. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
you have here. The definition of the word
will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
UGLE
CO GL
SR SJ
- The word "Jahbulon" is not used in any of the degrees 4-32 of Scottish Rite Masonry of the Southern Jurisdiction of the USA GRYE
This lack of use relates to an event on UK television in the late 1970s. An interviewer, Frank Bough, was quizzing a very senior Mason about their rituals. The mason denied that there was a religious aspect to Freemasonry, whereupon Bough said 'but don't you have a god called Jabulon or something like that?'The interviewee went pale and,visibly trembling, replied 'that word that you have mentioned (notice how he couldn't say it) is used in some of our rituals'. I saw this take place. Soon afterwards the Masons issued a statement to the effect that they would not discuss any religious aspects of Freemasonry on television again.¬¬¬¬ (Please cite source?)
The 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 that is now encouraged within accademic Masonic research. Millennium Sentinel 13:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Regularity of a freemasonic grouping is a constitutional, not a dogmatic, matter. Since Freemasonry is not a religion, or a substitute for religion, it can vary the ritual as it sees fit. In practice the regular “UGLE” grouping, etc., only tie themselves to keeping to the "Old Charges" as a core constitution. When Masonic rituals, or supporting regulations, are updated - only the last update is the authoritative document - within allowed and authorised parameters of variation. Skull 'n' Femurs 14:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
The first syllable indicates eternal existence, the continuing and never-ending I AM. Skull 'n' Femurs 14:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
The second syllable really does mean in Hebrew, "in heaven" or "on high". Skull 'n' Femurs 14:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
The third syllable is a Hebrew word for Strength or Power. Skull 'n' Femurs 14:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
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 used were this word is used at all. Skull 'n' Femurs 14:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
We do not need to go into apologies for faulty scholarship in the past; 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 God that 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 superceded printed rituals which still refer to a name and not a compound word. Skull 'n' Femurs 14:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Freemasonry is an esoteric society, only in that certain aspects of its internal work are not generally disclosed to the public, but it is not an occult system. Freemasonry is not a religion, nor is it a substitute for religion. It demands of its members a belief in a Supreme Being but provides no system of faith of its own. There is no separate Masonic God; a Freemason's God remains the God of the religion he professes. Skull 'n' Femurs 14:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Freemasons meet in common respect for the Supreme Being, but He remains Supreme in their individual religions, and it is no part of Freemasonry to attempt to join religions together. There is therefore no composite Masonic God. Skull 'n' Femurs 14:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Freemasonry lacks the basic elements of religion: it has no theological doctrine, and by forbidding religious discussion at its meetings will not allow a Masonic theological doctrine to develop; It offers no sacraments; It does not claim to lead to salvation by works, by secret knowledge or by any other means. The secrets of Freemasonry are concerned with modes of recognition and not with salvation. Skull 'n' Femurs 14:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Freemasonry is practised under many independent Grand Lodges with principles or standards similar to those set by the United Grand Lodge of England throughout its history. There are some self-styled Masonic bodies that do not meet these standards, e.g. which do not require a belief in a Supreme Being, or which allow or encourage their members to participate as such in political matters. These bodies are recognised by the Grand Lodge of England as being masonically irregular, and Masonic contact with them is forbidden. Skull 'n' Femurs 14:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
- Hi,
- Interesting treatise, but the purpose of this page is to discuss creating a dictionary entry describing the word 'Jahbulon', please try to keep it on topic. —Muke Tever
This word is not a proper noun. Such stories are ant-masonic POV. Skull 'n' Femurs 14:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
- Hi, this is a dictionary. All utterances belong to a part of speech. If calling it a 'proper noun' seems unsuitable, feel free to assign it what seems correct, but do not remove dictionary information. —Muke Tever 17:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
- In English the adjective cannot designate case, number or gender. That means we are limited in how we can use this device. We always designate case in English by position in the sentence. But we have no way of designating the number or the gender of an adjective, except by the noun it agrees with. Therefore, a substantive adjective all by itself in English can only have the number and gender that convention assigns to it, and that usually is the plural of the non-specific gender, or "people." This word is a ritual compound, and exceptionally, as a substantive adjective - convention assigns to it the singular masculine gender. Skull 'n' Femurs 23:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
- Actually, English adjectives can certainly indicate gender (cf. brunet/brunette, blond/blonde, his/her) and number (cf. many, multiple, frequent, one), and this carries on in substantive uses (jokes demeaning to the blonde, the one outweighing the many) it's just that it's not usual. In any case, the assertion that it is a substantive adjective will require evidence of its use as an ordinary adjective in English (i.e. as opposed to what its original language may be)—otherwise it is only an ordinary substantive, which is to say, a noun. I asserted it to be 'proper' as it refers to a particular referent; to remove the label 'proper' you will need to produce evidence that may be applied to other people than God. (It is possible that it may be a proper adjective, if you like.) Again, please do not remove dictionary information. —Muke Tever 00:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
- Many of those examples are out of use (such as "brunet", if it was ever used, as I've never seen it), and no one differentiates "blond" and "blonde" apart from seeing it as a spelling convention. Furthermore, the definition of proper nouns (from WP) is: "Proper nouns (also called proper names) are the names of unique entities." There is no proof of this in the usage either positively or negatively - if we choose to believe a Masonic usage, and furthermore that the Masonic definition of a Supreme Being is dependent on the individual, then "Jahbulon" could apply to whichever Deity one chose. If it is a title, it probably can't be an adjective, but it certainly isn't a common noun, because "How much is that Jahbulon in the window" makes no sense. The reason it makes no sense is because it is impossible to define a part of speech for a word that does not exist and cannot be defined in the first place. MSJapan 07:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Bizarre addition
What is "These are “masonically irregular” and self-styled occult and esoteric uses of the word. Freemasonry is not a religion, nor is it a substitute for religion." supposed to mean? The purpose of the Quotations section is to show examples of the word in use; see WT:ELE and Wiktionary:Quotations. If you wish to show examples of the word that better suit you, feel free to add your own cites from published sources, but do not remove existing ones. No person "owns" a word and it is the dictionary's job to document approved usage just as much as it is disapproved usage, because we cannot support a POV, even an 'official' one; for another example of this in action, see the article alot. —Muke Tever 00:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Current description
A dictionary definition was removed and replaced with:
- This word is a ritual compound, and exceptionally, as a substantive adjective - convention assigns to it the singular masculine gender. Jahbulon emphasises reverence for God and proclaims Him in no uncertain terms as "The True and Living God — The Most High — The Almighty".
