on claims surrounding freemasonry. It's on page 259 in the chapter called "I'm not paranoid there is a conspiracy". If you don't want to get the book you can still get proof that he is talking about royal arch freemasonry in that quote, go to the amazon page for the book and hit look inside this book. Then go to the index, you can clearly see that freemasonry is discussed in several places in the book, one of which cases is pages 258-261, and royal arch masons are mentioned on pages 259-260, and then Jahbulon is mentioned on pages 259-260. As you can see he is using the word jahbulon to discuss freemasonry specifically the royal arch. If you still don't believe me go read the book because obviously that is the only way you will accept it.

Also the link you gave, he's just saying what tydeman says, if you want to add that page to the article it's fine with me. However make sure you add it in as him claiming stuff. He manages to contradict himself and say some really obscure things (replacing the j with the b gives you babulon...) also I think everyone agrees that they are actual hebrew words. All he's doing is quoting mackey and reproducing Tydeman's statement that it is an honorific. Seraphim 06:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I will point out again that without qualification, those quotes are effectively fact. I don't care what your perception is, or what you think it says, but anybody who sees those quotes just sitting there is going to take them as accepted fact. There is nothing subjective or potential in the quotes to say otherwise - they don't say " Jahbulon 'might be'", or "'I think' Jahbulon is", they say simply "Jahbulon 'is'". That's basic validity right there - "The stop sign is red" vs. "the stop sign might be red". In the first case, I now expect that if i see a stop sign, it's going to be red, and nothing else. In the second, if I see a green stop sign instead, I'm not going ot be too terribly concerned.

And what controversy are we talking about, exactly? It comes down to this - Masons say one thing, anti-Masons say another. Also, you said: "The real reason I feel for the word to appear in mainly anti-masonic sources is that most masons don't like to adknowledge the word and they pass it off as nonsence." So you've already made a decision that that anti-Masonic POV is correct, but you're NPOV editing? NPOV would mean that you would entertain the notion that perhaps it 'is' nonsense, and that perhaps facts are being twisted by a third party to suit an agenda. Same idea: do you believe Jews kill babies and use their blood for bread? People have said it, and it has been disproven, so what's the difference here? The difference is that sources disprove it and you're ignoring them because you've made your mind up already that one side is right.

Now another eample: if I were to say that your house is circular and orange and has a hibiscus tree in it, and you said it wasn't and that I was wrong, by your reasoning, as a non-authoritative source (because I would have no idea of what your house looks like, since I've never seen it), 'I' would be correct, and whatever you said would be wrong because 'you' said it and just didn't want to 'admit' that your house was circular, orange, and had a hibiscus tree in it. Does this type of reasoning sound 'at all' appropriate to you, especially in the interest of producing NPOV encyclopedic material? MSJapan 07:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that without qualification they might come off as being presented as fact. However that's why I added "These quotes are examples of the word "Jahbulon" appearing in various pieces of literature throughout history. Some of the quotes come from authors with a strong anti-masonic bias." to the section. Since we are quoting what an author wrote you don't need to write "he claims" blah since it's in quotes already and you are attribuiting the wording to the author.

You seem to be confused about some of the issues here. It is not simply Masons say one thing, anti-masons say another. If that was the case either you or mackey and tydeman would be anti-masons, since you clearly want this article deleted, and keep insisting the word is nonsense, yet both mackey and tydeman have addressed the word and have taken it very seriously. The facts are simple, Jahbulon is a word that was used by some royal arch masons in england up to atleast 1985, when Duncan published his expose on freemasons one of the sections of the book covered royal arch masons and in it jah bul on was revealed to outsiders. Some religious groups got hold of the word and decided that it is the name of the masonic god even though masons claim that freemasonry is not a religion. Also duncan revealed that it was the name of 3 gods but recently some masons have come up with a different meaning, and claim that the word is a title not a name. Those are all 100% verifiable facts. You seem to believe that my insistance that the word is not a "nonsence" word means that i'm pushing an anti-masonic pov. That is not the case at all. I simply have read enough on the subject from anti-masons and masons that shows that the word is both notable and not-nonsence. What I do not like is people attempting to censor information in any way shape or form. Personally I don't believe in any higher power, so obviously I don't believe that masons are satanistic. I also believe that tydeman has the correct defination since it matches up with the idea that freemasonry is compatable with all religions. Your insistance that I am biased either way is quite silly, since i'm fighting to keep in information on both sides of the argument.

