627:
considered original research and therefore inference. If I find a source of some religious group saying that
Jahbulon is the name of the Masonic Devil God, and use that source to make the statement "atleast one religious group has claimed that Jahbulon is the name of a Masonic God" it's removed due to the source being biased, which is NOT how wikipedia works, nor how RS works. I have a great idea, my new source for the fact that there is controversy surrounding this word is the Knowledge Jahbulon Talk page, or the edit history of the actual Jahbulon page where users can see editors removing over and over sourced statements, or where a fully sourced version of the article was removed all at once by you with the comment "tx across replacement article drafted in talkspace in light of recent edit warring. Majority agreed, anticipate continued disruption from non-contributing individual" since obviously if people are disagreeing with the majority that's all the consensus the majority needs to remove sourced material that they disagree with.
1804:" a little insulting; any editor who is able to provide counterclaim and argument has the opportunity to express same within the article, yet those who proclaim themselves knowledgable about the "truth" (and that is a subjective issue in this matter) wish to remove the article. The claims, however far fetched or even ridiculous/errornous they may be, are already in the public domain, in print and catalogued, and are searchable on the internet. I cannot see why it would suit Freemasonary that the only references should then be on "fire and brimstone" religious sites, even if by countering the arguments it appears to give the matter spurious authority. It is surely better to present your arguments than run the risk of appearing to be attempting to mask "the truth" (that subjective concept, again!)? I'm also a little tired of making these points that nobody has the courtesy to answer.
1778:"controversy" arises from conflating the Lodge and the Chapter, which are separate bodies. It is the usual problem when the people objecting to something don't fully understand what it is that they are objecting to, and thus anything that could be loosely yermed Masonic, whether recognized by Masons or not, is deemed to be "Masonic". The "controversy" arises from the ease of making a web page and borrowing content uncritically from other spurious sources. It is a question of WP making a mountain out of a molehill. for example, Googling gets us this article as the number one hit. The second is an evangelical website, the third is an anti-Masonic site, and so on and so forth. This is all fringe stuff, and most of the editors arguing against deletion don't know anything about this either. Yet the information from those who
1552:
that states "Group X has made claim Y" and use S as the source. This is completly acceptable as a self-published source being used as a primary source, however the masonic-editing-block will immediatly blanket revert stating that source S is biased and therefore is not able to ever be used on wikipedia as a reference, which is wrong. The amount of references removed from the article is staggering, right now if you look at the article there is no mention at all about the controversy the term has caused between masons and religious groups. This is because the majority group of editors will remove any information added to the article that is not related to the possible defination of the word, inorder to support their claims that there is no controversy and therefore no notability. Look at
472:, etc. As far as I can tell, the word exists, there are documentable beliefs about the word, and the fact of the controversy is even mentioned in a Masonic publication listed in the references at the bottom of the page. Looking at the talk page archives, the same parties appear to have been arguing about this since March. One can't help but think that this "debate" is intentionally constructed to give the appearance of a dispute about the encyclopedic status of the article. These secret socities and their games give me the creeps. Their goals of keeping certain information secret are diametrically opposed to the goals of Knowledge. In this case, we need to see through the rhetoric and put the goals of Knowledge first.
285:
after the 1800s, according to the article itself." is both misleading and wrong. The 2nd "jurisdiction" does not operate the same way the US jurisdictions does and comparing it to the US system is very misleading, in the US there are many seperate jurisdictions of Royal Arch
Masonry, however the 2nd jurisdiction we have verifiable proof the word was used in is the Supreme Grand Chapter in England which oversees all Royal Arch Masonry in England. Also the statement that there is no record of the word after the 1800's is a blatant lie. The user who wrote this summary in a previous edit
1026:. Can you provide at least one reliable mainstream source (such as a newspaper or an academic journal) that discusses this controversy extensively (even to debunk it), as is required by that guideline? So far, all the sources that discuss this word have come from advocates of one side of this controversy or the other... most are Anti-masonic sources, and a few are Royal Arch Masons. Both sides of which I would contend are Fringe (If I remember my stats correctly, less than 1% of all Freemasons are invovled in any way with Royal Arch Masonry).
244:. The reasoning given for its existencein the past has been "controversy", but no editor has been able to articulate said controversy. The introduction of the article states it was a word in use historically in 2 jurisdictions; as comparison, there are 50 such jurisdictions in the US alone, and there is no record of this so-called "word" after the 1800s, according to the article itself. Thus the value of the article is questionable. The current proponent of the existence of the article,
341:
the notes to an otherwise unattributed document. The majority of offline mention is predicated on reports by various churches, undertaken in the 80's, and including the explanation amongst about half a dozen other reasons predominantly related to unsubstantiated allegations of inappropriate influence and hierarchies independent of the church. Any media related discussion of these reports concentrates on these behavioural criticisms and neglect to mention the use of the word.
1088:
the small group of adherents. References that are brought about because of the notability of a related subject, such as the creator of the theory, and not the theory itself, should be given far less weight when deciding on notability. Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion, such as on April Fool's Day, as "News of the Weird" or during "slow news days".
1906:
is still a subject that should have an encyclopedic entry. The claim is thus noted, references cited, and the counterclaims / arguments presented, with references. This can be done without requiring any sanction of any authority, by individuals with some knowledge of the matter . Removing the article does not make the claim disappear - rather, it may appear to justify those who remark upon supposed conspiracy.
124:
925:(for want of a better word) is in the public domain. That is why there is a debate; Masons say it doesn't exist (although not formally, see my comment above) and other parties say it does - which some of them use as an example of anti Christian "devil worship". It may be irritating to the point of tears, but the debate exists. The article is the place in which to record the objections/denials.
816:
he brandished before me, not a copy of
Stephen Knight’s book, but a copy of the minutes of last November’s Grand Chapter containing the address by ME Comp the Revd Francis Heydon, the then Third Grand Principal." are more then enough references to support the statement "The word Jahbulon has been a source of Controversy between religious groups and masonic groups". In full accordance with
760:
groups from both catholic and non catholic sources discuss how jahbulon is the name of a seperate god and thus blasphemous. Since they are self published sources, they are being used only as primary sources, and many of them are given since "and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial". It meets the requirements of
491:
problems with several guidelines and policies or not? The statement about secret societies and their "goal of keeping information secret" is spurious (and quite frankly POV) as the rituals that contain this word have been public knowledge since at least the 1840s ... there is no issue of keeping anything secret. This is not about secrecy, but about notability. If there
693:- According to the second part of your statement, all that is needed by any party subject to a matter of debate is that they do not (formally) respond to any question; therefore the matter is not noteworthy? That is patently ridiculous, there may be many reasons why a party may legitimately not respond - but it doesn't mean that the question or the subject isn't relevant.