Please rewrite this, as it is not a dictionary definition. Our job in this section is not to describe the word itself, but only to indicate what it means. Please also see WT:ELE#Definitions. —Muke Tever 00:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Reversion
I agree, & reverted to —Muke Tever's last edit, & reinstalled S&F's edits Grye
NOTE
I do feel S&F's Substantive Adjective section is informative, but borderline=POV, in wording. I had to re-read it a bunch of times to see otherwise. It could use rewording, I think. Grye 08:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Occult POV
WE the undersigned support S&F’s edits. This word is historically a wholly Masonic compound word, a substantive adjective, not a proper noun. The only correct usage is within (old) Masonic Ritual. Occult usage is illegitimate, especially when used to implicate Freemasonry in totally unassociated and irresponsible occult propaganda.
Support for occult usage is POV of the lowest order. If the historically Masonic, and Hebrew etymology is POV – then we support deletion of this entry – rather than propagate an occult fantasy.
- A dictionary supports nothing, whatever your paranoid fantasies may assume. Its purpose is only to describe the usage of a word, whether licit or barbaric. NPOV is not the suppression of undesirable information, it is the annotation of all viewpoints and those who support or oppose them. —Muke Tever 18:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks for your support above. I concur with support for deletion of this entry – rather than propagate an occult fantasy. Hiram man 12:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
- Along with w:mahabone...... Grye
Quotations removed, since even Satan, (or his servants?) ‘’may’’ be entitled to copyright? Darth Dalek 18:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Lots of Delete talk here... Anyone want to nominate it? Grye 05:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- I put it on RFD here, but since the page is locked, I can't add the RFD template (which i mentioned in the deletion request). MSJapan 18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Locking the wiktionary page Jahbulon as “A Masonic name for the deity” is an abuse of power by a small cabal of POV admins and editors. I call all brethren to agitate for a vote for deletion. Darth Dalek 16:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- This Jahbulon stuff is locked utter crap! DELETE as per Darth Dalek, Grye Skull 'n' Femurs, etc., above. I concur with support for deletion of this entry – rather than propagate an occult fantasy. Imacomp 16:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- This is a dictionary. If people use a word in occult fantasies, we document that. If people use a word to mean anything else, we document that at well. But neither you nor anyone else on your side have ever yet given your proposed "correct" definition of this word—only but a short description of where it is used, which is encyclopedia information, not a definition. In fact Skull 'n' Femurs' little treatise above (under #Hebrew) practically confirms that "Jahbulon" is a name for God—or is this entire brouhaha because you don't know enough English to understand that "the deity" means God, and you are somehow misreading it to think some imaginary Masonic deity is being referred to? —Muke Tever 17:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Delete I am completely in support of deletion and would nominate it if I knew how to do so. This so called "word" was made up by a very small subgroup of Freemasons for use in their rituals. As such, it should be excluded from Wiktionary for lack of Attestation (see Wiktionary:Criteria for Inclusion). It is definitely NOT a word in common usage in the English Language. If anything the word should be excluded as a Protologism. Blueboar 14:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Delete This may be a dictionary, but I think to include this as a "word" is a bit farfetched. It appears that this is a word used only by a certain small subgroup of Freemasons (if at all, I personally can't verify this), which means the definition as "Masonic" is wrong, as it implies a universal usage. Second of all, if it is indeed a metaphorical compound that is only definitely definable by the meaning of its syllables, it's not really a word, now is it? I mean, "apple" is a concrete object, not a thing defined by the compound made up of "ap" and "ple". I also made the point on WP about a similar item (as this entry is a transclusion) that if I made up a word ("flepgnopfarpian"), and someone else said it was the "secret word of the 35th degree of Freemasonry" (no such thing exists), that would not make it a "word" per se, as nobody uses it, and hardly anyone would know about it. It's not something people are going to come across, and for all intents and purposes, and thus, for all intents and purposes, the entry is not factual. The etymology is utter and complete speculation by very recent authors, and in fact is no fact at all. MSJapan 17:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- "This word is a ritual compound, as a substantive adjective - convention assigns to it the singular masculine gender". The use masonically is defunct, but the Masonic (and wholy Hebrew) research is the only research excepted in academia. All use as a Proper Noun derives from a single historical, and incorrect, reference to faulty research. Continued use of faulty research by the POV anti-Masonic cabal, here, only serves to degrade the project. If you can - mark it to delete. Stonyrev 17:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Keep any topic that provokes this level of demand for censorship from such a large number of honourable (but possibly paranoid?) square-bashers must surely be on to something :)
- Delete No its just re-heated crap. And we do not bash, either. (That is what the "greys" made me say, woooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!) 80.193.165.78 20:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Keep. The password 'Jahbulon' is found in the 'Royal Arch' degree. In Anglo Freemasonry the Royal Arch is considered by many Masons to be the completion of the three degrees of Masonry. In the U.S. the Royal Arch is part of the York Rite of Freemasonry. There is quite a bit of sophistry if not out right dec--80.0.186.91 21:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)eption being used by the Masons here as they all know full well where the word is used, how it is used, and what it means. As it used it is not one word, but three, Jah Bul On, and is presented as such. Jah for Jahwah or Yahwah, Bul for Baal, and On for Osirus. The word is displayed symbolically, and in a most secret fashion, on a triangle, with each syllable on each side. The triangle being the Greek letter for Delta. Together this secret 'magical' word of High Degree Masonry is correctly pronouned DIABOLON - the root word of Diabolic. As Mr. Ripley says 'Believe it or Not'. An image from Masonic iconography displaying it's usage and ritual 'grips' and 'footwork' is shown in the below image:Reply
Image:jahbulon.gif
Basil Rathbone 10:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Citing Ripley's 'Believe it or Not' as a source? Come on Basil, get serious! As for "DIABOLON"... I am now very confused... I thought this word was supposed to be a name for God. Now you say it is the root word for Diabolic? Which is it? FYI - just to ease any POV paranoia out there, the root word of diablolic is the greek word "diabolos" - (Honest, you can look it up on Wiktionary) - nothing to do with Ja Bul or On. Blueboar 18:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
" And we do not bash, either."