As far as your "house" example goes it's not a valid example at all because it can be easially documented what my house looks like, however in freemasonry that is not the case. When it comes to freemasonry due to the secretive nature and independent cell based structure it is impossible to debunk claims as invalid. If someone wanted to say that freemasons secretly worship the invisible pink unicorn, there would be no way to verify that content either way, therefore both sides must be presented as claims. If lodges allowed just anyone to pop in at any time, and didn't keep any secrets, then it would be very simple to just say that all the claims are 100% incorrect. However the secrecy in this case acts as a double edged sword. However, with that said, if a mason himself confirms the contents of a secret, then you can make factual statements off of his confirmation. For example, when tydeman in his address discusses jahbulon and says that it is at the center of each lodge, since he is one of the privilidged few that have access to that kind of information, him saying it allows us to portray it as fact. Due to the nature of the secrecy you can prove that some of the secrets exist is someone with access to them confirms their existance, however you cannot disprove any claims on what the contents of the un-revealed secrets are, since if someone with access to the secrets claims that X doesn't exist they could just be protecting whatever they are keeping secret.

The only agenda I have on this article is simple. The article should exist. The only people that are insisting that it is not notable and un-encyclopedic are people that voted for it to be deleted both here and on wikitionary. The fact that this word is indeed notable is easy to establish, type it into google, look at the constant editing on this page, look at all of the references, look at all the books it popped up in. If you claim the word is non-notable you obviously don't understand what the meaning of that statement is. Also I find it funny that some people like ALR keep insisting that this article is un-encyclopedic. At first he was calling it a defination, then he moved to etymology, and now he is calling it an etymology on steroids. Yet at the same time, he is trying to remove any information that doesn't directly deal with the history of the word by calling it irrelevant, and therefore is trying to make it back into a dictionary article. Just look at him trying to remove the UGLE ref that freemasonry is not a religion by calling it irrelevant, on none of the christian ministry ref's that I posted do the words "royal arch" even appear, they are making claims that jahbulon is the name of a masonic god, not the name of a masonic god that a certain jurisdiction worships, they are making a blanket statement, therefore it is completly relevant to post UGLE's stance that freemasonry is not a religion, leaving that out would be a large omission. But oh, I forgot, i'm suppossed to be pushing the anti-masonic POV. The word is not nonsence, it is notable, and this is not a dictionary defination. Instead of using this discussion page to improve the article, you have made it very clear that you just want to see it deleted your actual quote was "I suggest we AfD Jahbulon and not even worry about it.", since talk pages are about improving articles I cannot understand why you are even here since you feel the word is nonsence and therefore it would be impossible to post an encyclopedic article about it. All you seem to be doing is taking every possible path that will lead to deletion of substancial amounts of content so the article will eventually be deleted as per your wishes. That will not be happening, the fact that the word is notable is undeniable. Seraphim 10:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You want this to exist. fine. WP policy states clearly that not everything is worthy of an encyclopedic article. You say "Duncan revealed what it was and other people changed it" as your basic reasoning for this - no he didn't. He gave an opinion. The etymology is in a footnote, not in the ritual. Other people who have no idea how etymology works also came up with ideas, and they do not stand up to superficial research. You are taking opinion as fact when it suits you, and fact as opinion when it suits you. You assume equal validity when it is not true, and you still haven't made any reasonable effort to explain why literary examples are of any value. 'You' aren't reading WP policies except when they suit you - not all sources are equally valid or reliable, and you ignore this. People contradict themselves, and you ignore it. Jahbulon's notability is only with evangelical sites and Masonic responsa to them. No one outside fo these groups cares, but it's simply far too easy to out anything you want on the Internet. 45 pages about Jahbulon all have the 'exact same' wording, and they're all "ministry" sites. I'd say that's suspicious in the extreme. So where's your notability again?