1257:, and simply won't accept that other people have formed their own opinions. This page is not for arguing with other people. It is for stating your position clearly once and letting it rest on its merits. Feel free to improve your initial position in place, but if you continue I will move all argumentation beyond an initial statement to the talk page where it belongs. —
387:, they do not respond. There are no citations to independant reliable sources for there being any controversy about this word (while the article is extensively referenced, almost all of the references deal with the etimology of the word and none of them discuss a controversy surounding it.) Without such a citation, we have to assume that any claim that there
997:(Tydeman was at the time of his address a member of the SGC which oversees Royal Arch Masonry in England) the "word on the triangle" that he is discussing is Jahbulon. Tydeman touches on all the major aspects of the article, both attemping to figure out what the meaning is (which is impossible to prove), and adknowldging that the term is controversial.
724:
incompatible with their philosophies. The fact that the sources are clearly biased is irrelevant since the source is simply being used to show that Group X makes claim Y, where the source (S) is Group X claiming Y, it's not stating Y as a fact using S as a reference. Once you are able to grasp that concept all your confusion will be cleared up.
1224:, much of the arguing would disappear. A major factor in this AfD is the contention that this word is not notable enough for an article on it's own... a merge would solve that. For another, WP:FRINGE would not apply, as that guideline relates to articles and not to sections within articles. For another, I would agree that,
898:
So please... explain to us what the supposed controversy is about? I notice that (as with the last two AfDs on this article) the arguments are coming down to a bunch of people saying that the word is notable because it is controvercial ... but no one seems able to articulate what that controversy actually
1329:"They have therefore been repeatedly embarassed by repeated accusations that theirs is an occult faith which worships a composite deity called Jahbulon, who is different from the god of the world's great religions. Denial that Freemasonry is a religous cult is a condition of its claim to respectability."
395:
a set of competing definitions), and certainly not a notable one. If the controversy is the second issue, I would contend that this is really a sub-argument of a larger controversy between certain
Fundamentalist Christian groups and Freemasonry. In which case this article really should be merged into
1991:
the application of WP:SNOW - the nom will fail not because no-one will vote delete, but because there are entrenched views that mean no point of policy or debate will move them from their position - and both deletionists and antideletionists are guilty of this (IMO!). This could be construed as being
1551:
with the idea that if a group makes a statement against masonry, then they are inherently biased and therefore any attempt to use the page where they make their statement as a source is immediatly shot down. For example, I find a source S where Group X makes claim Y, I then add a line to the article
1546:
The article is only badly cited because the block of users who have been strong arming everyone else out of the article wish it to be. The users who all voted delete on here (specifically MSJapan ALR and
Blueboar) have all stated publically that they do not want this article to exist, and they oppose
1452:
An article like this is a perfect example of
Knowledge's value as a research tool. It's an incredibly well researched article. Even though it's on an arcane subject (which does not equal 'fringe', by a long stretch), it's far less 'fringe' than the numerous articles on soap opera characters and video
1014:
Anthony... thank you. Finally someone has answered my question as to what the controversy is. That makes things clearer. The article isn't about whether the word exists or not, nor is it really about what the word actually means, or how Masons use it ... it is about the fact that certain
Christian
897:
Anthony, please... this is not about "secrets"... the entire
Masonic ritual has been exposed numerous times (starting as far back as the mid 1700s). There are no "sectets" for the Masons to keep. This is about the notability of a word, and if there should be an article about it in an encyclopedia.
815:
these are all Self-published sources that along with the
Tydeman's statement "Only the other day I was accosted by a vociferous churchwarden: "How can you", he said, "How can you, a minister of religion, take part in ceremonies which invoke heathen gods by name?", and as evidence for his accusations,
626:
Oh yeah I forgot, according to you and a few of the other editors on the page, people claiming that the word is used in a certain way isn't allowed to be included in the article since those people themselves are biased, and actually reading sources instead of just pulling direct quotes out of them is
394:
I can only think of two things that could be considered a "controversy": 1) the debate over this word's etymology, or 2) the debate over whether
Freemasons do or do not worship Satan. If the the first is the controversy that they are talking about, I do not think this is much of a "controversy" (more
340:
Is there a controversy surrounding the word? - I would hesitate to call it a controversy although there is some use of it in attacks on the craft. Most of these attacks do not themselves source their interpretation, but it seems reasonable to assess that they are all derived from a single instance in
1719:
and the above. It is fairly clear that the present state of the article represents the utmost that can be achieved with the sources that are known; this is simply not enough to justify a separate article. The fact that the term may have some additional relevance in Islam is irrelevant, as far as I
1591:
You'll note that my persistence with regard to actually outlining your views has now resulted in some apparently productive discussion on the talk page, which I hope will continue. However I am concerned that you've now chosen to revert to the previous style of asking us to understand your position
1232:
be notable. The C&F article already discusses several reasons why different Christian groups object to Masonry. this fits in perfectly in that discussion. As that is the central theme of this article, it makes sense to merge it. In fact, a merger would give a much needed context to the debate
1087:
Any non-mainstream theories should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of
313:
is how the page looked before the editors all voting "Delete" on this afd replaced the page with their own version without consensus. If anyone needs to see how the word is notable, and that a controversy does exist please refer to this version where the controversy is made clear, since the gutting
1905:
is in the public domain, as are subsequent references, and even if it is without a shred of truth (a position I could accept, as I am fully aware of established religions practice of - frankly - lying about organisations they do not care for) and thus deemed unworthy of remark by the Freemasons, it
1887:
Not my point at all. My point is, you (the Masons) could simply reveal either the actual word used OR the actual interpretation of the word supposedly no longer used or publish whatever the heck you want about it which could then be used in the article. Just because something is secret doesn't mean
1587:
I would also suggest that despite my reservations I have sought to work collaboratively to bring the issue to a reasonable conclusion. I'll admit that at times it does feel like I'm banging my head agasint a brick wall, but that's the nature of collaboration sometimes. I'd also say that the other
1356:
Does there have to be an official response? If all you had to do to make a subject non-noteworthy then you would decide to say nothing then there would be many articles that would fail that criteria, and folk with agenda's would use that as a reason. Sorry, but putting fingers in ears and whistling
1093:
The discussion of a non-mainstream theory, positively or negatively, by other non-mainstream groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability, even if the latter group or individual is themself notable enough for a Knowledge article. If a non-mainstream theory is so unnotable that mainstream
1819:
As I have gathered, the general trend has been that the Fraternity does not respond to criticism for just that reason of lending authority to that which is spurious. Moreover, (and most importantly for purposes of this argument) what one jurisdiction says only applies to that jurisdiction, so any
1608:
We already had the discussion about a possible merger into the Christianity and Freemasonry article months ago, which was ended when sources were found that show some Islamic groups believe that Jahbulon is the name of a masonic devil god. I suggest you read the page's archives, before making the
1504:
in the last 18 months suggests: 1. notability, 2. non-fringe subject, 3. there is more to this AfD than meets the eye. I question whether this nomination is being made in good faith. Is there a way to protect the page from being nominated for deletion again, and again, and again, after AfD fails a
1431:
You guys tried to merge it with Christianity and Freemasonry before, and we already had that debate. The reason the merger was shot down was that I found sources that showed that it was not only Christian groups making the claims, I also found 2 islamic groups. We've already had this discussion,
1067:
was created to deal with Science related issues, as an extension of the notability requirement. With part of the justification of it being "anything with a complete lack of mainstream discussions can probably not be written about in a NPOV manner without some sort of mainstream baseline; doing so
351:
Does having a separate article about it tend to exacerbate the perception of a controversy? - Yes. We're wasting an awful lot of time and effort on something which is inaccurate (although marginally verifiable) and only a small part of a broader topic which is adequately covered elsewhere. Noting
252:
which consists of nothing but outdated material taken from an old book. He seems to have an agenda to "expose" something about Masonry which while he doesn't understand it, cannot be supported. He has already made a factual error in attributing material in a discussion to a source from whence it
284:
Note: This summary was crafted to be misleading, which is very dissapointing. The statement "the introduction of the article states it was a word in use historically in 2 jurisdictions; as comparison, there are 50 such jurisdictions in the US alone, and there is no record of this so-called "word"
651:
version of the Article. All the sources in there show that enough groups make claims about the word that are disputed by masonic representatives that calling the situation "controversial" under the defination of "Controversy" that reads "contention, strife, or argument" a completly valid claim.
759:
ALR just because you don't read my posts doesn't mean i'm not answering the question. In the version of the article that I pointed to, in the "Jahbulon and religion" section there are many fully sourced lines explaining that there is a contraversy with links to websites where various religious
1638:
Progress means people working together to make the article better. There is nothing wrong with adding sourced information to an article. Feel free to edit the information that I added and we can work together to represent it in the best possible manner. However it should be noted, that your
1485:
AfD here. The energy that seems to have gone into seeking this article's removal or making its expansion more than usually difficult, together with the fact that it relates to secret societies, makes it hard to assume good faith here. If you want people to ignore Jahbulon, give it a rest. -
723:
We have gone over this many times. To put in the article the statement "a number of religious bodies asserting that the interpretation demonstrates that Freemasonry is incompatible with their religious philosophies" simply requires sources of religious groups making claims that Freemasonry is
1764:
It's clear that this is a point of hot discussion among people nterested in Masonic issues. Why would anyone want there to be a hole in an encyclopedia when someone punches in an inquiry about this word, rather than this well-researched article about it and the controversy surrounding it? The
490:
comment: The debate is not whether this word exists or not, or even what some people believe about the word... but if a Knowledge article on it should be deleted. The questions to be asked and answered here are: 1) Is it notable enough for inclusion? 2) If so, why? 3) Does the article have
1579:
I think you misrepresent the situation, personally I don't believe there is anything particularly notable about a word and a few churches objecting to freemasonry but I've said several times that I'm quite happy for the issue to be properly contextualised amongst all the other objections to
1233:
over this word. Sure, there might be a brief period of back and fourth as we debate how this information best fits into the C&F article, but I truly believe that we could easily reach a consensus on that. The idea of keeping a bad article in order to "fireproof" another is rediculous.
764:
and is not Original research. I'm starting to feel like a broken record. You keep asking me to "answer the question" and accusing me of avoiding a question, yet i'm trying to answer whatever you ask. If you don't find this to be enough, please restate the question since obviously i'm not
1777:
Not really. It is a topic of contention among evangelical Christians who have online ministries dedicated to turning Masons "away from Lodge and to (their) church". The number of actual Royal Arch Masons is probably less than 10% of the total membership in most areas outside the UK. The
1050:, but an overview of the claims and denials/counterclaims of the parties in NPOV language - with citations/references. Whilst it is impossible to remove agenda from the contributors here it should be possible to accommodate all verifiable viewpoints. Could we please conduct this discussion
616:
Can you demonstrate why the word is notable, and as a result why any corresponding discussion might be notable. At the moment it's just your opinion and despite several months of asking the question you haven't managed to come up with anything which doesn't constitute OR by infering a
983:
The controversy seems to be this: It is a Masonic word for God or for a god. Some say it is Jehovah + Baal + Osiris. Some say otherwise. Some can accept revering all those names. Others cannot. Once we have sorted out what it DOES come from and means, we can decide if it is notable.
1824:
within Masonry or any appendant body outside of a single given jurisdiction, so there's no one truth to publish; it is merely fire and brimstone sites that make these sweeping and incorrect generalizations about the structure and content of Freemasonry. This is why, for example,
1623:
Also I thought we were making reasonable progress towards synthesising a form of words which could be used, but your more recent actions by chopping in huge chunks which had been previously agreed as inadequately sourced is not particularly condusive to a collaborative
352:
that some will use Google as a means of establishing notability the very process of discussion on the talk page elevates the level of coverage and it's relative importance to Google. Using that mechanism one must recognise the issues with the google search algorithms.