Sorry, mate. This is contrary to my personal experience. --80.0.186.91 21:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- In w:Gareth J Medway's Lure of the Sinister, he writes about what is shown in the above jpg, mentioning the display of "the Hebrew letters aleph, beth, and lamed (A, B, L)". Upon viewing the above jpg, it is clear to me that he has the order of the letters wrong. Interestingly enough, Hebrew reads from right to left, so the letters are actually beth, aleph, lamed: באל ... which is the preposition ב ('by', 'with', 'in') prefixed to the word אל ('God') ... or beEl. —Stephen 11:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- I have deleted the picture as it is a copywrite violation (see the RfD discussion... it really is copywrited folks.) On with the discussions! Blueboar 21:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- The picture has been restored since something from an 1866 publication is clearly not a copyright violation. Eclecticology 19:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Funny, 3 of 4 of the authors cited in quotations don't have wikipedia pages. But ya can't see that from here, interwiki it doesn't come up as a red link. Oh, & we still can't change that. Isn't an edit block only for like a week or something? Grye 10:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- I do note a distinct lack of movement on this entire article and the various RfD, RfVs etc. Who do we complain to to get the block removed?Blueboar 21:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- OK, like an hour of searching later... Looks like this page is a good start: Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection Grye 02:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- OK, what about the page protection? & What exactly happened to it? It does not appear in any log, be it creation, block, or protection. what is up with this? Grye 02:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Well, it looks like the protection has now been removed (we can see if this lasts.) I have removed the most POV and inaccurate statements such as "A Masonic name for the Deity". We should slap RfD and RfV warnings on it (I would have done this myself... if I could figure out how to do so). Perhaps we should also add a warning that the "word" and its definition are disputed. Blueboar 14:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC) (UPDATE - well, I have figured out how to slap the warning lables on... Hopefully they link to the rfv and rfd pages. Blueboar 14:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC))Reply
- By the way you rewrote the definition it seems you misread "A Masonic name for the Deity" as "A name for the Masonic Deity", which is not at all the same thing. I removed the RFV, because the RFV time has already passed. —Muke Tever 18:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Muke - I started a new request for verification on the page when I added the tag. Thus the RFV time has not passed. Please leave the tag. As for changing "Masonic name for Deity" to "name for the Masonic Deity"... there was no misread at all. I am changing it to reflect a change in the definition ... from it being a Masonic word (which it is not) to being an Anti-Masonic word (which is debatable, but possible). If anyone uses this word it is Anti-Masons, and they use it in the context of an accusation that Masons worship a god named "Jahbulon". Blueboar 21:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- No evidence was found for the assertion that Masons worship a god named "Jahbulon". All the evidence gathered said that some Masons use "Jahbulon" as a name or title for God, even the assertions of "Skull 'n' Femurs" above. —Muke Tever 00:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- That's my point... the claim that "Jahbulon" is used as a name for some sort of god stems from Anti-masonic sources. Freemasons do NOT use it as a name for God. From what I can tell from the exposés, Royal Arch Masons MAY use it in their rituals, but not in the context of being a name for God... if we take these exposés at face value, the "word" might have been made up of a combination of archaic names for God, and used as some sort of password, but it was not used as an actual name for anything. Any claim that it "names" God is purely Anti-masonic. And in that context, Anti-masons mean to imply that Masons worship some God named "Jahbulon". Thus my changes. Blueboar 01:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- If the Freemasons do not use it as a word conveying meaning (only as a "password", as you might say) then what claim should they have over what it means ? Use in ritual, or use as a password, is fine encyclopedia material, but the dictionary's job is to show how it's used to convey meaning, and only one meaning has actually been brought to the table.
- Anyway, the anti-Masons can imply all they like about whether or not "Jahbulon" is God or a different god, but that doesn't do anything to the definition of the word. A similar edit war went on about Allah here, between those who argued that God and Allah meant the same person but were used in different contexts and that to define it otherwise was idiocy, and those who argued that God and Allah were different entities entirely and to define it otherwise was blasphemy. It reminds me of this. The word clearly appears to mean God in the context of Freemasonry, even if it happens to be the case that Freemasons don't use it themselves and consider it to be an alien deity, as conversely English-speaking Muslims generally do and Christians generally do not call their deity Allah, even those that believe him to be the same person.