The reason that this is edited so much is because the information is wrong or not credible, and you refuse to accept that. My house example is totally valid if it fits, which it does. How are Tydeman and Mackey less authoritative about what Jahbulon is and is not than some person who thinks Masonry in general is anti-Christian and therefore evil and won't go near it with a ten foot pole except to attack it? If I'm taking "every possible path to get the article deleted" don't you think that maybe something is wrong with the article and its basis? Here's a question - do you actually know 'how' to do research, or do you just think you're right because you've got it in your head that you're right? 24.91.163.131 18:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Definitely a notability issue....

So we've gone down two "literary" sources, and of what we have left, almost none are "suitable for Wikipedia". Eden in Egypt is supposed to be "a translation of the Book of Genesis from the original Egyptian" (see Google Book) so it's got nothing to do with Masonry; Knight, an anti-Mason, is stating what he says Masons believe (not that he would know, mind you); we're going to get rid of Medway; Heckethorn really doesn't say anything other than the word is a symbol; and then we have Duncan, from 1866, which is the only authoritative source, although it is severely out of date.

A Google search shows that of the top ten hits for Jahbulon, 6 are anti-Masonic evangelical or plain old anti-Masonic sites, two are for a smugmug and have no actual pictures, and the last two are for this article. The six links all source from the same material, of course, and so, given that we have established that the usage is limited, and that there's no reliable material, what is this page then, but a series of hypotheses and accusations? There's almost no fact on the page - we have a whole section on one twenty year-old speech, and it's not like it was the Gettysburg Address by any stretch of the imagination (I also still maintain it is copyvio).

So precisely what makes this notable or encyclopedic? Because one person believes so? That's very much contrary to what Wikipedia is, and this article is bordering on soapboxing as a result. I have asked this before, and not gotten a satisfactory answer. Circular logic and repetition, maybe, but not a satisfactory answer. Just because a few people used a word in an extremely limited context doesn't make it encyclopedic. So I really would like to know exactly what makes this word so special of attention. I means, if I get all the editors of this article to use the word "flepgnopfarpian", that doesn't make it worthy of an encyclopedia entry. So what is the real reasoning behind all this? MSJapan 04:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Was waiting for this one to come up, since it was one of the reasons for the AFD. As 4 editors on the AFD noted and I will concur with the word is notable (that makes 5 people that believe so). From WP:N "A topic has notability if it is known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact. " The fact that the word has had an impact is quickly seen by just putting it into Google. The word is known outside of a narrow interest group (Freemasons, Conspiracy Theorists, Religious Groups) and is regarded by some to be the name of the Masonic God. Also the very fact that so many people have edited this page and know the content of the page shows it to be notable. A non-notable word wouldn't attract any editors. If you feel so strongly the word is non notable post an RFC, however I strongly believe that the majority of wikipedia editors will agree that the word is notable due to the overabundance of information that shows that the word is indeed notable, as is shown clearly by the AFD discussion the only people that believe it non-notable were the masonic editors that want to see this page deleted. Seraphim 04:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean "pro-Masonic editors". That's the usual term. MSJapan 05:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No. I don't have any evidence to show that you want the page removed because your a mason, nobody except for SnF has stated that they want information removed because they are upholding their masonic obligations. If I posted something like that I would be going against WP:AGF. Seraphim 05:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

UGLE removal

That's an easy answer - we have clearly established that HRA Grand Chapter and UGLE have nothing to do with each other. Therefore, claims made by UGLE don't matter and are not' relevant.

