Talk:Hiram Abiff/Archive 1

Redirection and such

Redirected from Sp. "Hiram Abif". Article re-started. Imacomp 11:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that a redirect was needed, since both speelings are in use in different documents, indeed sometimes both spellings exist in the same document!

In any case I migrated across the article in its mature state rather than an earlier state.ALR 11:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that there seems to be a wish to undo the work done on the article previously, in terms of bringing it into line with WP standards etc. Given that I'm not going to get into a petty edit war about it I'm intruiged as to your reasons for removing the bulk of the material in the previous version?ALR 11:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The article had been edited since a mere migration. I am conviced by that edit. Imacomp 11:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I migrated across the most reliable recent edit, not including material which implied resurection. There was no edit to the article subsequent to my migration, except your reversion. Take a look at the edit histories, and read the article in the state that I migrated across. It does appear to me that you didn't actually read the version that I moved, merely revereted it without any further consideration, which is not particularly constructive.ALR 11:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I migrated, but did not save untill after the edit. This is a substantive edit that you effectively reverted, by re-migrating, etc. I "like" "my" version, at the other end - as it now stands, after reading "your" version. I see no reason to delve deeper for Freemasons, or non-Freemasons alike - as the book that generates casual interest is linked. Imacomp 11:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree, you may like your version but it is less comprehensive than the article had got to previously, does not meet WP standards for format and structure and only uses one pseudo-historical reference, and that not even explicit. Your migration was clearly from a fairly old version and does not now reflect the volume of work done to it before now (a useful side effect of the nugatory re-direct). I'm not satisfied that you have provideed an improvement with such wholesale removal of effort.ALR 11:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And now deceptive edit summaries as well. It'd be amusing if we hadn't pretty much been here before.ALR 12:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, and the migration I edited was not "a fairly old version". You jumped in on a work-in-progress, that has been further worked on. A link and ISBN to a real ritual is now given. That the Craft provides no Key or gloss to abbreviations, etc., in published rituals - is deliberate. Imacomp 12:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hiram and the Bible

This article implies that Hiram Abif is a biblical figure and mentions masons only in passing, when in fact Hiram Abif does not appear in the bible at all, although Hiram does. To the best of my knowledge, most masons don't claim that Abif was in the bible nor that he was a historical figure. Much of Christian arguments against freemasonry seem to be based on the fact that Abif is not in the bible as well. Of course that souldn't matter because mason's don't view him as a savior or historical figure. This article has completely removed the idea of Abif as a masonic creation. CJames745 06:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, as there are biblical citations, I'll take a look and see if they're right. MSJapan 13:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

(From the Scottish Rite Journal) Does the name Hiram Abif appear in the Bible?

Yes and no—it depends on which translation you use. Hiram, the cunning worker and widow’s son of the tribe of Naphtali, was sent by Hiram King of Tyre to assist King Solomon in building his Temple. Biblical references occur in 2 Chron 2:13, 2 Chron 4:16, and 1 Kings 7:13, 14: le Churam abi; Churam abiv; and Chiram, respectively (note that this is ch as in Channukah).

The Hebrew word, ab, means father, abi, means my father, and abiv, means his father. The expressions Huram my father or Huram his father are probably terms of respect and honor and do not refer to any family relationship. Translators have been uncertain whether to translate the expression as Huram my/his father or Huram-abi of something else. Here are examples of how various translations have handled the name:

2 Chron 2:13 2 Chron 4:16 Martin Luther (1545) Huram-Abif Huram-Abif Geneva Bible (1560) my father Huram’s Huram his father Duoay-Rheims (1609) my father Hiram Hiram his father King James Version (1611) Huram my father’s Huram his father Darby Translation (1890) Huram Abi Huram Abiv Revised Standard Version (1901) Huram-abi Huram-abi Jewish Pub. Soc. (1917) Huram my master craftsman / Huram his master craftsman New International Version (1984) Huram-Abi Huram-Abi

James Anderson in The Constitutions of the Free-Masons (1723) speculated that Abif is the surname of the master builder. While the Masonic use of the name Hiram Abif clearly comes from the Bible, the Hiramic legend itself is purely fiction. SBMorris

The status of the Hiram myth was pretty clear in the previous version of the article, however there has been some determined effort to remove a significant chunk of the material by one editor which has led to this pitiful excuse for an article.ALR 20:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation

Wheres the citaton for the "claim" that there is more than one embellished version? This is plural, and there is only one reference. Zos 16:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I see ALR is trying to edit this now, and I say again, its the wording that needs fixing. If there is more than one version, please cite it. Otherwise it should read "hiram shows up in a ritual...". This makes more sense, as there is only one ritual you are citing. Understand yet? Zos 17:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If they are different versions then they need to be cited as it then, it appeared in a sentence. Correct it so it shows that its a double citation. If you are not sure how to do this, just add another set of ref tags right next to the last one. Thanks. Zos 17:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not different versions, it's different rituals, whilst I acknowledge your points about citing them, I don't actually have them so will need to dig out an appropriate publication reference. However I have seen them done, and they are different, but contain the same allegory.ALR 17:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, then please cite the different rituals then, not just saying the first or last name of the authors. Check on how Wikipedia wishes you to cite yor sources please. If you dont have them then how do you know for fact? I see imacomp is the one who added that lone citation. Zos 17:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Imacomp potentially copied that citation from somewhere that I'd included it previously, I've used it in a number of cases. I understand the value of citations however in the interests of including information, then backing it up, I try not to get anally retentive about it. You asked for examples of different rituals whgich include the Abif allegory, I've provided the information and will tender references when I track them down. Just because I don't have copies of the rituals in question to hand doesn't mean that I've not seen them, and understand the differences. Many lodges work different rituals, one of the interesting aspects of the craft. Of the four craft lodges I belong to not one of them works the same ritual as the others; one works emulation, the other three are published as private prints and are hence not reasonably referencable because they're not generally available to the reader. Taylors and Logic are published and can be sought out, once I've provided the detailed references. Other potential examples are Universal Working, West End Working, Nigerian working, Sussex Craft etc. You should be able to appreciate that with a diverse range of candidate examples then it is reasonable to extract only a handful.ALR 18:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, the way I look at it, as this is based on WP:V, that its not verified. You cannot give a publicaion date, publisher, specific author name, page number, orcorrect title. You've admit you don't even own the copy you are using. It needs to be removed until a proper citation is given. Just b/c you've used it elsewhere doesnt make it right, it just wasnt question yet by anther editor. Zos 18:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that your present argument is clear. I provided the detail for a reference to Emulation working. Given that I know emulation pretty much by heart I can be pretty sure that I'm wright about what I say. I also know that Taylors working and Logic working differ from Emulation, as does the ritual used in three of the other lodges I belong to (which can make for an interesting time in trying to learn them all). The point is, not everything needs a citation, a number of examples of different ritual are given, in this context I'm not entirely convinced that a citation is needed; personally I would suggest that over-reliance on citation indicates a poorly written article.