- In any case, I found a couple more cites—yes, anti-Masonic, don't pro-Masons publish anything?—which assert that the Masons worship the same God as Christians do, and that the name comes from identifying different viewpoints of the deity, as Allah is identified with God: 'The God of the Bible is identified with other gods, and God's true name is "Jabulon," which explains why "Jah, Bel and On appear in the American ritual of the Royal Arch degree on the supposition that Jah was the Syriac name of God; Bel (Baal) the Chaldean; and On, the Egyptian."' →ISBN — In this case the anti-Masonry comes in the charge that it is a mistake to thus suppose that God's name is Jahbulon, not that "some God" has been introduced. The same in another source: "The Masonic claim that God's true name is Jabulon is atrocious." and "Jabulon. A Masonic compound word for God derived from " →ISBN —Muke Tever 08:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- "The word clearly appears to mean God in the context of Freemasonry, even if it happens to be the case that Freemasons don't use it themselves"
- Where is it CLEAR that it means God in the context of Freemasonry? The exposés may list it as a password, may even say that it is the name of God in three languages, but the WORD, as a WORD, no more means God than does a compound Zeusodinchrist. For that matter, Jesus Christ isn't a word that means God, it means Jesus the Annointed One: which is, to some sects, a NAME of God, but noone goes around saying that Jesus Christ has a dictionary definition of God. I could argue til I'm blue in the face that in the context of mathematics, square means circle, even though mathematicians don't use it themelves: and if I find references to squaring the circle in math books, then, obviously I'm right, and I will add circle to the definition of square in wiktionary.--Vidkun 15:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Muke - let me take some of your comments one at a time:
- If the Freemasons do not use it as a word conveying meaning (only as a "password", as you might say) then what claim should they have over what it means?
First, because if Royal Arch Masons use it as a "password" then they made the word up. Who better to say what it "means". Secondly, because this wiktionary entry defines it as a word that had meaning to Freemasons. That is the main reason so many Masons have asked for it to be deleted... the definition is wrong. I don't know how many times we have to say it... Freemasons do not use this word as a name for God.
- Use in ritual, or use as a password, is fine encyclopedia material, but the dictionary's job is to show how it's used to convey meaning, and only one meaning has actually been brought to the table.
This entry started as a Wikipedia article, and was deleted from there because it was not verifiable. I agree that a dictionary's job is to show how a word is used to convey meaning... the problem is that one meaning that has been brought to the table is WRONG.
- Anyway, the anti-Masons can imply all they like about whether or not "Jahbulon" is God or a different god, but that doesn't do anything to the definition of the word.
Sure it does... if you define it as a word used by Freemasons, that is an incorrect definition. I suppose you could define it as "a word that Anti-masons claim is used by Freemasons as a Name for God." At least that would be an accurate statement.
- A similar edit war went on about Allah here, between those who argued that God and Allah meant the same person but were used in different contexts and that to define it otherwise was idiocy, and those who argued that God and Allah were different entities entirely and to define it otherwise was blasphemy. It reminds me of this. The word clearly appears to mean God in the context of Freemasonry, even if it happens to be the case that Freemasons don't use it themselves and consider it to be an alien deity, as conversely English-speaking Muslims generally do and Christians generally do not call their deity Allah, even those that believe him to be the same person.
Not similar at all... in the case of Allah, everyone agrees that this is the Islamic name for God... that argument was over the nature of Allah (does the name refer the same god that Christians or Jews worship, or not). It is different with "Jahbulon". Here, we have Anti-masons saying that Freemasons use "Jahbulon" to mean "God", and Freemasons saying "No we don't"... it would be as if Budists said that Christians called their God "Allah". A total mix up of fact. I therefore disagree with your statement that the word clearly appears to "mean" God in the context of Freemasonry... it doesn't! If it means God in any context it would be in an Anti-masonic context.
- In any case, I found a couple more cites—yes, anti-Masonic, don't pro-Masons publish anything?...
Masons do publish... a lot... so do Anti-masons. But you won't find "Jahbulon" mentioned in the Masonic publications. The reason why is because they don't use the word! (OK... it is possible that a sub-group does or did, however they only use(d) it as a "password" - without it meaning "God"). And just so you know... Masons do have a term they use for God... they call him "Grand Architect of The Universe" (sometimes "Great Architect..." or "Supreme Architect..."). Since Freemasonry accepts men from many different faiths, and since using any specific name for God could cause disharmony between these brethren, they use the generic "Grand Architect" so that no one will be offended. Think about this... if they used "Jahbulon" as the Name of God, it would probably offend almost everyone in the room! Blueboar 15:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Many Christians have no idea that the Christian God is called Yahweh. Might this be similar - Jahbulon being part of the mystical baggage of early Freemasonry, though little-used today? Widsith 16:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Not likely: the exposés claim to quote the rituals where these three words are used as a password, it is not referred to as Jahbulon=God, nor do they state Jahbulon=name for God. The closest the exposés come on the matter is to say that it is three names for God in different languages, put together as a password or phrase. As for Yahweh, that is not quite correct for this analogy, YHVH is the Tetragrammaton, and there is no definitive answer on its pronunciation.--Vidkun 16:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps a suitable definition would be along the lines of, ‘A deity-name associated with Freemasonry, used as a password in certain rites’. This does not pass judgement on the rightness or wrongness of its association with Freemasonry. Widsith 16:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- No, because that does not explain where the association comes from. Listen, here's a bloody quote from Duncan's Ritual of Freemasonry →ISBN (which I cannot substantiate as being accurate, as I have not seen the degree to which the quote refers): "It is the name of Deity in three languages, viz., Chaldaic, Hebrew, and Syriac." It's three words, not one. JesusHChrist is not a word, it's a phrase. This thing we are debating is NOT a word, except in the minds of those who want to attribute meaning that was not there by those who put the syllables together.--Vidkun 17:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