1082:
may have been originally created due to disputes relating to science theories, but it has clear application to Fringe theories in other fields, and has gone beyond its origin. If you read the guideline, it clearly is on point in this dispute in two of four sections:
431:
or whatever. The fact that much/all of the suppositions and claims are disputed, and the references questioned for lack of provenence, is irrelevant - it is in the public domain, thus it is likely to be searched, and this article is the vehicle to note it. I would
344:
Is there any independent corroboration? - I would suggest not, none of the citations used attribute their interpretation. Whilst I recognise that throwing large numbers of citations at an article might help justify it, the process should use verifiably independent
784:
Rather than have this discussion in parallel I've tried to simplify the question down a bit more on the article talk page. Rather than rant about process and point at legacy versions of the article can you actually declare which source you believes supports your
911:
Particularly as those of us who are Masons appreciate that this word is not in fact used hence cannot be considered as a secret anyway. Lets face it, if there was going to be an exposure of the word it would be much better to actually have the correct one. :)
1661:. I've left in the material which is supplementary and relies on questionable sources, since it's only really repeats of what was already there anyway. But as I've said several times it's easier to try to have this discussion on the article talk page.
1749:
Article seemed hopelessly arcane to me, but looking online, there appears to be lots of people writing and arguing about this Jahbulon - who knew? And if he is the Supreme Being, we might be turned into pillars of salt or something for deleting it.
402:
Another argument that came up in past AfDs was "it's interesting". I will simply point out that "interesting" is not the same as "encylopedic". We make a distinction in Knowledge between what is mearly "cool" and what is truly encyclopedic.
1150:
why don't you explain to me how you can possibly believe that the page is about masons worship satan. If you can somehow prove that the entirety of the Jahbulon page is about masons worshiping satan then you are absolutely right,
834:
Thankyou for allowing us some insight into your position, that will make things much easier to discuss meaningfully. As I said above it's not particularly useful to have this debate in parallel so I'll address it on the article
937:
However, notwithstanding that, the issue is one of a number (usually between six or eight) which are used by a range of Christian denominations to object to Freemasonry. That's already extensively discussed in another article,
253:
didi not come, and while he requires that others tell him why the article is unencyclopedic, he will not offer a counterargument as to why the article is encyclopedic. Editor issues aside, this article tells the reader nothing
1782:
know is discounted. People are more interested in unqualified and unencyclopedic conspiracy theory-type "research" than they are in the truth, because it is simply less exciting. However, this does not make it mainstream, or
1820:
response to criticism is never an institutional or universal response. I would also point out that as far as HD's point below goes, again, as there is no central administration, there is no one interpretation or one usage of
600:
the word is notable, and contraversial. Just because some editors make adding any information to the article, and having it stay there, harder then performing brain surgery, doesn't mean the article should be deleted.
1453:
game characters, just to name two areas of extremely fringe interest that actually have their own categories! Looks like an encyclopedia article, and walks and quacks like one - this is an encyclopedia article. Keep.
1133:
only deals with pages that are based on theories, this is not a page about a theory, it's a page about Controversy caused by a theory. If the page was all about how Jahbulon is the name of a masonic devil god, then
1160:
should continue since unless you can prove that the page is simply about masons using jahbulon as the name of their satanic god, the argument that the page is about a controversy not a theory, absolutely nullifies
1155:
will apply. However as this AFD has shown, the majority of people have replied that the page is about a notable controversy, so good luck convincing everyone. Infact I don't understand why this discussion about
1537:, literally. It's specifically about whether a particular organization is a religion; no wonder it's contentious. 4. No. But it's not a bad faith nom, it's a badly cited article, making for a fairly close call.
1736:
subjective. I think the controversy over the word is silly and trivial. However, the word has caused significant controversy, and has enough source material as to the history of this controversy to be notable.
1217:
exactly what the article is about. The theory that (as Anthony said above) Jahbulon is "a Masonic word for God or for a god" is the only thing that makes this word at all notable. So WP:FRINGE surely applies.
708:
You will note from above that I've suggested merging this issue with the more general article on objections to Freemasonry by various shurch hierarchies, this contextualises the issue and maintains a place in
376:, in that 1) the bulk of the article is little more than dictionary definitions, (speculative ones at that) and 2) the article is a subtle form of POV Agenda bashing, which goes against the soap box provision.
289:
found and introduced a source that shows the word was in use up to atleast February 1989 (Jahbulon is what is referred to as "the word on the triangle" which is shown in the Tydemann source that can be found
569:
The point is not existence, but notability. The word has only one verified independent existence and the veracity of that source is unknown. With that in mind what do you mean by circumstances surrounding
495:
some big controversy over this word, then there is notability, If not then the word is not really notable. This is an encyclopedia, and not every piece of trivial fluff is worthy of an article. I ask again,
1146:"But the theory that Jahbulon is the name that Masons use while they worship Satan is EXACTLY what this article is about!", so now i'll toss it back at you, since you are claiming that the page violates
1068:
risks violating the No original research policy". Since the page does use many sources, some primary, and presents the topic in a NPOV manner without original research, then WP:FRINGE does not apply.
383:
In the previous AfDs, several editors have expressed the view that "it is the controversy surrounding this word that makes it notable"; however, when I have asked them to explain what this controversy
1620:
That's one of the things that we can discuss on the talk page, if you can return to discussing development in a mature manner. The Prescott reference proves quite illuminating that particular front.
1865:
not to publish "the truth" about something, then what you know or claim to know is compeletely immaterial. I know this, you know this, and they know this. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. —
582:
Especially since "all the controversy" on the talk page is mostly back and forth argument between two or three people. An argument between a small group of people is not the same as a controversy.
1964:
applies here, surely? Any way I personally think that the Jahbulon stuff is bonkers, but there is a controversy. I'm puzzled as to why the usual crowd want it out of Knowledge considering whose
1829:
was obviously wrong to anyone who was a Mason at the time, and why modern day Masons know that the supporting evidence for these various modern claims is wrong, because they know how things work.
797:
1595:
I'd agree that the article is badly referenced, it's over-reliant on the few credible sources which exist however the more recent information about usage outside Masonry is proving illuminating.
934:
I ssincerely doubt that during the late 80's after the publication of Knight that various Masonic authorities considered Knowledge content guidelines as a reason for not commenting on an issue.
1100:
The second criteria is especially apt in this instance. Please provide even one mainstream source that has commented on, disparaged or discussed this word or the theories surounding it.