In any case, I've been doing some digging on the history of the Hiram Abif article, note the spelling change, which Imacomp redirected here, hence losing the edit history. The line in question was added without any clear attribution, and in a slightly different form, and leads me to believe that it wasn't referring to Freemasonry at all, but rather some of the organisations which hang on its' coat-tails in order to generate some credibility for themselves. Given that the editor in question hasn't actually followed up at all then the thinking behind the addition isn't clear. Naturally the inference from the line can evolve as it develops. Since your main interest is in Thelema I'm intruiged by your interest in this article. I don't know enough about Thelema to know whether Abif appears in that ritual, but I suppose I could ask one of the various Thelemites I know, in order to find out.ALR 20:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think its clear enough, it wasnt properly cited. Nothing was clear for readers and editors to fact check the source. And stray sentences do need citations. This is still a stub, and when I got here the article only had one citation. And I don't care what you think about usage of citations, I only care about what Wikipedia says about it. If you dont wish to use citations, maybe Wikipedia is not the best place for you.

I am also not interested in the other article form which this one came. I'm only willing to discuss the current article.

My main interst is not in Thelema, if you reviewed my user page you would have seen this. I've only begun to edit Freemasonry related articles. But now that you mention it, Aleister Crowley and Thelema can be linked here in the future (if the lost word section ever splinters off into a main article), from the use of the a book or two I own. But that doesnt mean its to be include here, unless it directly discusses Hiram. Zos 21:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hiram in the Bible

ALR, you're going to have to pick which Hiram this article is discussing. Abiff is the builder, so the King needs its own article. Comments about the King of Tyre need to be of topic to Abiff. Zos 21:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You've highlighted your lack of knowledge about the topic. Hiram Abif(f) doesn't specifically appear in the bible, there are two Hirams mentioned who could reasonably equate to the allegorical figure in Masonic ritual. Whilst it is most likely that the allegorical figure is analogous to Huram Abi there is the potential for the analogue to actually be Hiram King of Tyre; hence there being two candidates. Your point is useful though, I'll think about how to make clear that lack of scriptural clarity about it. Thanks for drawing that out.ALR 21:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok you got me. I dont spend all day reading the Bible. But the name of the article is Hiram Abiff. The only thing that belong in this article is material relating to this. So let me rephrase. Figure out which hiram the bible is talking about and use it to describe this article. If I knew absolutely everything about this topic it would be much larger I suspect (the same goes for you). Zos 23:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the point, nobody really knows. There are a number of theories, only two of which are credible.ALR 23:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I see the problem. The intro states that Masonically, Hiram Abiff is not the same as the King of Tyre, and then the article body says he might be. There needs to be some rewording or clarification to correct the inconsistency. Moreover, the theories are not outlined clearly, and I can't fix it because I'm not aware of said theories. MSJapan 00:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is glossing printed rituals with speculations. And no one person speaks for the whole of Freemasonry. Imacomp 00:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

One author says

The inclusion of "One author says" is redundant to the sentence. Of course one author is saying this, there is only one citation there. Also, we we need to sort something out here. There are no notes in the article, so I changed it to reference, where the citations go. Then, you add the full book to the section called "sources". Zos 01:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No it is not redundant. That is in itself mere opinion. And even for (claimed) insiders - no one person speaks for the whole of Freemasonry. Imacomp 01:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It wasnt an opinion. Its a statement out of a reference book. Zos 01:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The lost word

"This is mere speculation, since he does not claim to be the official spokesman of any Grand Lodge, and no one person speaks for the whole of Freemasonry.[4] Many disclosures and exposés usually lack the proper context for true understanding, are soon outdated for various reasons, or are garnished with unfounded speculation on the part of the author.[5]"

This small paragraph is an argument. No one is claiming that my reference is an official spokesman of Freemasonry. And the proceding statement is just plain aweful. Its being removed. Zos 01:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

All cited statments will be put back. (Copied from other articles, and cited in same way). Imacomp 01:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTE I did not start the current revert war. Will be back after 24hrs. "Freemason" editors' loyality to the Craft is noted in atempts at tin pot "disclosures". At least take 30 bits of silver for your trouble guys? Imacomp 23:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there no help for the widows son? Zos 23:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you say no help for fatherless editors? How rude of you.(BS recognition attempt failed) Imacomp 23:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Correction - that is Weasel not Weasal of the 30 coins. PS why are some editors still sporting Barnstars from banned editors? Imacomp 00:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Question re: Hiram in Freemasonry

The first line of this section states: "David Allen Hulse states that Hiram is a name given to the gavel of the Worshipful Master in Freemasonry" but the citation is to "Mackey, Lexicon of Freemasonry; page 192" ... is it Hulse or Mackey? (and if Hulse is quoting Mackey, it is better to go with the original. In which case we should say "Mackey's Lexicon states that...") No objection to the line being in the Article, just want to get the correct citation.