We do not need to account for ‘where the association comes from’ to define the word. Also, it is perfectly legitimate to form a new word by combining existing words - see postman, bookshelf etc. etc. Widsith 17:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Those words are compunds made of other words that have established common meaning on their own. Jahbulon does not, as already well-established. The etymologies are all completely fabricated by individuals with no linguistic qualifications in order to make apoint ot other people who also do not have the requisite background. MSJapan 17:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Will you agree that JesusHChrist isn't a word? The fact that many people use it, by your standards, suggests it should indeed be listed in the wiktionary. Jahbulon is only USED as a word in books attempting to claim Freemasons have a name for God like that, or claiming that the word is the Masonic God. Neither of which is true. In Freemasonry, it isn't a word, it is (supposedly) a phrase. Its origin as a word, not a phrase, comes the sources listed in the article. Your two cited compound words have actual meanings, the one we are discussing only has meaning for those who claim it IS a word.--Vidkun 17:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
I agree the given etymologies are unconvincing; that is probably because the word is deliberately obscure. I also agree that JesusHChrist isn't a word, however your idea of my ‘standards’ is a bit off. You say that Jahbulon is only used as a word in certain supposedly anti-Masonic books: but that is enough to merit a definition of it. It has appeared in a lot of books, after all, and people are entitled to look it up. Whereas, NO-ONE claims that JesusHChrist is a word, nor is it ever spelt in this way. Though if you keep using it as such, maybe one day you will succeed in getting it accepted in print, and then into Wiktionary. :) Widsith 17:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Widsith The etymologies are unconvincing because the word was not meant to be a word in the first place. Assuming it was indeed created by Royal Arch Masons as a password (as the exposé seems to indicate) then it was intentionally a gibberish word that no one else would ever use. As for the idea that it's Anti-masonic use (as a Name for God) has been repeated and published, and thus qualifies it as a legitimate word for inclusion at Wiktionary.. I do not really have a problem with that, as long as the definition makes it clear that the usage given (as a Name for God) is Anti-masonic and not Masonic. Blueboar 18:21, 26 January 2006 (U
TC)
BTW, Jesus H. Christ. —Muke
Tever 20:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Cute, Muke, very cute ... but it still doesn't change the fact that Jahbulon isn't a real word. Let's take another example... Suppose I formed a fraternity to study the history of the U.S. Presidents, and created a password: "Washadmad" (etymology: Washington, Adams, Madison). Would "Washadmad" be worthy of dictionary entry? No, it would not be a real word. Blueboar 22:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Not till it was used independently three times over at least two years, entered widespread use, or was used in a well-known work, in which case we would gladly receive it. —Muke Tever 00:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- I see... so let's take this to the next step... suppose someone found out that this fraternity I started used "Washadmad", but (not being a member) got the reference all wrong and figured that the members of this fraternity thought that "Washadmad" was the name of the current President of the United States, and included this erroneous information in a book. Are you saying that "Washadmad" would then be worthy of inclusion? Or does it take several other people, quoting,referencing or repeating this erroneous information in their books to make it worthy? Blueboar 14:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, that sense would follow the same inclusion rules. It's a basic fact of NPOV that nobody "owns" a word or can dictate how it "should" be used (with the minor exception of trademarks, which are protected by law from certain uses by competitors, but even they can be diluted when genericized by the population at large; cf. xerox et al.) —Muke Tever 18:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- OK, at least I now understand where you are coming from. I disagree with your conclusion, but I do understand it. Assuming you are correct, and the erroneous use (of a made up word) in a publication makes a word worthy of inclusion in Wiktionary... how would you define "Washadmad"? Blueboar 18:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- As I am not familiar with the word, I can only define it by analysis of the texts that use it. —Muke Tever 23:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Well, In my example I say there are a few books that claim members of my fraternity (let's call them 'the Loyal Order of Presidentaphiles') think that "Washadmad" is the President of the US. Would a definition: "Presidentaphilic Name for the President of the US" be an acceptable definition? 68.166.192.57 00:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC) - sorry, forgot to log in. This post by me Blueboar 00:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- "Name for..." and "Word for..." etc. are, in general, bad definition style—which is not to say I havnt succumbed to it occasionally, but it is something that ideally is to be corrected, because it's superfluous (you could add it to every definition in the dictionary, barring the next point) and because the definition should say what the word means ("water is H₂O"), not treating the word as an item being described ("water is a name for H₂O"). The best wiktionary style would have a tag, e.g. "# (Presidentaphilia) The President of the US" (cf. the tag at Jesus H. Christ) or—especially if there is much controversy—a full ===Usage note=== section explaining when it is and is not used (and where authorities, who should be cited, say it is and is not to be used; e.g. at alot). —Muke Tever 07:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Muke, I really do not follow your logic. A dictionary is supposed to give accurate information. If "Washadmad" were a real word, it would be totally inaccurate to say "# (Presidentaphilia) The President of the US"... it would be giving both an inaccurate definition and an inaccurate attribution to the word. That would be like saying the word "Satan" should be listed in Wiktionary as "(Christianity) God" Not only would that be inaccurate, but it would be highly offensive. And perhaps that is a better analogy to what is going on with Jahbulon. The word is being given an inaccurate (or at best unverified) meaning and an inaccurate and offensive attribution. Blueboar 23:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Words don't exist in a reified state, where there is a "pure" meaning and everything else is invalid. Many words or meanings of words exist due to mistakes in the writing or the reading of former authors. (As an exercise, try and figure out how many places have been identified as being the "Thule" of the Greeks and Romans; justify the proscription against hopefully to mean "I hope that...", and compare the use of Aryan by the Nazis to exclude the only people of Germany one would nowadays call Aryan: the Gypsies.) However a word is used, whether on solid or shaky grounds, is to be documented. And given a policy of no original research, we are limited to gathering our information from the sources we can cite; and as in your hypothetical example the only sources you have given are sources that have the word meaning "President of the US" as used by Presidentaphiles, that is the only meaning we can give it. —Muke Tever 18:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- I suppose it all comes down to the attribution. It is the attribution to Freemasonry of Jahbulon=God that seriously offends me. I am a historian, not a lingust, but I can not believe that inaccuracy is something that Wiktionary would be in favor of. To say that Freemasons use Jahbulon for God is inaccurate (and a POV statement). Let's try this a different way... can you think of any other words that are attributed to people who don't actually use it? Blueboar 04:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- broomstick
- (witchcraft) A broom imbued with magic enabling one to fly riding the handle.