From the linked sources that make claims related to jahbulon. "It is here that the SECRET NAME of the D E I TY OF MASONRY is revealed. That name is "JA H B U LO N ."" "The Masons refer to God as "Supreme Architect of the Universe, Supreme Grand Master, or the Nameless One of a hundred Names." At the beginning stages they teach that God's name was lost with the death of Hiram Abrif. Then, in the higher order, the Royal Arch degree (York Rite) they learn his name is Jahbulon." "Freemasonry blasphemes the name of God by associating it with other gods including pagan fertility gods such as Baal - The Masonic hidden name of God, revealed in the Royal Arch degree as Jahbulon which is a composite name abbreviating Jehovah (the God of the Bible) with Baal." "Freemasons secretly worship a Devil God, known as JAHBULON" notice anything about all those claims??? They all claim that it's freemasonry as a whole that uses the name jahbulon. For that reason the UGLE statement is valid to include in the article. Unless you can find a reference by the HRA Grand Chapter that says freemasonry is not a religion the UGLE one must stay in or the article will be slanted towards anti-masonry. The fact that Duncan's only talks about the royal arch does not mean that the critisisms are directed only at royal arch masons. There is NO reason to continue to remove this information, and I cannot understand why you are attempting to push the article so it displays an anti-masonic POV.Seraphim 04:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Which linked source? Whats the quality of the source?ALR 08:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That's from all of the sources listed in the first sentence of the "Jahbulon" and religion section. The "quality" of the sources is fine since the sources back up that the groups are making the claims. Seraphim 09:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually the quality of the source does become important. your making statements based on them now, rather than just talking about the controversial nature of the allegations.ALR 09:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

! Fun fact I just found out. Ugle and the Grand Chapter are indeed related, and quite closely. The Supreme Grand Chapter was created in 1817 and partially split off from UGLE at that point, infact it was still connected to UGLE by name untill 1821. Also still to this day the Supreme Grand Chapter is not independent from UGLE it is a soverign entity kinda like Hong Kong and China. The Supreme Grand Chapter is not allowed to formally recognize or exchange representatives with other grand chapters, however if the other grand chapter gets it's members from a Grand Lodge that is considered regular by UGLE then they are allowed inter-visitation. They are connected. Also from the wikipedia article on the York Rite "Supreme Grand Royal Arch Chapter is governed from the headquarters of United Grand Lodge of England however the administration remains distinct". Stating that "HRA Grand Chapter and UGLE have nothing to do with each other" is completly false. Seraphim 05:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearly you don't appreciate what a Sovereign entity actually is. UK is a Sovereign state, as is Germany, as is Spain. that is they are wholly independent and self governing. The organisations share accomodation for a number of reasons, many organisations do that. I've work in many places where a number of organisations shared the property. Also when you consider the infrastructure required to support the various orders it does make sense, cost effectiveness etc. I'll also point out that York Rite does not exist in the UK so any allusion to it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the organisatonal context within which we're trying to discuss this.ALR 08:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand perfectly what a sovereign entity is. I'm quoting the SGC's own webpage "With the new arrangements after 1817 and the growth of Grand Chapters in other constitutions a nice question arose. Although Supreme Grand Chapter was sovereign over the Royal Arch it was not wholly independent of the United Grand Lodge", The SGC is "not wholly independent of the United Grand Lodge". It is actually you who do not understand what it means to be Sovereign. For example look at the relationship between Hong Kong and china, Hong Kong is sovereign however not independent. Also I'm well aware the York Rite isn't in england, I never said it was, I was merely quoting something from that page (that happened to pop up when I was googling for sources). Seraphim 09:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a significant difference between Was and Is.ALR 09:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Go read the page, the reason it says was is they are talking about a debate they had in the past to explain the SGC's external relations policy today. It is still not-independent. Seraphim 09:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a clear distinction between Does not and cannot'. SGC chooses not to, it is not prevented from doing so. That allows efficiency.ALR 09:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