I do have a suggestion for this section... It basicly relys on only one source. Not the best thing by Wiki standards. Another citation (and/or contrary view points) would be good. May I suggest John Robinson's "A Pilgrim's Path"... he has a very good section on the whole Hiram story. I would add it myself, but I just returned the book to the library and so can not get the page refs. Blueboar 23:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Its Mackey. Someone must have changed it when they didnt like the way the lost key section was written, adding "Hulse says this" "hulse says that" to the beginning of every statement. In my oinion, this is bad writing. Of course its the author stating this!, this is what the citation is for, after all.

As for it only relying on one source, so do many articles. We just have to wait until more wish to add to the article, expanding it until its not a stub anymore. Zos 00:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

OK... as someone who does like to attribute statements to their authors in the main text, I do think we should include one statement along the lines of "(Author? Historian?) David Allen Hulse has written that,..." before we discuss his theories on Hiram. But I agree that you do not need it before every sentence. Blueboar 12:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I fixed my citation. The sentences need to be cited, removing it should not have been done. Also, the citation point to the reference. And the reference is supposed to be the full reference with the ISBN number. This is how its done, so I dont know why you persist in making changes to both my statements, and my citation. Although I'm noticing that you want to do work on this article Blueboar...you might wish to find some source of your own to mess with. Zos 15:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Zos, please don't jump to conclusions ... I was not trying to "remove" anything (at least not on purpose)... all I was trying to do was format the citation correctly. I have been taught that the first time you cite something, the full title, ISBN etc. needs to be put in the cite. (subsequent ones can be cited as simply: "Hulse, page 12" or what ever.)

Looking back at it, I think what happened is that we simply have different different concepts of what goes in the "notes" section and what goes in the "references" section. I was thinking of the "refferences" section as a "see also"... ie articles, books and webpages that are not already specificly mentioned as a citation. Since hulse had been mentioned as a citation (ie in the "notes"), I thought it correct to not mention him again in "references". You are obviously treating the "references" section as a bibliography (ie any book, etc. that was used to gather information for the article). Neither of us is wrong (both systems are used extensively in wikipedia articles).

As for finding some source of my "own" to mess with... once something goes into an article, it ceases to be "mine" or "yours"... it belongs to the article and anyone can "mess" with it (ie try to improve it). I think you are assuming that just because we had a disagreement in another article, I will automatically be antagonistic to you in every article. I assure you that this is not the case. My only "agenda" is to improve the article. Blueboar 17:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I know you werent "trying" to remove anything, in fact you did remove my citation. The citation was already done correctly. I understand the mistake, I'm just letting you know it was done correctly, and I don't wish you to move it again.

The notes section is for small notes and basically where you got certain statements in the article. The note should be easilie understandable, so when you go to the section called references, you can see the full title.

When I said find your own sources to mess with, I meant for you to find a source to use in the article, if you want to work on this article. I don't see the removal of citations being of any help to an article (on purpose or accident). And I'm assuming nothing (from any other talk page). I'm merely asking that if you wish to contribute, please do so, but use your own sources, stop trying to change my statements and removing my citations. Zos 17:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Come on Zos, I am not trying to change your statments or removing your citations... I did MOVE a citation to where I thought it should go, but I kept it intact. As for "using my own sorces"... there are two ways to work on an article... 1) adding information, and 2) trying to improve what is already in the article. My edits were intended as the latter. I saw what to me was an error in the formatting of the citation, and I corrected it. I am used to a certain style, the style we use on all the other Freemasonry related articles... I'm not saying it's correct, just what I am used to. Now that I understand the citation style you prefer, I can conform the rest of the citations (or notes) to match. Then I can go looking for new material and new sources to add. Please don't be so defensive about "your" work. This is a collaberative effort. Blueboar 19:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

OK... a question ... so that all the references conform to one standard... should we do: Author, Title, Publishing Info... or should we do Title, Author, Publishing Info? Blueboar 19:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind... I looked it up in the guidelines... all have been conformed to one style. Please note that I did NOT (intentionally) remove anything or change anything beyond moving names, titles, and publishing info around so that everything conforms. However, please check your citations to ensure that any information you put is still there (just in case.) Blueboar 20:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats a right out lie. This is one example of what I mean by changing my statements. And here is another exmample, to which you state above that you disagree with adding this kind of thing into an article (see you're own remark on this section of the talk page to which you say this: But I agree that you do not need it before every sentence.

So please don't think me a total moron. When I say that I think you are changing things around, know that I can back it up with proof. Also, when someone puts a stub tag on the page, this is not vandalism. I'm refering to this. I'm putting the stub back on. It may not be an occult stub, but it is in fact a stub. Zos 21:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem with the stub tag... I did have a problem with the "occult" stub, but I know that was not your doing. Blueboar 22:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Durham, Reed - No Help for the Widow's Son

While looking for the publishing info on this reference, I found an on-line version... the talk seems to be about the ties between the Mormon Church and Freemasonry, and only mentions Hiram Abif (twice) in passing. Currently, nothing in the article points to it as a citation ... so it may be an orphaned reference (i.e. someone may have added it to cite a statement that was subsequently cut, but the citation was not cut along with it. Does anyone object if I remove this reference? Blueboar 20:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Since no one seems to object after a due period of time has passed, I shall do so. Blueboar 02:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

stub category

We seem to have some difficulty deciding on what category this falls under as far as the stub tag goes... It had gone from just "stub" (acceptable, but undefined) to "Occult" (not), back to just "stub", and then to "History"... This last was not really applicable, as the Hiram legend is not really history. If anything it is an "organizational" stub, as it deals with part of the foundation myth and rituals of Freemasonry. What we really need is a "Freemasonry" stub, but I don't know how to create one. Blueboar 15:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm changing the stub back to just a stub tag. This isnt an organization article, its an article about a a fictional/mysthological person in Freemasonry. Please just leave it at stub until someone creates a Masonic stub.

And if it dealt with the foundation of Freemasonry, I'd like to think more people would be over here adding to it, relieving it of its stub status. Zos 16:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem leaving the stub as just "stub". Re: foundation myth... Freemasonry's rituals use the allegorical story of the Fraternity being created by the workmen building King Solomon's Temple. The Hiram story fits into that.