- At least, as far as I understand, this is neither historical nor mainstream wicca, but belongs to the realm of popular belief about witches. The idea is that the labels "witchcraft", "Presidentaphilia", "Freemasonry" refer to semantic fields, i.e. words used by people speaking or writing about such things, not necessarily to use by witches, Presidentaphiles, or Freemasons, i.e. the people involved in those fields. —Muke Tever 06:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Hmmm... I just looked up Broomstick on wiktionary and it doesn't say anything about witchcraft. I wonder why that might be? Blueboar 14:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Because Wiktionary is 99.99% stubs? Added it, with cites. —Muke Tever 17:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Muke, all disctionary entries are stubs... thats what marks the difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. Any way... I will be interested to see if your witchcraft definition stays. It is obvious that we disagree on what makes a word definition valid, and I don't think either of us will change the other's mind. If your concept is upheld, then my good estimation of wiktionary is gone. I will no longer be willing to trust any definition. So be it. Blueboar 17:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- No, the entries are stub dictionary entries (not stub encyclopedia entries) because they do not contain comprehensive pronunciation information (for all major and as many minor dialects as possible, with sound files), historical and alternate spellings, etymological information both historical and current, inflection information, a complete and accurately stated set of definitions, editorial examples illustrating the word's use in a simple context, notes on current and historical usage both attested and prescribed, associated terms (synonyms, antonyms, hypernyms, hyponyms, meronyms, etc.), derived terms (both in its own language and others), reasonably comprehensive lists of translations, and quotations showing the historical range of the usage of the word, none of which, really, are encyclopedia information, because a dictionary entry should be about a word, while an encyclopedia entry should be about the thing the word represents. If you want to know whether witches really fly on broomsticks, or whether Jahbulon is really what Freemasons call God, you go to an encyclopedia. If you want to know whether broomstick is what English-speakers say witches fly on and whether English-speakers say Jahbulon is what Freemasons call God, you go to the dictionary. —Muke Tever 17:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Listen, I know that there is a wonderful little war going on here over the meaning of, and, hell, even the existance of this compound as a word. However, the reverts removing the rfv and rfd notice are unfair to third parties regarding this. The point of this dictionary is to define things. If an article is disputed, it is best for all person coming to this article to know that there is contention over the definition. So, quit removing the tags.--Vidkun 17:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
From the criteria for inclusion page:
A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means. This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and idiomatic.
It is not likely to be run across unless someone is blatantly searching for anti-Masonic sources, which are full of misinformation anyhow.
Attestation
"Attested" means verified through clearly widespread use,
Nope. This is clear already from sources.
Usage in a well-known work,
No again.
Appearance in a refereed academic journal, or
Nope.
Usage in permanently-recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year.
It is in different sources, but it does not convey the meaning, only the word, as there really is no meaning.
Independence
This is meant to exclude multiple references which draw on each other. Where Wikipedia has an article on a given subject, and that article is mirrored by an external site the use of certain words on the mirror site would not be independent. It is quite common to find that material on one site is readily traced to another. Similarly, the same quote will often occur verbatim in separate sources. While the sources may be independent of each other, the usages in question are clearly not.
The presumption is that if a term is only used in a narrow community, there is no need to refer to a general dictionary such as this one to find its meaning.
Exactly. Therefore, by everyone's admission, the word is used by a small subgroup of Masons, at best, and thus is not independent and does not belong on Wiktionary. MSJapan 17:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Thank you. It annoys me to see that there are people out there who are not interested in figuring out who best can do something, and who best can agree to doing things . . . --Vidkun 17:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Jimmy James, on wikipedia you keep making edits whining that things are being reverted without discussion, then come here and revert things without discussion.
the rfv and rfd tags are being put back.
This word IS currently under contention, and someone coming to look the word up (which you keep linking in the wikipedia article about freemasonry) should be given the FULL opportunity to know that this dispute is going on.
Furthermore, the continued statement, as a dictionary item, that Jahbulon is a Freemasonic name for God is beyond false. This is analogous to the "Blood Libel", in that the claim is made repeatedly, without it ever once being true. It doesn't matter how many times someon alleges that the charges levelled in the blood libel are true, they aren't, and should not be listed as fact. You keep listing that Jahbulon is the Freemasonic term for God. Keep saying it: it isn't true. It should therefore not be said HERE. Stop it! To all other eidtors, this editor, JJ, is suspected as a sockpuppet on wikipedia.--Vidkun 13:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Note: that the user Jimmy James has been blocked indefinately from wikipedia. Grye 22:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Is there any way to expidite a decision on the AfD? It has been up for deletion for over a month now. Blueboar 14:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
- An admin has already stated twice that the word will not be deleted. —Muke Tever 17:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Sorry, I did not realize that those were notices of decision (nothing in the post indicated that Stephen_G._Brown was an admin or speaking as such). I suppose that I had expected something more formal to be posted. Thanks for the reply. Blueboar 19:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
- The deletion process here is much more informal than on Wikipedia. Generally arrant nonsense gets deleted, and everything else stays. The fact that the requests for deletion page is very rarely cleaned of old discussions doesn't help, certainly. —Muke Tever 20:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
- By putting emphasis on the earliest most contentious ones, and taking decisions I think the RfD is now in better shape than it has been in a long while. At this moment there is only one item left from each of October and November. As a rule I like to wait at least a week after the last edit before acting upon a decsion, so each time people add new comments about Jahbulon it extends the time period. I have watched the deletion debate with care, and have noted that those who most loyally work toward the betterment of this project have all opposed deleting this article. I am far more inclined to support their linguistic experience than the opinions of some handful whose sole purpose for participating in Wiktionary has be to see this article deleted. I have said little about what this article should say, and I would prefer to keep away from that until the deletion issue is finally settled. Eclecticology 02:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Another might say "I noted that those who most loyally opposed deleting this article have all, for good or bad, edited this article." Grye 03:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