rv to last by me to remove POV from Seraphim

That is the comment ALR made on this revert. I'd like you to to explain what POV i'm trying to push that you reverted in that rv. Seraphim 08:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You persist in including unrelated material in an attempt to pad out the article and make the situation appear more complex than it needs to be. The text is superflous given the explanation that HRA is an appendant body earlier in the article.ALR 08:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The claims are that Freemasonry as a whole is a religion. None of the linked claims specify royal arch masonry. Since the article is about some religious groups claiming that freemasonry is a religion, how is it unrelated to include the masonic responce? Seraphim 08:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Because the bodies are independent and sovereign, UGLE can't speak for SGC and vice versa. Compare with UGLE speaking on behalf of the Royal Society. Some appendant orders require one to be a Trinitarian Christian, that is not UGLEs position so it would be inappropriate to state their position with respect to the appendant body in question.ALR 08:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually your wrong on that one. SGC is not independent from UGLE they are sovereign but not independent (SGC cannot have relations with other grand chapters unless the lodge the other grand chapters are affiliated with are recognized by UGLE). However that is not the point, the point is, in just about every one of the sources in the article used to show groups that claim freemasons worship a masonic god they in no way say "royal arch masons worship" they say that freemasons worship, they say all freemasons worship a masonic god. And for that reason alone the responce from UGLE is necessary. It is in no way "padding" to include the masonic responce to allogations being presented, infact removing the masonic responce would cause the article to go to the anti-masonic side of the spectrum. I do however find it amusing that you feel me trying to include the masonic responce is a POV because your accusing me of having a pro-masonic POV which is the exact opposite of MSJapan's claims. Seraphim 08:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Your POV is that this is worthy of an article in its own right. I make no comment on whether you are taking a pro- or anti perspective. This article should not be here and your efforts appear to be predicated on bulking it out with unrelated an irrelevant verbage to avoid it being demonstrated for what it is; no more than an etymological dispute.ALR 09:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

So according to you adding any information relating to claims that Jahbulon is sometimes used by religious groups to prove that freemasonry is a religion is irrelevant to the article? Seraphim 09:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I would have no issue with the use of appropriate and related material which has an academically credible publication context. I do have an issue with bulking out the article, the use of random citations which do not support the argument being presented, but used merely to increase numbers of citations, and the intellectual deception of using statements by one organisation on behalf of another.ALR 09:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You need to re-read WP:Verifiability WP:RS and WP:NPOV, You seem to be under the false impression that the only content that can be verified is that where the sources are held to some academic standards, that is incorrect. WP:NPOV clearly states that all views on a subject must be addressed. WP:Verifiability says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." the fact that the groups are making the claims is verifiable since my references are primary sources in which they make the claims, the validity of their claims is not relevant since it's not being presented as fact, they are being presented as claims. Also WP:RS clearly states "An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion." The article states that the groups have the opinion, and a source that they themselves have presented shows that they hold that opinion. The "validity" of their opinion does not matter since it is not being presented as fact, merely that the group has the stated opinion.

The groups are not singling out Royal Arch masons, they are talking about Freemasonry as a whole, UGLE is part of freemasonry therefore since SGC does not have a published page on the "freemasonry is not a religion" stance, the next best possible source material is used, and I chose to use the UGLE page. Including the masonic responce to the claims is not optional, removing that claim is a violation of WP:NPOV which states "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one." and since we are presenting the claims that freemasonry is a religion, removing the claims that freemasonry is NOT a religion is a violation of WP:NPOV. Seraphim 09:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well in that case use the contribution in a meaningful manner to make a substantive contribution to the article. As a bland statement it adds othing, used as part of a substantive argument I stand to be persuaded of its utility.ALR 10:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a substantiave and meaningful contribution. The religious groups are accusing freemasonry of being a religion, therefore the rebuttal that freemasonry is not a religion is 100% needed. Also i'd like to point out that being "bland" isn't a problem, the problem is when the wording is not bland, since that implies that POV words are being used. Seraphim 10:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Jahbulon still in use?

