Talk:Jahbulon/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  in the beginning... 

message: "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)
thread_title: UGLE use of Jahbulon

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Jahbulon]] at [[Wiktionary:Jahbulon|Wiktionary]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: Correct.  AfD started. MSJapan 19:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  26 Jan 2006 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  torn up 

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This article is about to go to [[Wiktionary]]. Again. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, but no. You didn't. Grye 11:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was the word first brought into the public? 

message: * 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
#  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This page's history, questions answered, & transwikification 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This is the answer to that question: 

message: * 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
*  (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)
thread_title:  If you do actually create more than a stub of a stub of an article... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Note 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Blanking 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: WP:NPA Seraphim 22:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defination of a Stub 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "historically" vs "since 1875" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:   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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "Commentary on the term" section is un-encyclopedic 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  The Triangle Picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Take a look at the top of the letter that you're referencing.  his title is there.ALR 08:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced Comments in the article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  My edits this evening 

message: 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)
replies: text: Works for me. Seraphim 00:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship between Craft and Royal Arch 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I think you mean "pro-Masonic editors".  That's the usual term. MSJapan 05:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Definitely a notability issue.... 

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

text: ! 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  There is a significant difference between Was and Is.ALR 09:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  UGLE removal 

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Tease! :) Blueboar 20:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Actually it is, the statement is there.  On Page 5.ALR 21:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Jahbulon still in use? 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: ??? It's still a masonic word, it's just used by OTO also.  Seraphim 12:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: OTO is not now and has never been associated with Masonry.  That statement is a blatant lie. MSJapan 17:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text:  Whoah, which statement and said by whom?ALR 18:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  62.38.144.248 stuff 

message: 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)
thread_title: Unprotecting