- That are banned on Wikipedia, & have edited here:
so OK this dictionary entry has reappeared on wikipedia, & the wiktionary tag comes, & goes, & comes and goes. As-is, it will stay, but I just thought I'd let y'all who actually care about this word know that there were some possibly good citations etc made, that some may want to integrate here. Grye 13:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Freemasons as a whole, or in any significant part that can be quoted, use this word for God, that being cited above. So This quote needs to go. Grye 14:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Also, how do (even 5) non-Masonic people writing about Mason's using a word in private Masonic ritual justify a statement like "a symbolic or ceremonial name for God associated with certain Masonic rites."?!? I say, here & now, that my cat said to me today that fudge is a legitimate word for a native of Colorado, USA. So, if I cite this line here, can I add this def to fudge???????? Have some respect. Change the statement to reflect reality. Grye 14:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Actually, my cat spoke again to me, this morning. I wrote it all down. I'm going to publish it, & get an ISBN #. He said "this Jahbuloln stuff is all cr@p, these guys are liars". 3 people have already quoted him in their puiblications, soon to be printed, complete with soon-to-come ISBN #s. Can I then quote them ALL here? Grye 11:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
- No, the people quoting your cat would fail the independence criterion (direct quotes are the immediate reason for this rule). However you could cite your cat's original statement, easily. —Muke Tever 22:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Are we to believe that the scholarship standards here are not the same as on Wikipedia, and that anything stays as long as it sounds plausible? How many people need to tell you it's not a proper noun, and how many of the quotes need to be shown to be from disreputable sources or out of date before corrections are not reverted? MSJapan 14:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
- MSJ (& all) I think notes on the sources should go in, concisely, & near the top, just as the "Use of Jahbulon" did. BTW, all, I was the one that brought this over from Wikipedia, for if it were anything (no comment), it was a dictionary entry, & after extensive reverting wars over on Wikipedia, I initiated the "Use of Jahbulon" disclaimer being at the top, here, to tone down the rv's... Which it has, believe it or not... So anyway, maybe any other significant notes like that, + or -, should go toward the top, in everyone's interest? Grye 14:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Also, according to Duncan's Royal Arch ritual page 264, Jahbulon is "The Grand Omnific Royal Arch word" -- it is only in the footnotes that any speculation to its origin is made, which means that any claims to Jahbulon being a name for anything are not part of the ritual as stated in the entry. Funnily enough, this source, which should be more accurate, though more historically dated, than some of the other sources, is not listed in the quotations. Yet the article is appropriate to keep, and "factual". Do we need any more proof that the proper noun usage is incorrect? We've already got material that says it's not in current use either, from people who would know.MSJapan 15:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Please feel free to add that citation, but please realize that it supports none of your assertions. The citation from 2004 (and all or most of the others) indicate that the term is used currently, in precisely the way you object to.
- The removal of links for authors is indicitive of something amiss. We link many things here that are redlinks; if the entry will probably exist someday, then is should be linked to help encourage development of entries. Links to non-existant pages on Wikipedia are no different in that regard. Were these edits done in an attempt to invalidate citations by stating there is no Wikipedia page? --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
- The ones I removed were links to Hebrew items, which will probably never be linked to on an English dictionary. The other simple fact is that none of those authors has firsthand experience - they are drawing on personal conjecture in areas in which they have no training, or they're using another source that is not Duncan's (which is the only thing that could be considered authoritative for its time) and it's from 1866.
- What concerns me most about this whole thing is that no one seems to be critical of the sources at all; material that is conjecture or blatant POV is being paraded as fact. It's being "used currently" by individuals who clearly have no idea what it really meant (as I have shown with my citation) and of course have no idea what the context is.
- I highly doubt Stephen Knight was trained in Hebrew linguistics, for example, and his research is widely questioned by many people, not just Masons. Who is he, as a non-Mason, furthermore, to know what a Mason thought? So I dispute the validity of the source here, if not on credibility of sources, but based on the utterly speculative nature of the quote.
- Ellis is clearly guessing (he says as much), and it seems that the book itself is largely garbage (also from outside criticism). I wouldn't believe that "On = Thoth" in any linguistic sense, as it makes no phonetic sense. So here again I see a credibility issue, not to mention that it is clearly speculation and not fact.
- Bernal is also guessing, and his WP article says his theories from that book series are contested. It's also three books. Which one is it in?
- Medway doesn't say what it is, so the quote isn't relevant, but at least he's not claiming it to be a word for "a Masonic god". However, it contradicts the earlier etymology as well - he says it's on an altar with Aleph Bet Lamed, and clearly it should be Yud Bet Lamed if it's going to match.
- Heckethorn says that power was ascribed to the name, not that it was a name for anything.
- So, out of five sources, three are questionable, and the remaining two say something else. Adding Duncan in, it's three saying something else. So, even if we assume that the first three are valid, there's still no solid consensus on what the word is, and to come out and say "it is a name for G-d" is very POV given the discussion and the sources, as it is an unsupported conclusion. Unless a 3-3 split has suddenly become consensus?
- Everybody is getting hung up on the fact that this is a Masonic secret! OMG!, without considering the underlying material. I could frankly care less about a 130 year old "secret word" that apparently isn't secret at all; that's the least of my concerns. What I am concerned about is the misrepresentation and lack of critical consideration that is going on here. Five non-Masonic sources can't agree with each other, or with what a Masonic source (and some Masons) say, but the definition is valid based on those sources?
- Not to mention that none of those five non-Masonic sources has page numbers or publication info. Someone said the authors said it, but how does anyone else prove it? I could just as well cite John Q Public saying that Jahbulon was his dog, based on the current citation standards for this article. So, even if consensus is claimed (which it should not be), and even if the quotes are correct (which is heretofore unverifiable), there is a blatant citation violation here, and not just on the quotes: none of the etymologies are cited save one (the intro says those etymologies are cited, but it never says from where, except for that address), and I'm not too behind the idea of citing a non-printed source here (the author is still alive and writing, and it may be a copyvio to use it). I would also note that if the uncited material is removed, there's almost nothing left.