Tydeman states clearly that at the time of his address the word was still in use. There has been no references presented that shows that the word is no longer in use even though a reference for it was requested. The word "is" will remain untill such a reference is provided via WP:V. Seraphim 09:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Unhappy with your removal of my entry about the inference that the word is not in use. I haven't yet reported your vandalism since you are providing no substantive content, merely hampering efforts to reduce the pointlessness of this article. However I have asked an admin to look at the nature of your reversions which are removing my contributions because they don't fit your POV.ALR 10:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I find nothing wrong with stating that the word seems to have been in use as late as Tydeman's address (1985?), and that it is unknown if it is currently in use. Without further citations to show that it is still in use, this would be a factual statement. Blueboar 13:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That was what was removed.ALR 14:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually no, what was removed was you saying that "It can be inferred that the word is no longer in use" Seraphim 18:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove any suggestion that it may have been in use in 1985, what I did do was demonstrate that it may not be in use now. Indeed one can infer from the two documents, the text of the address and the web page I cited, that the word is no longer in use. That is what has been removed by you which is wilful degradation of the article by removal of valid content.ALR 20:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

As a note on WP:V (as this came up somewhere else), it is not that material is correct until proven otherwise, it is that material is incorrect until proven otherwise. In short, there is a burden of proof involved, and it's really not here. MSJapan 14:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Which are you suggesting needs proven? And in what way? I can cite a ritual book, but considering the intransigence I wouldn't imagine Seraphim will accept it as a legitimate citation.ALR 15:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the editor that wants the information to stay in the article, what you added "It can be inferred that the word is no longer in use following a review of the Royal Arch Ritual http://www.grandchapter.org.uk/sgc/gcr-history.htm however this cannot be confirmed from primary sources as certain elements of current ritual texts are intentionally obfuscated or blank" is not verifiable." The ref you link to does not say that the word is no longer in use, and you actually admit that the "fact" you are trying to present is not verifiable. If you can find a ref that says the word is no longer in use, or find someone who claims the word is no longer in use you could add either of those. Seraphim 18:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Leafing through my RA ritual book something just occured to me. The space where the word is communicated is blank, as a RA Mason I can confirm that the word is not Jahbulon, but I'm sure you won't accept that assurance. However elsewhere in my ritual book the word does appear. Therefore I'm going to include a comment to that effect, however I'm not going to draw attention to what the word is, merely confirm that it appears in the document.ALR 20:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Tease! :) Blueboar 20:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the word is not in a published ritual book means nothing. You stated yourself "this cannot be confirmed from primary sources as certain elements of current ritual texts are intentionally obfuscated or blank." The only way to verify the word is no longer in use is for the entire contents of modern SGC ritual to be exposed, which is not the case. Seraphim 21:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You just removed valid citations. The wording on page 5 of the ritual does actually confirm that the word is no longer in use. The current word is obfuscated in some places but not in others. But it is specifically stated that in 1989 the concatenation of Hebrew characters was removed from the ritual. Are you going to put back in several valid edits or shall I?ALR 21:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In addition please bear in mind that any citation I've just given has been as articulated in full. The use of the Hebrew concatenation has ceased, it is also noted that the explanation is as a Hebrew concatenation therefore the other explanations are invalid. Also bear in ind that I have the ritual in front of me, you haven't. I suspect I'm coming at this from a more authorotative position.ALR 21:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not making any commentary on the validity of the citations. However the referenced material cannot support the claims that you are making. As you yourself stated published ritual is intentionally obfuscated. It is not a reliable source. It is impossible to prove using that reference that the word is no longer in use. Seraphim 21:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is, the statement is there. On Page 5.ALR 21:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the statement is in there means nothing. "certain elements of current ritual texts are intentionally obfuscated or blank" if the contents of the ritual book were 100% accurate then they would be giving away all the secrets. Published ritual books cannot be treated as a reliable source, if that was the case the contents of the secrets themselves would be verifiable. The same thing that makes it so we cannot post as fact leaked information such as masonic hand signals, makes it so that you cannot post as fact that the word is no longer in use. You can post that the book claims/asserts that the word is no longer in use, you cannot present it as a fact. Seraphim 21:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is there in the commentary on the ritual, in 1989 SGC removed all reference to Jahbulon, the Hebrew concatenation, along with some other bits and peices of process. That is not ritual, but is contained in a ritual book. What you're not picking up is the timeline of my postings. I was leafing through the ritual earlier, then I had a dig around the commentary. If your going to claim that one ritual b ook is valid becuasse it supports your claim, but another isn't because it demonstrates that they're false then we're never going to make progress. Unless of course you are accusing me of not acting in good faith, which is quite a significant accusation. Nearly as offensive to me as the suggestion earlier that I'm a holocaust denier.ALR 21:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That is irrelevant, published ritual cannot be used as a reliable source as to the actual contents of the ritual. If you post that the book claims that it was removed that will be acceptable however presenting it as fact is incorrect. Also I never accused you of being a holocaust denier, that was a different user. What I will admit to, is my attempting to protect the article, since you, MSJapan, and Grye have publically stated that you want this article deleted. Seraphim 22:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I didnt say you did, but your suggestions that I am acting in bad faith are just as offensive as that assertion. I want the article deleted because I dont believe it's encyclopaedic, at most it's a wiktionary entry and even that is debatable. What I am concerned about is your intransigence in the face of any evidence which doesnt support your POV, which is damaging any validity that the article might have claimed.ALR 22:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am following the results of the AFD, in which 4 unrelated editors all confirmed that the topic is verifiable, I have also asked in the wikipedia IRC room about if they feel the article is verifiable and they all agree. Wanting an article to exist is not a POV, the purpose of these pages is to improve the articles not try to get them deleted which is your ultimate goal. Seraphim 22:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