1142:
so it's the cornerstone of your latest attempt to get the page deleted. As I pointed out to you already on the talk page, WP:FRINGE does not apply here, you responded to my point by
1588:
regular contributors who have declared themselves to be Craftsmen have generally done the same and put up with quite a lot of innuendo both to us and about us on numerous talk pages.
1765:
nomination does seem odd, and Hanuman Das is certainly not required to SOLVE the controversy concerning the word for the subject to be notable. (and I don't look good in salt).
131:
1469:
is correct, then at least one mainstream textbook thinks this is a notable accusation. Please rewrite so it doesn't repeating the same book title in fifteen different places.
1196:
was merged into another page, that other page would instead be subjected to so much editing, and its talk page would be drowned in arguments about Jahbulon. Thus, best keep
294:.). People looking at this AFD should look at the statement he made in his summary "there is no record of this so-called "word" after the 1800s" and compare it to his edit
1584:. That places it in it's proper context, as one of a number of objections and as one of a number of specific things which lead Churches to see Freemasonry as a competitor.
1270:
Reply - While I disagree with your contention that I don't understand RS and do not agree that I have misinterpeted FRINGE, I do understand what you are trying to say. I
440:
are pressing for deletion are the same as previously and that the same anti-deletion names will again vote to keep, and wonder if the 3 revert rule could be applied here?
1976:
on Google, but tempted as I am to support them out of pure mischief I do not think that the Christian fundamentalists should have a free run on this notable subject.
1165:, since the page is about removal of pages about Fringe Theories from wikipedia, and it specifices "Theories". If you can't prove the page is about a theory,
1432:
and we already reached consensus on it, that it does NOT belong in Christianity and Freemasonry. Look back in the talk page archives if you can't remember.
452:
per LessHeard vanU. Both the word and the controversy surrounding it exist. Furthermore, it appears that the word is also known outside Masonic contexts. —
921:
Lummee (here we go again); Whilst it may well be that the word is a concoction by anti Masonic interests, or a misunderstanding, the point is that the
540:) per nom and Blueboar - I've yet to see any indication that there exist a controversy over this in a reliable (read: non-partisan) source.
1514:
1&2. No and no - in fact, some of the least notable subjects get the most activity. We have more articles and editors concerned with
1213:
Seraphim - you say: "If the page was all about how Jahbulon is the name of a masonic devil god, then WP:FRINGE would apply"... but that
1465:, without histrionics. It's a shame that the same book by Ankerberg and Weldon is brought up so often that it's painful. However, if
773:'s section titled "Self-published sources as secondary sources" doesn't actually exist, in which case I have some bad news for you.
140:
1533:. There is little to no correlation between editor interest and greater world notability. 3. Your eye needs to meet more - it's a
170:
677:
In what way is a dubious interpretation of that word listed as one of six objections by the Church of England, one of which is
17:
337:
Is the word itself notable? - It would seem not, it's a synthesised term with a range of potential, but speculative, meanings.
1300:
1249:- please take the long tedious discussions elsewhere. Blueboar, you've been given clear answers, you simply don't understand
1129:
discussion page you seem to be the only one so far who has oppossed to it being merged into the Science section of WP:NOTE.
1996:
1980:
1952:
1932:
1910:
1896:
1882:
1869:
1833:
1808:
1787:
1769:
1754:
1741:
1724:
1703:
1667:
1649:
1633:
1615:
1601:
1562:
1541:
1509:
1490:
1473:
1457:
1438:
1414:
1397:
1380:
1361:
1344:
1278:
1261:
1237:
1204:
1175:
1104:
1074:
1058:
1030:
1003:
988:
955:
929:
916:
906:
892:
879:
839:
829:
789:
779:
754:
730:
718:
697:
658:
642:
633:
621:
607:
586:
577:
560:
544:
528:
504:
481:
456:
444:
407:
359:
320:
304:
279:
261:
59:
1892:
mean that the people who actually know the facts can't properly clarify them. But that's nobody's fault but their own! —
1712:
1581:
1373:
1221:
1016:
993:
For a good intelligently written background on the facts behind the situation read Tydeman's address which you can find
939:
769:
with no original research. I assume that is what you were looking for. Unless of course your attempting to argue that
396:
90:
85:
871:- looks like a small group of editors simply don't like the article. Citations appear to support the text. What's the
156:
94:
1657:
I've deleted all of the material which you spannered into the article without thought for it's readability and which
1547:
any attempts to improve the article, so when they post their next AFD comments like this will be posted. They abuse
1901:
Sorry, but my point is that the question of whether the word does, has, or in what context exist is irrelevant. The
1556:
version of the article if you want to see an example of some of the information that they culled from the article.
268:
1720:
can see. That information, if it is judged useful, can be included in the appropriate Islam-related article. --
129:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
2010:
77:
36:
1125:
in a way it was not intended to be used. Also your confusing a guideline with policy. Infact from reading the
1094:
sources have not bothered to comment on it, disparage it, or discuss it, it is not notable enough for Knowledge.
1015:
groups think it means that Masonry is anti-Christian. I actually can live with that... as another issue in the
2009:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
348:
Is it accurate? - No. At least two of the citations do actually refer to what the Royal Arch word actually is.
876:
573:
I'm not convinced that discussion about the article itself within WP is enough to establish the notability.
1201:
985:
889:
557:
202:
1019:
Article. But I still don't think the subject rises to the level of notability for an article on its own.
1700:
333:- merits minor mention in either Anti-Masonry or Christianity and Freemasonry for the following reasons
1928:
per the commenters above, evidence of notability dating back to the original nomination for deletion.
794:
647:
Sure, the word is notable due to the controversy established in the "Jahbulon and Religion" section in
765:
understanding it. I'm providing proof of the controversy that's completly sourced in accordance with
1534:
945:
It would be quite reasonable to place the issue in context by including it in that article, hence my
249:
186:
160:
1993:
1907:
1805:
1358:
1055:
926:
694:
441:
145:
53:
735:
Can you explicitly answer the question please. It appears to me that you are avoiding doing that.
1738:
1315:"Freemasonry provides an illustration of the wish to avoid being labelled as a deviant religion."
1303:) in Chapter 2, "Defining Religion: Social Conflicts and Sociological Debates" under the heading
1292:
mentioned in a mainstream source. It fact, the controversy is presented as a textbook example in
1022:
I especially have questions as to whether the article meets the criteria for inclusion stated in
541:
245:
192:
123:
681:, to which there has been no formal response by a Masonic ruling body constitutes a controversy.