Does anyone out there know how to make a template for stubs? We need one for freemasonry so this stub problem can get fixed. Zos 22:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask on the main Freemasonry page. Blueboar 23:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

{{fm-stub}} OzLawyer 23:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops, forgot that stub templates have to be proposed, so that one will be deleted. I'll propose it. OzLawyer 00:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is here. OzLawyer 00:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations to Pike

User 69.150.57.227 added "Pike" (I assume Morals and Dogma) as a citation to back the statements in the first paragraph. I checked, and Pike simply does not discuss the statements being made. I suspect that this was added as subtle vandalism, so I have reverted back to the citation needed tags. I am sure that we can find REAL citations that actually do back up what the article says. (Looks like I am going to have to borrow Robinson's A Pilgrim's Path from the library again... I know he discusses all this.) Blueboar 02:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Plus, the citations were done wrong!

You start by naming the multiple reference:

• <ref name="pike">Pike, year, page</ref>

Then use it for other statements like this:

• <ref name="pike"/>

Zos 03:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

More things removed...

The Duncan citation was to the MMM, so it's not any good (there's no Hiram anybody in it), and the Hulse citation contradicted itself as written, so I removed it as well. There's very little here of interest save Knight and Lomas' theory. Do we have anything we can put in here? MSJapan 19:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing that I know of. And while you removed the citations, you forgot to remove the mention under references. I took care of that. Blueboar 19:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Speculation based on concordance

The additions yesterday seem to me to be mainly speculation and probably constitute Original Research. I'd be grateful for the provision of a secondary source which makes the statements offered, otherwise it's not sufficiently reliable for the purposes of the article.ALR 09:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the following:

In essence, an interesting consequence of the name Hiram or Huram is that it could mean literally "a man that has a pure whiteness like linen". This is an interesting concept since moral purification is key to having a pure, clean and "white" conscience. God requires us to be pure and clean in order to be in His presesnce (sins washed away being clean). This also tied to the fact that Masons, during ceremonies, wear a linen apron may hold a deep spiritual meaining for the group.

To me this is clearly the opinion of the editor and not part of Strong's Concordance. As such it constitues Original Research. Blueboar 13:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar, I appreciate your candor on this, and still believe that the first sentence above makes sense, however I would agree that the last two are somewhat of an opinion based upon my "original research". If I do find additional information on this I will repost with the other information. Thank you for not jumping to call all that I did "vandalism" because I do believe that meanings behind names are important in the study of the Bible. deazwe

It was obviously not vandalism... just Original Research. You can't add your own ideas to Wikipedia, you have to paraphrase what reliable sources say (with citations). Blueboar 20:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the remaining portions of this speculation. The Semitic name חִירוֹם, (Chiyram) though not mentioned in the Bible as "Abiff," is the obvious origin for the Masonic figure, rather real or perceived. So its etymology is relevant to the article. It is masculine and related to Chiyra, which would be the 'noble' family, in essence, and 'Achiyram, (my brother is exalted) the source of the English name Hyrum.

Since Hiram is a king of Tyre in the Bible, his name, though recorded in Hebrew, is certainly not a name specifically of Hebrew origin, and any real etymology would note that it was probably native to a different West Semitic dialect closer to Phonecian or Canaanite.

At any rate, students of Biblical etymology who do not know Hebrew are not qualified to pull out their Strong's, go to work, and come up with conclusions that are then ready for entry as Wikipedia encyclopedic content. This does not count as 'in-depth study' of the Hebrew words, as indicated, and is definetely original research not sourced in accordance with Wikipedia requirements.

I ask for further input from Wiki editors to either sustain the removal, or to correctly source the name's etymology. Brando130

I agree with your removal. An editor's interpretation is OR... we would need an expert's study to include it. Blueboar 19:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Allegory" of Hiram?

Two points:

• (1) I think that the statement that this character is specifically to be seen as "allegorical" requires a clear reference from some reliable source outside current Freemasonry. Similar stories from that era about any number of Christian saints have since been found to be total bunk, but they were believed to have been real people when the stories were initially circulating. I think we should avoid trying to place a modern "spin" on the old story, such as perhaps saying that a story initially believed to possibly be accurate but now discredited be cast as always having been just an allegory, unless there is clear, creditable evidence that the story was always seen as an allegory.
• (2) I remember reading somewhere that one variation on the story had Hiram being the lost love of the Queen of Sheba or some such thing. Is there any particular reason that story is not referenced or even mentioned here yet? John Carter (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

1) I doubt there are any references outside of Freemasonry, but I can probably find more Masonic references to it being an allegorical tale if you have doubts. Not sure what you are getting at when you talk about the various Saints and their legends ... perhaps you are assuming that the Hiramic legend is older than it actually is? Masonic scholars have traced the developement of the Masonic rituals... There are no refferences to the Hiramic Legend prior to the creation of the Third Degree (of which it is a part) which took place in the 1750s. In other words, it was an allegory from the beginning.

2) I have never heard of this before... but if you can find a reliable source I suppose we can take a look at it. Blueboar (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