One of the flaws of democracy, it's a blunt instrument where academia comes into play. Peer review I would accept as valid. Notwithstanding that I havent tried raising another RFD, but am seeking to improve the qulaity of a non-notable entry. The fact that it is proving so difficult to do so rather supports the lack of validity of the article.ALR 22:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You are not attempting to improve the quality of the article, you are attempting to remove any information that would prevent you from arguing sucessfully that it is a simple etymology. You are completly ignoring the fact that a religious contravercy between freemasonry and religious groups was caused by the release of this word, and are attempting to change the article into a simple "this is what the word means and here is how we came up with that meaning" when it is undeniable that the word's leak is the cause of contravercy which I have been attempting to outline and discuss in the article. Instead of making constructive edits, you are removing and re-creating the article into a dictionary like un-encyclopedic article in the hopes that you will eventually get it deleted for being a dictionary article. Also you are violating WP:SNOW in insisting that the merger tag with Christianity and Freemasonry stays on even though it has been proven that the contravercy is not only with christian groups. In that cause you are not acting in good faith. You are claiming that links that show that islamic groups believe jahbulon to be the name of a masonic satanic god are not relevant to this article, and are only an attempt to "pad out" the article, which means that you are not assuming good faith, which means in this case you are not acting in good faith either. Seraphim 22:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that any statement that the word is no longer in use must be cited. However, the alternative (that it is still in use) must also be cited. This includes an inclusion by ommission: ie stating nothing about current usage so that the reader will imply that it is still in use. If neither alternative can be cited, then it must be stated clearly that it is unknown if the word is currently in use. Blueboar 20:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. The question then becomes, "if there is no consensus on verifiability of modern usage, is this article encyclopedic?" The issue is still that first-hand sources say one thing, and third-hand sources say another. Also, what happened to the link to Tydeman's address? The only hit on it is now from this article alone. MSJapan 20:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Tydeman's address was unlinked because the writing is fairly new and it could be copyvio to post it in it's entierty on a website. However in his adress it is made perfectly clear that the word was still in use in the SGC in 1985 and he never mentioned getting rid of the word, infact he presented his new interpertation to protect the word, not as a means to it's removal. Seraphim 21:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I've now reached the limit for reverting your vandalism Seraphim, which is unfortunate. However you did revert out SGCs position on Religion, from their website, which I'd suggest should go back in.ALR 22:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