1696:
1973:
1751:
1411:
1341:
1297:
1200:
separate as a "fireproof compartment" to stop the ongoing flamage from affecting other pages.
525:
517:
477:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1627:
I'd very much appreciate if you could return to trying to make progress in a sensible manner.
812:
1893:
1866:
1407:
1386:
1258:
1254:
1166:
1162:
1157:
1152:
1147:
1139:
1135:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1079:
1064:
1023:
552:. The word and the circumstances surrounding it are known to exist. All the controversy in
453:
276:
237:
1965:
1699:(which is also extremely obscure) is used, it seems like is a popular anti-masonic slur. --
1766:
1695:
restrictions. It is obscure, but there is probably enough material to use. Similar to how
1644:
1610:
1557:
1538:
1470:
1433:
1170:
1069:
998:
824:
774:
725:
653:
628:
602:
315:
299:
1977:
1961:
1859:
1692:
1643:
in an attempt to get the article deleted, is NOT progress, nor does it help wikipedia.
1506:
1454:
521:
50:
1879:
1466:
1394:
1275:
1234:
1101:
1027:
903:
821:
806:
747:
668:
583:
553:
501:
404:
373:
298:
before assuming that the proposed summary was written from a neutral point of view.
81:
1691:-- I think that the article should survive but should be editted in accordance with
1192:
and its talk page are subject to so many edits per day, it should stay separate. If
1830:
1784:
1721:
1654:
Once again you misrepresent me, I could start to get quite hurt by that you know ;)
1640:
1548:
1403:
1250:
817:
770:
766:
761:
743:
664:
473:
469:
258:
241:
220:
208:
176:
1609:
incorrect assertion that it's only an issue between Christianity and Freemasonry.
803:
111:
1274:
made my point and will let it rest on its merits. My appologies for running on.
1220:
Anthony, if the information about Jahbulon were to be merged into the article on
155:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
1941:
1878:, therefore they must be up to something nefarious. (since A=B therefore A=C).
1716:
1523:
1487:
465:
436:
that this is the third attempt at an AfD within a year, and it appears that the
809:
1949:
1969:
1826:
1580:
Freemasonry by the churches, in the extensive article already written about
1519:
1664:
1630:
1598:
1501:
1377:
1197:
1193:
1189:
952:
913:
836:
800:
786:
751:
715:
639:
618:
574:
356:
73:
65:
1393:
discussion of the theory. (italics used in the guideline for emphysis).
674:
In what way is a synthetic word which has one unique appearance notable?
1515:
994:
291:
1948:
reliable sources. It's patent nonsense to suggest anything but keep.
750:
which extensively identify a controversy rather than state a position.
1987:
I agree with everything about this statement in relation to this AfD
419:. The debate exists outside of Knowledge, whatever the merits of the
1353:
Does it say anything about an official response to the assertion?
272:
663:
Can you articulate, using sources which meet the requirements of
2003:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1992:
unreasonable, and that is not an appropriate reason for WP:SNOW.
1054:
drawing 'inferences' from other peoples responses. Thank you.
118:
149:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
942:. Various Masonic authorities do have a position on that.
1846:
Yeah, these editors are experienced enough to know that "
742:
and authoritative sources which meet the requirements of
314:
of the information in the article had not yet commenced.
888:
Freemasons would not like their secrets being revealed.
1929:
1553:
1143:
648:
391:
a controversy constitues boarderline Original Research.
310:
295:
286:
107:
103:
99:
520:
16:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC) strengthed position per
1138:
would apply, however right now your misrepresenting
1368:Well I'm minded to change my vote above to be just
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
399:which explores these larger issues in more depth.
2013:). No further edits should be made to this page.
556:is enough to show that the subject is notable.
236:This article is unencyclopedic, and violates
169:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
139:among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has
8:
1376:, which I've had no particular objection to.
271:. I stumbled across both b/c I was watching
257:; everything is speculative or interpreted.
1874:Ah yes, the old argument... Masons meet in
1357:does not deny the legitimacy of a question.
1858:can be backed up with references. If your
1340:confirm the existence of the controversy?
1288:Time to give it up, boys. The controversy
143:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
498:please identify what this controversy is
163:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
1226:in the context of the C&F article
464:- nom seems to not really understand
372:- The article also has problems with
7:
1854:" is the norm on Knowledge unless
1942:Knowledge:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot???
1294:Religion in the Contemporary World
1046:!) be what the debate/controversy
24:
1063:Blueboar it should be noted that
1592:by pointing at a legacy version.
1467:Talk:Jahbulon#Mainstream sources
1385:Does not satisfiy contitions in
122:
1639:continued misrepresentation of
516:per LessHeard vanU and others.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1848:...information from those who
1798:...information from those who
972:About 6 entries above I voted
1:
1997:00:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
1981:23:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
1953:14:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
1933:02:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
1911:21:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
1897:18:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
1883:16:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
1870:14:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
1834:15:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
1809:13:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
1788:02:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
1770:20:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
1755:19:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
1742:19:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
1725:10:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
1704:01:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
1668:23:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
1650:22:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
1634:22:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
1616:22:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
1602:22:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
1563:21:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
1542:21:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
1510:21:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
1491:20:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
1474:18:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
1458:17:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
1439:18:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
1415:17:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
1398:17:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
1381:16:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
1362:14:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
1345:15:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
1279:15:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
1262:14:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
1238:13:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
1205:08:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
1176:01:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
1105:00:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
1075:22:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
1059:22:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
1031:22:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
1004:20:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
989:19:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
956:15:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
930:14:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
917:19:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
907:19:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
893:18:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
880:18:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
840:20:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
830:19:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
790:19:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
780:18:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
755:08:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
731:22:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
719:21:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
698:14:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
659:20:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
643:20:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
634:19:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
622:19:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
608:18:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
587:17:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
578:16:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
561:16:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
545:16:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
529:18:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
505:16:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
482:15:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
457:14:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
445:14:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
408:13:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
360:13:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
321:19:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
305:19:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
280:14:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
262:13:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
159:on the part of others and to
60:21:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
1713:Christianity and Freemasonry
1582:Christianity and Freemasonry
1374:Christianity and Freemasonry
1222:Christianity and Freemasonry
1017:Christianity and Freemasonry
940:Christianity and Freemasonry
679:and other general objections
638:Can you answer the question?
