Talk:Jahbulon/Archive 2

message: I posted 2 RFC's and it seems that nobody is paying attention to them since it's a freemasonry related article. I've spoken to people in the irc room about it and they have told me the best thing to do would be to ask for a mediator.  Since I strongly feel the article should exist, while MSJapan and ALR are dead set on seeing it deleted, and none of us are willing to change our stance on the issue, i'm going to post a request for a mediator.  Part of requesting the mediator is that all parties must be willing to participate in the mediation. I am posting this here now, and will be formally requesting a mediator tomorrow, if you are going to refuse to participate please explain your reasoning here.  I strongly feel that the only way to progress on this article is a 3rd party coming in and since 2RFC's have failed to do that the next step is mediation. Seraphim 05:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was contemplating this myself but took the view that your intransigence thus far wasn't a good indicator about your willingness to participate.  Happy to participate. ALR 08:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty interested in seeing it go too, I'm just tired of writing article talk pages instead of articles... Or anything else for that matter. Oops, gotta go do imaginary stuff w/ imaginary words... ;~D  Grye 06:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have fun Grye ... give Fraternal Greetings from NY to your imaginary companions.  Blueboar 00:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: I believe the page should exist, both ALR and MSJapan have publically stated they disagree with this.  I suggest you 2 file an AFD on the page now (it's been over a month).   Editing an article that you feel should be deleted by removing information that you feel to be "irrelevant" and only put in the article so that it seems encyclopedic is inappropriate behavior.  If you feel the article should be deleted file an AFD.  Seraphim 18:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again a demonstration of your bad faith and misrepresentation of the messages which are being communicated by other editors.  There is no suggestion that the article be sliced away until it can be deleted.  There is a lack of agreement to delete it, a useful demonstration of the weakness of universal sufferage, so we have to make an effort to improve its utility.  To be honest once it stops misrepresenting a number of issues then I'm happy to walk away and leave it, but at the moment it is inaccurate and misrepresents a number of things.  I would seek to improve it by improving its accuracy and ensuring that its content is appropriate and meaningful.  What happens to it after that, assuming that the misrepresentations aren't put straight back in, is of little interest to me.ALR 18:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  " 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." You said that on Feb 21st.  Your not attempting to improve the utility of the article, your attempting to remove any information othat makes the article more then a dictionary defination, as is very evident by you claiming that UGLE's statement that Freemasonry is Not a religion is irrelevant.  The claim is made in the article that freemasons worship a masonic god, therefore there is no valid train of thought that can lead to the removal of one of the most prominant masonic groups publically stating that freemasonry is not a religion.  Your goal is to leave the article in the state it was before Grye changed it to .  That is not going to happen. Seraphim 18:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Archiving content doesn't make it go away.  You have made it publically known that you want the article deleted, and that you are finding it difficult to make any positive contributions to the article since it should be deleted.  You have made it very clear that you disagree with my "pov" on this issue which you claim is the pov that "the article should exist", which means that you believe the article should be deleted.  When you want an article to be deleted what you do is file an AFD, you do NOT continue to remove content from the article untill it's un-encyclopedic and then file an AFD. Seraphim 18:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sadddened that you appear so unwilling to try to move forward in a collaborative manner.85.189.24.56 19:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "You" is pretty much everyone except yourself, SeraphimXI. & "You" have made it obvious that you do not want it deleted. & that you do not want to actually create positive & factual encyclopedic content here, in the article you so cherish. Grye 20:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wha? You contradict yourself. I don't want the article deleted, and have changed it from a dic def, and added to it so it's no longer a stub.  How do you get that I don't want to create encyclopedic content here? That's what i've been doing since i changed it back from an interwiki. (By the way what do you mean by "positive" content? Both sides must be presented) Seraphim 19:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An AFD should be filed 

message: In an effort to illuminate and inform the discussion, a few words on the history of the Royal Arch.
Following the formation of Grand Lodge of England an alternative Grand Lodge emerged in York which claimed that GLE was acting contrary to the principles of FM.  This cased a schism in Masonry with the two known respectivly as the Moderns and the Antients, major differences being related to ritual innovations from London under the influence of the speculative membership heavily influenced by enlightenment thought.  The two Grand Lodges acted and operated in parallel for some time, before coming together in a union facilitated by the Lodge of Reconciliation which created a common ritual agreed by both Grand Lodges.  This led to a structure whereby the United Grand Lodge governed the three degrees of Craft Masonry; Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft and Master Mason.  An unrelated, more mystical, ritual was split off under its own governance and created the Royal Arch.
Whilst the RA was a seperate order it did, and continues to, require candidates to be Master Masons.
The position of the RA in the US is somewhat different and someone more informed than I should articulate that.ALR 18:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Positionally speaking, RAC in the US is the first step in the York Rite, which is considered to be an appendant body to regular Craft Masonry.  There is no overlap whatsoever between Craft Masonry and York or Scottish rites apart from the membership involved (because you still need to be a Master Mason to join).  No ranks, titles, honors or awards have any relevance outside of the group they are conferred in (this also includes those items not being relevant in other bodies in the same rite), and while the bodies may or may not have offices in the same location as the state GL, there is a completely separate administrative structure. MSJapan 21:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the Royal Arch 