62.38.144.248 stuff

JAHBULON is used in the Gnostic Mass of the 3rd Degree Initiation of the OTO and the Academia Masonica.

Specifically during the song of the Perfect Initiated:

How the Simple Mason plies Tool to Temple, See it rise! Princes of Jerusalem, How we mock and scoff at them!

Boaz broken, Jachin gone, Freely spoken JAHBULON, All above Is overthrown For the love Of Babalon.

Pardon my ignorance, but what in the world is OTO and Academia Masonica? These are not regular orgainizations recognized by "Mainstream" Masonry, are they? And can this citation be verified with a source? Blueboar 01:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[Ordo Templi Orientis], it's a Thelemic order which Aleister Crowley created. If the citation is accurate then it potentially offers some substance to the article, but I don't have any copies of OTO ritual so can't confirm. You're right, it's not a Masonic organisation but it is thought that Crowley used what he learned when he was initiated in an irregular androgynous A&AR chapter and fused it with a number of other initiatory traditions to come up with the OTO rituals.ALR 08:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

AH... thanks for the info. Well, I would still object unless this stuff can be verified. Also, If it can be verified, I would ask that it be made clear that this is definitely not a Regular Masonic organization. Blueboar 17:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a Masonic organisation full stop, never mind anything about regularity.ALR 17:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

He's actually correct, OTO does appear to use the word jahbulon also. Once I find a good ref link i'll post it here, for now all i have is a google cached page. Seraphim 03:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Then you're going to have to rethink your entire POV on this article. Half the claims go out the window if the only verification points to OTO. MSJapan 04:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

??? It's still a masonic word, it's just used by OTO also. Seraphim 12:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to apply some intellectual honesty to your statement here. Jahbulon is a word purportedly used historically in a body associated with Freemasonry but does not appear in contemporary source material. If it can be reliably demonstrated to be used by OTO then there may be a case for a discussion. But your incessant POV pushing is undermined by its' use in another body.ALR 12:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What POV would that be? The fact that the word is used by another group just strengthens the article... Seraphim 12:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The consistent misrepresentation of the evidence, by use of weakly assertive terminology, to strengthen and enhance the accusations made by fringe christian organisations.ALR 12:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah I forgot, you want the article to be deleted, so any verfiable information added is POV pushing. Save it for mediation. Seraphim 13:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No, and you're misrepresenting me again, that's becoming a habit. I don't believe that the article is notable or contains any substantive material however in the absence of a clear decision to delete it then it has to be made as useful as possible, that means making clear the arguments rather than weaseling around trying to keep in irelevances, noise and clutter.ALR 13:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

OTO is not now and has never been associated with Masonry. That statement is a blatant lie. MSJapan 17:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I never said OTO was related to masonry. They are a completly unrelated group that we never knew about outside of freemasonry/anti-freemasonry religious groups/conspiracy groups that does use the word which helps the notability argument greatly. The article isn't about only freemasonry, adding in information regarding OTO's use of the word only strengthens the article. Seraphim 17:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoah, which statement and said by whom?ALR 18:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting

This looks like a ding-dong between two editors who really should know better. I'm unprotecting and will watch. --Tony Sidaway 17:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, its a Jabulabadingdong. I'll look for a citation (c) 1950s pop culture. :) Imacomp 17:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I already sent tony a message saying it was a requested lock that was agreed upon. Hopefully it will get re-added soon and they will finally get around to assigning the mediator. (case has already been accepted)Seraphim 17:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)