397:Christianity and Freemasonry
2030:
1999:(How's that for mischief?)
1527:(and don't even ask about
269:Obligations in Freemasonry
1522:than with 450 out of the
738:Please provide multiple,
2006:Please do not modify it.
1305:Identification as a cult
740:independently verifiable
32:Please do not modify it.
1228:, the debate over this
201:; accounts blocked for
171:single-purpose accounts
141:policies and guidelines
1169:doesn't apply at all.
267:Note: I did not write
1852:know is discounted...
1802:know is discounted...
1253:, are misintepreting
667:and avoids breaching
1500:Nearly 500 edits to
250:Oaths in Freemasonry
1888:it's nefarious. It
1796:I find the phrase "
1732:, as notability is
153:by counting votes.
132:not a majority vote
1944:- the article has
877:Jefferson Anderson
746:and do not breach
1659:was already there
1532:
1531:area of interest)
1202:Anthony Appleyard
986:Anthony Appleyard
949:suggestion above.
890:Anthony Appleyard
558:Anthony Appleyard
248:has also written
234:
233:
230:
157:assume good faith
2021:
2008:
1701:ScienceApologist
1647:
1613:
1560:
1526:
1450:Very Strong Keep
1436:
1410:does not apply.
1173:
1072:
1001:
827:
777:
728:
656:
631:
605:
514:Very Strong Keep
318:
302:
246:User:Hanuman Das
228:
216:
200:
184:
165:
135:, but instead a
126:
119:
115:
97:
56:
34:
2029:
2028:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2020:
2019:
2018:
2017:
2011:deletion review
2004:
1645:
1611:
1558:
1535:religious issue
1488:Smerdis of Tlön
1481:. This is the
1434:
1389:which requires
1171:
1070:
999:
825:
775:
726:
654:
629:
603:
316:
300:
218:
206:
190:
174:
161:sign your posts
88:
72:
69:
54:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2027:
2025:
2016:
2015:
2000:
1994:LessHeard vanU
1984:
1983:
1955:
1935:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1908:LessHeard vanU
1860:secret society
1856:what they know
1841:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1812:
1811:
1806:LessHeard vanU
1793:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1758:
1757:
1744:
1727:
1706:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1662:
1655:
1628:
1625:
1621:
1618:
1596:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1494:
1493:
1476:
1460:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1359:LessHeard vanU
1348:
1347:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1324:
1323:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1309:
1308:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1265:
1264:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1218:
1208:
1207:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1090:
1061:
1056:LessHeard vanU
1038:- the article
1020:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
978:
977:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
950:
943:
935:
927:LessHeard vanU
883:
882:
875:problem here?
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
736:
713:
710:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
695:LessHeard vanU
683:
682:
675:
611:
610:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
571:
564:
563:
547:
531:
510:
509:
508:
507:
485:
484:
459:
447:
442:LessHeard vanU
438:usual suspects
413:
412:
411:
410:
400:
392:
378:
377:
354:
353:
349:
346:
342:
338:
324:
323:
307:
282:
232:
231:
127:
117:
116:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2026:
2014:
2012:
2007:
2001:
1998:
1995:
1990:
1986:
1985:
1982:
1979:
1975:
1971:
1967:
1963:
1959:
1956:
1954:
1951:
1947:
1943:
1939:
1936:
1934:
1931:
1927:
1924:
1923:
1912:
1909:
1904:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1895:
1891:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1881:
1877:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1868:
1864:
1861:
1857:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1835:
1832:
1828:
1823:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1810:
1807:
1803:
1799:
1795:
1794:
1789:
1786:
1783:encyclopedic.
1781:
1776:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1768:
1763:
1760:
1759:
1756:
1753:
1748:
1745:
1743:
1740:
1739:Seraphimblade
1735:
1731:
1728:
1726:
1723:
1718:
1714:
1710:
1707:
1705:
1702:
1698:
1694:
1690:
1687:
1686:
1669:
1666:
1663:
1660:
1656:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1648:
1642:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1632:
1629:
1626:
1622:
1619:
1617:
1614:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1600:
1597:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1583:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1564:
1561:
1555:
1550:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1540:
1536:
1530:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1508:
1503:
1499:
1496:
1495:
1492:
1489:
1484:
1480:
1477:
1475:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1461:
1459:
1456:
1451:
1448:
1447:
1440:
1437:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1416:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1360:
1355:
1354:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1346:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1334:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1321:
1320:
1314:
1313:
1311:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1284:
1280:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1263:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1245:
1244:
1239:
1236:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1216:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1206:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1186:
1177:
1174:
1168:
1164:
1159:
1154:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1106:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1089:
1085:
1084:
1081:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1073:
1066:
1062:
1060:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1018:
1013:
1012:
1005:
1002:
996:
992:
991:
990:
987:
982:
981:
980:
979:
975:
971:
970:
957:
954:
951:
948:
944:
941:
936:
933:
932:
931:
928:
924:
920:
919:
918:
915:
910:
909:
908:
905:
901:
896:
895:
894:
891:
887:
886:
885:
884:
881:
878:
874:
870:
867:
866:
841:
838:
833:
832:
831:
828:
823:
819:
814:
811:
808:
805:
802:
799:
796:
793:
792:
791:
788:
783:
782:
781:
778:
772:
768:
763:
758:
757:
756:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
734:
733:
732:
729:
722:
721:
720:
717:
714:
711:
707:
699:
696:
692:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
680:
676:
673:
672:
671:two points -
670:
666:
662:
661:
660:
657:
650:
646:
645:
644:
641:
637:
636:
635:
632:
625:
624:
623:
620:
615:
614:
613:
612:
609:
606:
599:
596:
595:
588:
585:
581:
580:
579:
576:
572:
568:
567:
566:
565:
562:
559:
555:
554:Talk:Jahbulon
551:
548:
546:
543:
542:WegianWarrior
539:
536:(or possible
535:
532:
530:
527:
524:(way) below.