1) No, just that if we are to say explicitly that something is and always has been an allegory, then we would need to be able to verify that. Like I said, lots of saints, Saint Christopher among them, are now seen as being, politely, completely made up. That doesn't mean that at some point they weren't believed to have been real. This is one of the inherent problems with this sort of material, particularly when the people involved weren't completely open about what they were doing, and I'll try to find some sources myself one way or another. For this statement to stand, I think we would have to have a statement which explicitly states that the person who created the ritual was knowingly making up the story for the word to stand. In a sense, we cannot assume that the story was created by the originator of the ritual, unless that person or someone else with first-hand knowledge of the creation of the ritual said as much at the time or shortly thereafter. We could say that there is no prior historical reference to the subject, and recent scholars have concluded that the story was made up by the person who originated the ritual, and if verifiable that's fine. But to say, particularly in the introduction, that a story is allegorical, when that cannot be verified as being the explicit intention of the first recorded person to use that story, is making a statement which is not supported by the evidence. Granted, there may not be any real evidence one way or another, but to jump to conclusions based on what we think the originator said is OR and is not in accord with wikipedia policy. Personally, I have no reason to think that the story is any older than that, although, like I said, unless we can verify that, it would be inappropriate to make such a claim. Oedipus, as another example, has been said by at least one academic to possibly having been a god of the slaves of old Athens. Granted, we can't say for sure that he was, as we have no evidence. However, if a ritual involving him were found to exist later, neither could we say that that ritual was allegorical, simply because we don't have a record of any previous "worship". We can only say explicitly what the sources themselves say, not jump to any conclusions, however well founded, regarding those matters. There is always the possibility, like with churches, of people trying to sweep something under the rug after the fact. John Carter (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You are asking us to prove a negative... to prove that the story of Hiram isn't non-allegorical. I can't do that. What I can do is find you a source that says the Hiram Abiff story is allegorical. That it was invented along with the Third degree around 1750. You will probably reject it as being a Masonic source, but at least it will be a source. The thing is, unlike the Saints or Oedipus, or what have you, the Hiram story is a modern creation. The story is more like Swift's Gulliver or Harry Potter than a Saint or Oedipus. Seriously, if someone were to discribe Gulliver or Harry Potter as being an allegorical figure, would you ask for proof of the statement? Blueboar (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I am asking for some outside source to say that the story, as the creator knew it to be, is an allegory. That would be particularly necessary for the word to be presented as the fifth word, and first meaningful word, of an article, as it very much colors the remainder of the content. Whether you know it or not, in mythology there are a lot of characters whose presence cannot be absolutely proven, but which later people have been able to reconstruct as likely having existed, possibly even with one or two pieces of hard evidence, and we are, in effect, dealing with mythology, or constructed mythology, here. The wife of Jehovah is another one. Minimal direct evidence exists, but that doesn't mean that it absolutely has to be wrong. For what it's worth, though, like I said, I don't doubt that the originator did make it up. And the source I was thinking of regarding the Queen of Sheba story, which is quoted at freemasonrywatch.org/hiramabiff.html, himself said in the book that the story seems to have been entirely made up. I can see the opening being expanded to say something like, "Hiram Abiff is a character in the stories of Freemasonry. His story, which figures in the rite of third-degree initiation, says ... The story is currently believed to have been fabricated by the creator of the ritual." That would be NPOV, and actually probably better summarize the existing content than the current lead does. John Carter (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have re-worked things a bit in line with your latter suggestion. Do you still feel the need to cite the word "allegorical"? Blueboar (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have myself revised the article to include a brief summary of the story, and remove the allegory altogether. Yes, if it were to be included, it probably would need a direct source which specifically used that word or an equivalent. I think saying that it seems to be a completely fabricated story is probably clearer. The story does seem to be allegorical, but I would think if it were to be described as an allegorical, with or without the word, it would also have to more clearly indicate what the story is supposed to be allegorical of, which it did not. John Carter (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I note that you also removed the statement that Hiram Abiff was a fictional character. Do you seriously doubt that this is so? I think you need to find us a source that says there actually was a person named Hiram Abiff to remove this. Blueboar (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't. However, again, putting that word so quickly in the article almost certainly does color the remaining content. I did keep the word "character", which effectively says the same thing. ("historical personage" or some similar phrase would likely be used if there were any evidence of his existence). And, actually, I think that you would need to have a definite source for that specific word to be used, rather than demanding that someone else have to source removal of an unsourced word. The intro does finish with, basically, saying "it's all made up", which I think probably makes the same point more effectively than the inclusion of such an unsourced word so early in the article. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That is absoulutely rediculous. He is a fictonal character and should be presented as such. I'm going to put this to a few admin types and see what they say. Blueboar (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is ridiculous. What I find particularly ridiculous is your reaction. There is no creditable evidence that he in fact is a fictional character. An amalgamation of other people mentioned in the Bible is not the same thing as a fictional character. I regret to say that I think what may be happening here, unfortunately, is a certain party insisting that all articles relating to Freemasonry meet his personal stamp of approval, in this case insisting on the inclusion of an unsourced, prejudicial word, as one of the first ten words of an article. I regret to say that I see previously commented upon tendencies of that editor toward WP:OWN. John Carter (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

John, your arguments are getting silly...

• "There is no creditable evidence that he in fact is a fictional character." Of course not... people don't bother to try to "prove" that a fictional character is in fact fictional.

Then they clearly and explicitly violate wikipedia Come on... do people bother to prove that Harry Potter is fictional? seriously now.

• "An amalgamation of other people mentioned in the Bible is not the same thing as a fictional character". Actually, yes, it is. An amalgamation of other people is by definition fictional. Even if we assume that the various people mentioned in the bible were real people... once you start to form an amagamation of them, you have to be talking about fiction... No such person actually existed. Come on... do people bother to prove that Harry Potter is fictional? seriously now.