message: Grand Lodges in Freemasonry recognise one another on the basis of regularity.  Regularity os based on a small number of basic principles as articulated at [UGLE] Aims and relationships of the Craft and principles for Grand Lodge recognition.  Currently recognised GLs are listed at [UGLE] and can be searched for.  Should an organisaiton not be listed then it is not in amity with UGLE.  Notwithstanding that UGLE recognises that a number of organisations exist which are considered Freemasonry however fail to meet the criteria for regularity and to all intents and purposes are Masonry but intervisitation may not take place.  Orgaisations which do not fall into either of these two groups are not considered to be Freemasonry.ALR 19:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: UGLE rules and recognitions only apply to UGLE related lodges.  Seraphim 19:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well done, you're learning :)  Now what does that mean in practice?ALR 19:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It means that all this stuff you just added to this talk page is junk. Now to call you on your WP:POINT violation your doing here.  Just because their rules for regularity are irrelevant does not mean that their proclamation that freemasonry is not a religion is not.  The links claim that all' of freemasonry is a religion, therefore showing that even 1 freemasonic group is not a religion is a sufficent counter-point to that(since if one group states they are not a religion it contradicts the use of the word "all" which according to the defination of Contradiction means one of the statements must be false, all of freemasonry can't be a religion if UGLE freemasonry isn't a religion, and if All of freemasonry is a religion, then UGLE freemasonry must be a religion, you can't have "all of freemasonry is a religion, however UGLE freemasonry isn't"). If you don't like me linking to the UGLE statement for some reason, find any other masonic lodge and put their statement in there.  The article just needs 1. Seraphim 19:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm merely outlining some background information which I believe has some relevance to the debate, given that I have a much more developed understanding of the structure of Freemasonry and it's associated organisations following an extended study and participation in the field.  I haven't yet presented any argument whatsoever.  It might be considered somewhat confrontational to start accusing another editor of an underlying motive before engaging in discussion.  It would be unfair of me to suggest that you appear to be attacking me rather than engaging in a collaborative approach to developing the article, so I won't do that.  Indeed since I haven't finished presenting some pertinent background I won't angage in any discussion of article contant at this time.  I am trying to move forward from what had turned into an unpleasant situation, I'm somewhat disappointed that you cannot see fit to do the same, you persist in raking up the past which does little to cultivate a productive atmosphere.ALR 21:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regularity in Masonry 

message: ......is very entertaining, but it doesn't actually change the substance of the draft article, which has been agreed as an aimprovement to the present article.  I'm hesitant to just swing it across without notification.  24 hours then?  Anyone with anything has to make the edits themselves.ALR 07:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused, where exactly did I say it was an improvement? Or agree that the article should be replaced by that? I haven't edited the draft article because that's simply not how edits to a page happen.  You make small changes with descriptive edit summaries, that are all discussed individually, not write up your own version of the entire article, have people edit it on a seperate page and then post it up claiming that everyone approved it. Seraphim 19:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you didn't object to the process when I first suggested it, and you took the time to comment on the draft, so you appear to be content with it, right up until it comes time to actually go ahead with it.  I responded to your points and took them into account with a couple of changes afterwards, you haven't subsequently commented on the changes made.  Surely if you had an issue with the process it would have been more reasonable to say so at the time?ALR 19:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't comment on it??? What do you call that huge discussion we had yesterday? I'm not editing the "draft" because it's simply not how changes are made to articles like this.  You didn't make changes to take into account my comments, the incorrect word "alleged" is still in the draft version, the literature section is still removed, and the etymology section is still in there.  What you did is dismiss all of my comments. Seraphim 20:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your discussion of yesterday doesn't pertain to what you yourself have said the article should be about.  I answered each of your points above, indeed I invited you to deal with a couple of them yourself.  Namely:
* Usage of the word is alleged based on the two sources, happy for you to have a go at generating a more appropriate articulation.
*If you believe that the section on literature references is useful then I would challenge you to find corroboration, rather than just use of the word. Some form of contemporaneous citation would be useful as I would suggest anything more than a few years after Duncans can reasonably be assumed as being derived from that. Current pseudoscience and fiction doesn't have sufficient authority to provide corroboration unless they can demonstrate a causal link to something othtr than Duncans.
*Candidate etymology is important because the discussion is about the different interpretations. By having the section up front it makess clear where the debate originates. Moving it further down the article potentially creates confusion in the mind of the reader and I would object to any change in emphasis. you may wish to suggest a different title for the section.
Nothing that in the 4 days since those were posted you haven't actually done anything with them, indeed haven't even acknowledged that I answered your points, then I thought it was reasonable to ask for explicit consent to transfer.  Now editing can be done in any one of a number of ways, indeed this is the same approach which Hipocrite suggested to deal with Lightbringers contested contributions in the Freemasonry article, and you appeared quite content with the approach then.  I stated above that the reason for handling a wholesale edit was to avoid an unseemly edit war on the article page, you did not object at the time.  Wikis can be used in any number of ways, and given how contentious this topic has been then this seemed a sensible way to go about finding a compromise.ALR 20:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There was nothing to object to since your flat out wrong. Your trying to put incorrect information and junk into the article.  Usage of the word is not alleged based on 2 sources, plenty of sources talk about the grand omnific word, duncan's is the first to say what the word actually is, and then tydeman confirms what duncan was saying.  Alleged means that it is a claim, if it was simply duncan's then it would be alleged, however tydeman confirmed what the word is. It is NOT alleged the reason there is no need to generate a more appropriate articulation is that the existing text is correct, it's a word historically used by royal arch masons.  Secondly the section on literature references is usefull, it shows that the word is notable.  Your claims that they are all redundant references since they all are based on duncan's leak is junk, that's like saying any historian who writes about the declaration of independence is a redundant resource if the actual declaration is included as a source. I have already gone through and made sure all of the references are using the word jahbulon in relation to freemasonry. I did this weeks ago, check in the talk page history and the article history, feel free to go get the books and check for yourself.  And third a section on Etymology does not belong in an encyclopedia.  You were attacking this article a few weeks ago as simply being an etymology, and therefore unencyclopedic, and now your trying to insert it. Also, a "draft article" is not used for getting past disagreements.  That is done through discussion.  You simply don't create a seperate copy of the main article, edit it up to your liking and then replace the existing article with it. That's simply not how this is done. Seraphim 23:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your process objections look like WP:WL Wikilawyering to me, you've had 15 days to express your issues with the suggested process.  You've also made no effort to actually contribute to the development, you are free to do so.  Given that you have no substantive contribution to make I shall transfer the content across.  I would anticipate a demonstration of bad faith from you but in response to that transfer however at present would observe that the draft removes objection tags from the article so can be considered to be an improvement.  You are free to contribute to improvements to the article once it is in the mainspace.ALR 07:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All this...... 