523:
519:
515:
512:
511:
506:
503:
499:
494:
489:
488:
487:
486:
483:
479:
475:
471:
467:
463:
460:
458:
455:
451:
448:
446:
443:
439:
435:
430:
426:
422:
418:
415:
414:
409:
406:
401:
398:
393:
390:
386:
382:
381:
380:
379:
375:
371:
367:
364:
363:
362:
361:
358:
350:
347:
343:
339:
336:
335:
334:
332:
328:
322:
319:
312:
308:
306:
303:
297:
293:
288:
283:
281:
278:
274:
270:
266:
265:
264:
263:
260:
256:
251:
247:
243:
239:
226:
222:
214:
210:
204:
198:
194:
188:
182:
178:
172:
168:
164:
162:
158:
152:
148:
147:
142:
138:
134:
133:
128:
125:
121:
120:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
57:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2005:
2002:
1988:
1957:
1945:
1937:
1925:
1902:
1889:
1875:
1862:
1855:
1851:
1847:
1821:
1801:
1797:
1779:
1774:
1761:
1752:Brianyoumans
1746:
1733:
1729:
1708:
1688:
1658:
1624:environment.
1528:
1505:third time?
1497:
1482:
1478:
1462:
1449:
1412:Frater Xyzzy
1390:
1369:
1342:Frater Xyzzy
1337:
1304:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1271:
1246:
1229:
1225:
1214:
1092:
1086:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
973:
946:
922:
899:
872:
868:
739:
690:
678:
597:
549:
537:
533:
526:Frater Xyzzy
518:Frater Xyzzy
513:
497:
492:
461:
449:
437:
433:
428:
424:
420:
416:
388:
384:
369:
365:
355:
330:
326:
325:
254:
235:
224:
212:
203:sockpuppetry
196:
185:; suspected
180:
166:
154:
150:
144:
136:
130:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1938:Speedy Keep
1930:Yamaguchi先生
1894:Hanuman Das
1867:Hanuman Das
1524:Fortune 500
1507:ॐ Priyanath
1455:ॐ Priyanath
1259:Hanuman Das
1188:While page
1121:Your using
617:conclusion.
454:Hanuman Das
277:Hanuman Das
1946:TWENTY SIX
1903:allegation
1767:Rosencomet
1539:AnonEMouse
1471:AnonEMouse
1402:Satisfied
1336:Now, does
1322:and later:
1312:To quote:
1301:0745620833
1044:should not
923:accusation
709:Knowledge.
478:yakity-yak
425:references
137:discussion
1978:JASpencer
1827:Leo Taxil
1697:Blaphomet
1520:Star Trek
1408:WP:FRINGE
1391:extensive
1387:WP:FRINGE
1255:WP:FRINGE
1167:WP:FRINGE
1163:WP:FRINGE
1158:WP:FRINGE
1153:WP:FRINGE
1148:WP:FRINGE
1140:WP:FRINGE
1136:WP:FRINGE
1131:WP:FRINGE
1127:WP:FRINGE
1123:WP:FRINGE
1080:WP:FRINGE
1065:WP:FRINGE
1024:WP:FRINGE
785:argument.
522:Priyanath
345:sourcing.
238:WP:FRINGE
193:canvassed
187:canvassed
146:consensus
1880:Blueboar
1822:anything
1775:Comment:
1646:Seraphim
1612:Seraphim
1559:Seraphim
1502:Jahbulon
1435:Seraphim
1395:Blueboar
1276:Blueboar
1235:Blueboar
1198:Jahbulon
1194:Jahbulon
1190:Jahbulon
1172:Seraphim
1102:Blueboar
1071:Seraphim
1028:Blueboar
1000:Seraphim
904:Blueboar
826:Seraphim
776:Seraphim
727:Seraphim
712:Thankyou
655:Seraphim
630:Seraphim
604:Seraphim
584:Blueboar
502:Blueboar
429:agenda's
405:Blueboar
317:Seraphim
301:Seraphim
225:username
219:{{subst:
213:username
207:{{subst:
197:username
191:{{subst:
181:username
175:{{subst:
74:Jahbulon
66:Jahbulon
1962:WP:SNOW
1863:chooses
1831:MSJapan
1785:MSJapan
1722:Visviva
1516:Pokemon
1498:Comment
1286:Comment
1247:Comment
1144:stating
1052:without
1036:Comment
691:comment
474:Ekajati
434:comment
259:MSJapan
255:factual
189:users:
91:protect
86:history
1989:except
1974:fourth
1966:second
1876:secret
1040:is not
822:WP:NOR
748:WP:NOR
669:WP:NOR
534:Delete
374:WP:NOT
366:Delete
327:Delete
309:Note:
95:delete
1970:third
1950:WilyD
1709:Merge
1641:WP:RS
1549:WP:RS
1483:third
1404:WP:RS
1372:with
1370:Merge
1251:WP:RS
1230:would
947:Merge
835:page.
818:WP:RS
771:WP:RS
767:WP:RS
762:WP:RS
744:WP:RS
665:WP:RS
538:merge
470:WP:RS
370:Merge
331:Merge
273:Oaths
242:WP:RS
167:Note:
112:views
104:watch
100:links
55:desat
16:<
1972:and
1958:Keep
1940:per
1926:Keep
1890:does
1762:Keep
1747:Keep
1730:Keep
1717:WP:N
1715:per
1693:NPOV
1689:Keep
1554:this
1518:and
1479:Keep
1463:Keep
1338:that
1298:ISBN
1272:have
1042:(or
995:here
974:keep
873:real
869:Keep
820:and
649:this
598:Keep
550:Keep
466:WP:V
462:Keep
450:Keep
421:case
417:Keep
311:This
296:here
292:here
287:here
240:and
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
51:Core
48:. --
46:keep
1960:.
1734:not
1711:to
1665:ALR
1631:ALR
1599:ALR
1378:ALR
953:ALR
914:ALR
837:ALR
787:ALR
752:ALR
716:ALR
640:ALR
619:ALR
575:ALR
570:it?
500:.
368:or
357:ALR
329:or
275:. —
221:csp
217:or
209:csm
177:spa
151:not
1968:,
1850:do
1800:do
1780:do
1750:--
1529:my
1406:.
1290:is
1215:is
1048:is
902:.
900:is
493:is
480:)
468:,
427:,
423:,
389:is
385:is
227:}}
215:}}
205::
199:}}
183:}}
173::
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
1307:.
1296:(
976:.
813:7
810:6
807:5
804:4
801:3
798:2
795:1
476:(
229:.
223:|
211:|
195:|
179:|
114:)
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