As for the WP:OWN accusation... I do not think that asking for an article to stick to accurate information is OWNership. Nor is objecting to silly citation requests. Blueboar (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why I am not surprised that the person who is accused of having ownership tendencies doesn't think they should be discussed? And your own comments are, I think, clearly indicating that you don't have to follow policy, a position you have basically taken before, unfortunately, when doing so appeared to serve your own POV interests. To quote you directly above, "Of course not... people don't bother to try to "prove" that a fictional character is in fact fictional." Actually, according to wikipedia policy, which I suggest you at some point become familiar with, it is our policy to say that all statements be verified. I can imagine few things more "silly" than the statement quoted by me above, by the way. Your own circular statement above, which basically cites itself as its own source, clearly and explicitly falls completely short of that standard of proof. I've indicated before that I would be more than willing to have a user RfC regarding that editor, and I am becoming increasing convinced that may prove necessary. And perhaps amalgamation is the wrong word, for which I apologize. However, to declare that a character such as this one who is fairly clearly directly related to the character referenced in 2 Chronicles is fictional, and in fact seems to be directly based upon, runs the implication that the original character mentioned in Chronicles is also fictional. Such a statement is clearly not yet supported. If you can produce evidence to that effect, well and good, please do so. However, to date your own arguments are just basically "I say so", a position you have regretably taken before, and is something policy explicitly says is not acceptable. You do think people should follow policy, right? :) I believe I would be more than justified in demanding a citation that the original character mentioned in 2 Chronicles is clearly and explicitly fictional before it could be said that this alternate version of that character is fictional, as to date no attempt to differentiate the two has been made. Othewise, such a blanket statement, particularly coming before literally all other content, could be very easily seen as being POV, particularly as it does not differentiate between the character as he appears in the story related herein and the character from Chronicles. To this date, no attempt has been made to differentiate between the character mentioned in Chronicles and the character of the drama. On that basis, to say that this character is fictional is not yet remotely supported by any evidence yet presented. It is also a quick, easy, and dare I say lazy (?) way of trying to insert a unproven POV on a subject, which is also in violation of policy. Therefore, to act on that unverified assumption is an explicit violation of policy. However, again, I am not surprised that you are once again placing your own POV before policy. And your own insistence on inserting an unproven, value-laden adjective before any substantive discussion of anything occurs in the article is probably one of the most "silly" and I personally believe directly contrary to policy things I have seen in a long time. To sum up, basically, your own statement is that the inclusion of the word "sums up" the later discussion. It does so, to a degree, but it also introduces elements which are to date completely unverified, seemingly because you want it to adhere to your existing POV. However, in doing so, the article clearly sacrifices clarity and coherence for the simple inclusion of one, emotion-laden, word. I find it hard to imagine any reasonable editor would think such an inaccurate "summary" is demanded, and wonder why you are still doing so. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets say I write a novel... it is an "alternate history" novel in which President "George H. Bush" (closely modeled on George W. Bush) assumes dictatorial power in the US after Al-queda terrorists fly a plane into the US Capital Building on 9/11 and kill most of the members of Congress. Would you say that my character, George H. Bush, is a fictional character? Blueboar (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for completely avoiding directly answering the questions asked of you.Are you capable of directly answering questions, I wonder? In response, (1) Can you verify that the name was not used elsewhere, perhaps in one of the missing targums? If you cannot, then you are once again engaging in OR, in this case assuming that there is no other source. If you can verify through neutral, knowledgable, sources that there is no good reason to believe that the name could not have been applied, fine. If not, it's OR, and that has no place here. (2) To directly answer your question, I think any reasonable party would say that it was a misnaming of an extant person for libel and copyright purposes. Again, however, if you can verify that there was no, extant or otherwise, Jewish or early Christian literature written before the time of the rite in which that name was used, perhaps. However, to prove that it is not OR on your part, you would be obliged to produce such verification, wouldn't you? John Carter (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Before I can directly your answer question under number 1) I have to understand what you are talking abut... what are the "Missing targums"?

As to number 2) You did not answer my question... would the character George H. Bush be fictional or not? In fact, let me change the premise and name him George W. Bush... would MY George W. Bush, as portrayed in my novel, be a fictional character or not?

I am not the one engaging in speculation here ... you are speculating that there might be some reference somewhere to a legendary character named Grand Master Hiram Abiff (as opposed to Hiram Avi, or any other Hiram in the bible or in history that might have served as an inspiration for the Masonic Hiram). Do you have any evidence that there actually is such a reference? If so, then please add this reference to the article. If not, then we must assume that the character originated with the Masons. (by the way... just to set the record straight, I checked and I was incorrect in my previous staments as to the date of when the third degree and the Hiramic legend were created... they date from the 1720s and not the 1750s. That I can verify and will do so if needed.) To speculate and say that there might be some reference to this character in some unknown source... that would be OR. Blueboar (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The above belligerent attempt at misdirection frankly surprises me. It is explicit wikipedia policy that such information must be sourced. You have to date supplied nothing even remotely resembling sourced information, and have instead sought to indulge in frankly pointless side discussion, perhaps to avoid addressing the central issue? You have sought to declare what is basically an OR statement of your own as being a source. That is clearly not acceptable by any standards. You have produced no definition of "fiction", yet you insist that your unsourced, potential OR definition of that term, as indicated by the extant opening of the article Fictional character, has to be accepted simply on your say-so. To use the term, you will have to find a third-party verifiable source which clearly makes the statement that there were no pre-existing sources which made a similar claim. Do so. Otherwise, you have failed to meet wikipedia standards for proof. In this case, I think we would both agree that any sources regarding Freemasonry would not be acceptable, as their objectivity could be called into question. Only reliable sources relating specifically to the Jewish Bible would be considered independent and knowledgable about the subject, I think you would agree, and those would be the only sources acceptable. And, in response to your question, the character you proposed does not meet the definition of fictional character as per that page, as it did not originate from a work of fiction, but was an adaptation from reality. I can see no further point in any such discussion, particularly regarding these frankly irrelevant alternate possibilities, until and unless you produce the requisite independent, verifiable sources. As per policy, any unsourced content can be removed immediately. However, I am willing to give you a period of one week, which is not required by policy, to produce the evidence required by wikipedia policy. John Carter (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Also be advised that at least one author, of admittedly dubious reliability, named David Wood, has explicitly equated the two, as per the quote here. John Carter (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion re... "fictional"