message: There's no such thing, as this would assume Anti-Masons are a secret society  with initiation rites and so forth, which would make them total hypocrites (but for a different reason).  I think what was meant here was "ritual exposes written by Anti-Masons", but the fact remains that it's simply not verifiable - to my knowledge, the only place the word appears is in Duncan, and we have no information on where or when or if Duncan was ever used. MSJapan 10:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Anti-Masonic ritual" 

message: From a book review by Wallace McLeod, published in The Royal Arch Mason Vol 24 no. 2 (Summer 2006) on Haffner, Christopher. Workman Unashamed: The Testimony of a Christian Freemason, Hinckley, Leicester: Lewis Masonic, 2005.  Revised ed.
"And in February 1989, the Supreme Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons of England removed from its ritual the three-part word on the triangle." (p. 52) MSJapan 15:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, that's why ALR had never heard it.  Does he say why it was dropped?  I take it that it's probably lingering in America.  JASpencer 18:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd refer you to my quotation from the ritual book above.  The three hebrew characters were removed not the word.ALR 18:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some good information 

message: Any chance it might have a link to Zabulon? It looks quite close, plus it's biblic, Hebrew and all... A coincidence? unlikely.....--SidiLemine 14:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's like saying "Al Smith" and "Hal Smith" are related because they live in the same town and are in the phone book.  It looks close in English, but it's totally different letters in Hebrew.  Think "mouse" and "house" in English -- not really all that close at all when you know the language.  On that note, Hebrew doesn't have vowels when it's written, so people tend to make mistakes if they don't know the language, and I'm going to guess whoever came up with "Zabulon" (which is really Zebulun (one of the sons of Jacob and thus the name of one of the twelve tribes) and was redirected months ago) was one of those people who didn't know the language (which, if you want a coincidence, seems to be precisely what happened with whoever decided to make up the etymology for Jabulon). MSJapan 15:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... If they live in an average town, not too big, and share a family name, plus have a tendency to use diminutives for their first names.... Hal and Al might very well be relatd, say, around 5 or 6 generations ago.... And most houses do have at least one mouse. It's just too bad the plural of house isn't "hice", that would have made me look pretty brilliant. And about translations and co, I just learned today that St Josaphat was in fact Gautama Buddha, from Bodhisattva (sanskrit)- Bodasi (Middle Persan)-Budasaf (also Yudasaf) Arabic-Iodasaph (Georgia)-Iosapha (Greek). So yes, Zabulon might be overstretched, but hey, you never know what these mason guys are up to! By the way, I absolutely don't know about the subject, I just thought it was a bit tense around, and a lot of very precise knowledge was flinged around in all directions, so I thought I'd bring a bit of (undemended) ignorant freshness and comic relief to the conversation. Cheers, and please remember guys, it's just a word. Not even an idea, or a philosophy - a word.--SidiLemine 16:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Given that, in "The Brotherhood", Knight accuses Freemasonry of everything from encouraging police and judicial corruption, covering up treason and spying against the govenment of England, to being behind the Jack the Ripper Murders... I would say calling him Anti-Masonic is fairly accurate.  He certainly isn't PRO-Masonic. Blueboar 17:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zabulon