- However, when actions are taken to bring the article to standards, such as removing uncited (and therefore unverifiable) material, the changes are reverted without explanation by an individual whose first statement on his Wiktionary user page is what his edit ranking is. That strikes me as an ulterior motive if ever there was one.
- However, as I don't intend to hang the entire argument on a PA, and will therefore disregard any perceived motivations, I think there are very valid and objective reasons to make some radical changes to the article, and the lack of anything save superficial thinking on the topic has prevented this. MSJapan 02:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
- There are so many incorrect assumptions in your statements, I don't know where to begin.
- User:Wonderfool tagged most or all of the top contributor's User: pages sometime last year with the statistics link. The person you are accusing (of what?) didn't put the item you object to there.
- As I said on the rfv page, we have entries for all sorts of fictional things. We do not aim to report anything about the validity of a term, only how a term is used. We verify that by attestation.
- At this infant stage, we have hundreds of Hebrew entries. As we gain more contributors fluent in Hebrew, our coverage of Hebrew will accelerate.
- Saying that certain authors' "theories...are contested" means absolutely nothing about whether the authors used this word. Likewise calling it "largely garbage." Likewise "he is guessing."
- We certainly do not have the same verification limitations as Wikipedia. This may be the very first case where someone is actually contesting whether a book (or books) exist. Simply saying something doesn't exist does not make it so.
- But all of that aside, there still are three valid citations with links to persistent archived copies. Therefore, this entry will very likely stay, despite your displeasure, even if you do find a way to invalidate the two citations not linked properly.
- --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Since every reference to Jahbulon being used as a "name for God" comes from an Anti-masonic source, I changed the parenthetical origin of usage (if that is the right description) from Freemasonry to Anti-Freemasonry. This is more accurate, as it is Anti-masons who use this word in that context, by claiming that Freemasons use this word as a name for God. The "name for God" usage does not originate with the Freemasons themselves. My change was reverted. Please explain why Blueboar 20:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Now repeatedly reverted, with no explanation given. I have explaned my justification for the change, please justify the reverts. Blueboar 13:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
From: Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion
- Independence
- This is meant to exclude multiple references which draw on each other. Where Wikipedia has an article on a given subject, and that article is mirrored by an external site the use of certain words on the mirror site would not be independent. It is quite common to find that material on one site is readily traced to another. Similarly, the same quote will often occur verbatim in separate sources. While the sources may be independent of each other, the usages in question are clearly not.
- The presumption is that if a term is only used in a narrow community, there is no need to refer to a general dictionary such as this one to find its meaning.
Given that all of the references to Jahbulon can be traced to a single source (Duncan's 1860s Expose, and his commontary on it's possible meaning), and given that the term is verifiably used in a VERY narrow community (A few Anti-masonic writers and one English Priest) I have to wonder if the article meets this guideline. Comments? Blueboar 14:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
- I don't think they had web sites, or mirror sites of them, in the 1860s. The line regarding "narrow community" should be updated in WT:CFI, as it is always successfully countered with the argument that a dictionary's raison d'etre is to help people learn the meaning of rare or uncommon words (also in WT:CFI.) By the way, your group has presented this exact argument before. The only salient difference between then and now seems to be your recent flurry of en.wiktionary contributions (showing that you seem to be acting in good faith.)
- I personally, am much more in favor of refining that self-contradictory portion of WT:CFI, instead of entertaining another round of the cabal crying "delete this term." When Wikimania is over after this week, and the (new and old) bureaucrats return, this will probably recieve adequate attention. --Connel MacKenzie 14:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Actually, we tried deleting it on different grounds... As for this querry... well, it was a long shot... really that was all it was, a querry. I did not think that you would suddenly say "oh, I missed that provision... you're right, the entry should go"... I just wondered how the guideline applied. To tell the truth, I was the one to not read the guideline correctly (my eye totally skipped the part about "mirror sites" and just saw the words "multiple references which draw on each other".) Oh... could you encourage someone to reply to my comments above? I really would appreciate it if those reverting my change could justify why the usage should be (Freemasonry) and not (Anti-Masonry). Blueboar 13:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Calling a book about Freemasonry "anti" is more than slightly POV. --Connel MacKenzie 17:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Blueboar, this article was discussed in depth last year and early this year and the matter is closed. I have no intention of discussing it further. In general, additions and corrections to articles are welcomed, but we do not believe anything you say about it. Perhaps someday a free agent will come along who is both knowledgeable about this and unbiased. In the meantime, stop messing with the article. —Stephen 09:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Connel, Which book are you talking about?... To my mind, calling a book which attacks Freemasonry (which most of them do) "anti" is hardly POV. My point is that the only people who verifyably claim that Jahbulon means what this article says it means (a symbolic or ceremonial name for God) are Anti-Masons. The Masons either do not mention it, or deny that it is a name for God. I am not saying delete the entry (at least not any longer), I am not saying the word was never used by Freemasons with a different meaning, and I am not trying to "mess with the article"... I am trying to give people accurate information. If someone can come up with an a reliable citation to demonstrate that the masons actually DO use Jahbulon as a name for God I will shut up and go away. Blueboar 18:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
If for no other reason, then for the cause of a better entry/article, wouldn't all of us want this in one place or another? It has come along quite significantly, given that many (myself included) feel it isn't an actual word or/nor an encyclopedic entry. But forget POV. for it's own sake, can it be in one place or another? G-Rye 08:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Wiktionary Vs. wikipedia
- There is no reason to introduce any such spurious dichotomy. Wikipedia and Wiktionary work in concert, with Wiktionary doing the lexicography and Wikipedia having the encyclopaedia articles, in many areas. They are, after all, intended to be companions to each other, as can be seen written right at the top of the main page. Uncle G 12:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I note that Wikipedia says it is a password used by Freemasons (and casts some doubt on its use as a name for God). While I do understand that some non-masonic sources imply that Freemasons use it as a name for God, shouldn't we at least acknowledge how Freemasons themselves say they use the word, by giving a second definition? 66.167.241.77 21:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