I have looked at some other articles on fictional characters that are closely based upon real people... Count Dracula for example... these articles clearly state that the character is fictional. However, they also include a disambig to an article on the real person. Perhaps this is a solution to our disagreement? What if we create an article on "Hiram (biblical)" - not discribed as fictional... and rename this article to "Hiram Abiff (Masonic)" - which would be discribed as fictional. Blueboar (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No evidence that the character is in fact fictional, as per the definition in the lead of the Fictional character article, has yet to be produced. Until and unless independent reliable sources which make that statement are produced, then there can be no presumption that the claim is verified. First produce the independent evidence that the character is in fact fictional. Such evidence would probably have to be based more on Old Testament studies than Freemasonry, as the base character is in fact primarily a character from the Old Testament. If such evidence can be produced, well and good. However, that evidence would have to explicitly say that there was no possibility of any real-world origin, to meet the definition as per the lead of Fictional character. The extant literature by the likes of McNally and Florescu clearly establishes that there was, perhaps uniquely, no preexisting tradition of Vlad Tepes as a vampire, and that Stoker himself probably didn't know much if anything about the historical personage he based the character upon. On that basis, he can be reasonably called a fictional character, because it was almost literarlly only the name which Stoker knew of and borrowed. Such evidence would probably have to be established here as well to meet the same criteria. That would involve finding a clear source in Old Testament studies which clearly states that there were no traditions about the Hirams of the Old Testament which the character could be based upon. And all this argument is over one single word, which is factually redundant to the rest of the section. And you call other people "silly"? John Carter (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this idea: Hiram Abiff is a character in the Bible - is there any independent reliable source to suggest that he existed? Right now, the only sources of information/stories of Hiram Abiff are the Bible, and Masonic rituals. Unlike King Solomon, for whom there are archaeological references, there is no other source, to my knowledge, regarding Hiram Abiff, that isn't derivative of the Bible. So we are clear, I am suggesting that ALL personages who are not backed up by non-derivative sources other than the Bible, who are mentioned in the Bible, are, from an objective POV, fictional.--Vidkun (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Responses:

• (1) Hiram is a character in the Bible. Hiram Abiff may or may not be, as the name isn't used there. There is no good reason I know of to think that any documents would be found later, although clearly no one can rule that out.
• (2) The book in which he is referenced, 2 Chronicles, is generally accepted as one of the most historically reliable volumes in the Old Testament, particularly as the author seems to repeatedly indicate his sources. The fact that those sources have often not themselves survived is not necessarily relevant. And there is the question of how to define "derivative". Targums, peshers, and the like are know to exist. Several of them contain information which is not contained in the books of the Bible themselves. And, last I heard, there is a huge number of Spanish-language medieval Jewish books which have never been translated, or even necessarily published. The fact of the recent discovery of the Genesis Apocryphon and other such documents, which contain stories completely missing from the Bible, makes it that much harder to make any sort of categorical statements that a character is or is not fictional. And, in fact, if the word were to be kept, I can see a very serious problem that, even if sources regarding the subject were later to be found to exist, there might even then be questions as to whether those sources are sufficient to establish that the character was ever real. In effect, just as there is no way to prove that the character is fictional, it is almost impossible to imagine that any evidence of any substance or quality found later would necessarily be considered sufficient to prove he isn't. That is why I have favored removing the word altogether, and simply making flat statements regarding the quality of any evidence which does currently exist. Treating the subject in a full sentence, or at least clause, rather than as a single word, particularly when it would be all but impossible to completely proof that both the subject matches the definition as used on the page linked to (which can change, and probably will) and that the definition the author gave matches that definition, are reasons why I think that we would be best advised to not use the word at all. And, again, I cannot really see any solid argument for why this word is so important that such an effort is being expended to retain it. If there is such an argument, I would welcome seeing it. John Carter (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What about something along the lines "According to Masonic traditions, Hiram Abiff was ..." and then later something along the lines of "The Masonic accounts of Hiram Abiff are based on the Old Testament descriptions at X and X ...". Just a thought. It makes clear that the "real-world" reference (for lack of a better description) is about a person named Hiram, and that later Masonic tradition says that this real-world person was Hiram Abiff. In short, it lets the reader draw his/her own conclusion about whether the biblical acount and the Masonic Hiram Abiff are one and the same. Pastordavid (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This would probably be acceptable to me, as it doesn't prejudice the content, but clearly and explicitly states only what the sources themselves state. John Carter (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hiram is a character in the Bible. Hiram Abiff may or may not be, as the name isn't used there. So, John Carter, where IS Hiram Abiff used? I see your point about why do we need to say he is fictional, but, seeing as how you are using the book of the Bible wherein Hiram is referenced, and calling it one of the most historically reliable volumes in the Old Testament, and saying the Hiram Abiff ISN'T in there, then, how the heck can HAB be anything BUT a fictional character?--Vidkun (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK... I think this comes down to the question: Is the Hiramic drama a work of fiction? Let's read the lead of the article on Fiction... which says: Fiction is the telling of stories which are not entirely based upon facts. More specifically, fiction is an imaginative form of narrative, one of the four basic rhetorical modes. Although the word fiction is derived from the Latin fictio, "to form, create", works of fiction need not be entirely imaginary and may include real people, places, and events. (bolding mine for emphysis).

Now, other than the two biblical references discussed in our article, there are NO historical or biblical refferences to a Man named Hiram associated with the building of King Solomon's Temple (If you know of any, please add them to the article.) For the sake of argument, let us assume that this Biblical Hiram was an actual real person.

Now let us look at the hiramic drama... the story is (in outline) as follows: Shortly before the completion of King Solomon's Temple, "Grand Master Hiram Abiff" is leaving the Temple one day, when three ruffians approach him and demand to be told the "Secret Word of Master Mason". Hiram refuses and in frustration the ruffians kill him. The ruffians cart his body off and bury it. Later the body is recovered and brought back to Jerusalem for more decent internment. This story is not told in the historical, biblical record. It first appears full blown in the context of the Masonic ritual sometime around 1720. We have no record of anyone other than the Masons telling this tale. While it includes biblical (and therefor real) people, places and events, it is not entirely based upon biblical/historical fact. Parts of this story are in fact contrary to biblical/historical fact (one of the Biblical/real Hirams is discribed as concecrating the bronze vestles of the temple upon it's completion, which he could not do if he were killed prior to its completion). They only appear in the Masonic story. Therefore, the story must be considered a work of Fiction, by Wikipedia's definition. And if the Drama is a work of fiction, then the characters in it must be considered Fictional characters.

It is all well and good to speculate and suppose that there might be some unknown Old Testiment tradition, some missing biblical story that has become lost over the years or something... but in Wikipedia we can not write articles based on supposition. Obviously, if any evidence of such a tradition emerges, I would have to reconsider my assertion that the Masonic story is fiction. But without such evidence, I simply don't see how we can say that the Hiramic drama isn't fiction, and the character of Hiram Abiff isn't fictional. Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It is also interesting that as of yet I have seen no explicit evidence to indicate that the character is a work of fiction. What is required is the sources. I would love to see the neutral, verifiable sources of that comment. To date, I haven't. And the statement about what must be done above very likely violates OR rules. Until and unless the independent sources which verify that claim are produced, that claim has to be regarded as unverified, and, thus, not fit for inclusion in the encyclopedia. John Carter (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict response) The key matter is the last name, "Abiff". That name is not used in the Bible. However, that name means something like "son of unknown father", and it would be far from impossible for the biblical character to have had such a name, even if it isn't used in the Bible per se. Regarding your questions about Chronicles, I can't cite any sources to verify that right away, not having Biblical studies immediately available right now. Certainly, the character upon whom the story of Hiram Abiff is based is a character there, although he does seem to be a conflation of possibly the other two as well. It is possible on that basis to equate the two characters, and it does seem that at least some current writers, as per above, have made the leap of faith to identify them. I was raising a question regarding the exact name used. While to the best of my knowledge that name is not used in the Bible, or any of the ancillary Jewish material, that doesn't mean that it isn't the same person. Recent studies have seemed to indicate King Arthur and Riothemus are the same person as well, with one name being used by some and the other by others. Also, there is the matter of the definition of fictional character, which presumably would have to verifiably apply to the subject if the link is to be used. And what other editors can and cannot see is frankly irrelevant. We deal with verifiable information. If the information cannot be verified, then it is either OR or other similarly unacceptable content. And, frankly, I am the one asking that the speculation that the subject is a fictional character be substantiated. For all the above, I have yet to see the evidence required for that word to be used. I am still waiting for the explicit evidence required for the inclusion of that material. John Carter (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Cutting through the crap

I still do not think the citation request is a reasonable challenge, but it is not worth arguing about any more. It is obvious that neither side will give an inch about this. Stepping back, it does not really hurt the article to simply say that "Hiram Abiff is a character in an allegorical drama" without specifying that the character is "Fictional". I have therefore cut the offending word.

Let's move on. Blueboar (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Actually, however, as I noted above, it is a matter of policy which made it impossible for me to "give an inch".

The first question that arises in my eyes is whether to expand the story I recently added. Certainly, there isn't a lot of reason, none that I know of in fact, to believe that the story was purely and solely created by Freemasons. Having said that, I do think I remember seeing references to it elsewhere, indicating that it might merit more space. The original version of the story is certainly much longer, although it might well constitute undue weight to add it all. And, if there are other versions of the story floating around out there, which I can't know right now, they would have to be added as well, which would give even more weight to those seriously dubious stories. If it were possible to go into greater detail about the drama from the right of initiation, that would almost certainly be a good idea. John Carter (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly expand on the "offical" story (ie the story that has existed in Masonry since the 1720s) if you would like. I don't know if there are any non-masonic versions out there (I would be fairly certain that there are not, but I will admit that I am only a knowlegable amature and not an expert) .... but if you do discover any reliably sourced non-masonic versions in your research, then I have no problem with discussing them in the article. I think we would need clear attribution as to who says what in which version dated when so the reader knows what is Masonic and what isn't. We would also have to change the lead to indicate that the character is more than Masonic.

As for weight... we can deal with that when we find things. Obviously not everything will get equal weight. I would think the current "official" version would get a lot of weight (if only because it is the most commonly told version) ... and a version that a reliable source states was only performed in one small French lodge in the 1650s would get less weight... (one way to deal with this might be to only summarize the differences between it and more common versions instead of relating the entire story). Let's see what we come up with before we worry about how much weight to give it. Blueboar (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I just checked in at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to see if I could get a THIRD opinion on this dispute.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 14:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly fair. What should be noted is whether it is reasonable to insist that the word "fictional" or some variation thereupon can reasonably be used to describe a character who in at least one verifiable source is identified with a character from one of the Old Testament history books, to the point of even using that name to identify that character. Granted, the name is not itself used in the Bible, and that can and should be taken into account. The question then becomes whether the character from that drama, who has been identified with what most Biblical scholars, including revisionists, think almost certainly was either a real person or, speculatively, a character from a story which has since been lost, can be described as a "fictional" character in the first sentence of the opening of an article which discusses both the Biblical origins of the character and the later, admittedly probably fictional, story about him. John Carter (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

John, I take a Biblical minimalist point of view - where is independent support for Hiram (of the Bible) having existed, let alone Hiram Abiff of Masonic legend? Is Zeus fictional?--Vidkun (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You are free to take whatever view you want. However, that does not directly relate to the question being asked. If you can demonstrate that the specific book in question is regarded as fictional, and the document of the king in which Hiram is specifically mentioned in that book, please do so, preferably on the page of that article itself. Without such clear and explicit evidence, however, making any such claim is OR and an explicit violation of policy. John Carter (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, John, taking the Bible as an independent historical document is POV. What other books support the existence of Hiram Abiff as an historical, factual character? SHow me your citations for that.--Vidkun (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

And, in all honesty, refusing to respond directly to a question specifically asked, and instead resorting to blanket dismissal of the question, is hardly in the best interests of reasonable discussion. If you can point to a policy or guideline which substantiates your position, fine. If you can point to a specific source which specifically calls into question the reliability of this particular book, also fine. However, seeking to avoid dealing with those questions by using generalizations to avoid directly responding to questions asked is hardly in the best interests of reasonable discussion. John Carter (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is is that any time someone disagrees with you, you go off on a tirade accusing them of missing the point of your question? Wikipedia is not a Christian church, it is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It cannot make the assumption that a given religious text (alone) documents actual historical figures. You are, in effect, alleging that Hiram Abiff is an actual person. Show your proof that he existed, show me independent citations.--Vidkun (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's cut this to the bare essential I want answered: did a real, living, breathing Hiram Abiff ever exist?--Vidkun (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not the one seeking to include the information. It is by wikipedia policy incumbent on those who seek to add information to produce the verification, and, as I am not the one seeking to add information, I am not the one obligated by policy to produce that information. And, if, as you indicate, we are now free to ask rhetorical questions, why didn't you try to answer my question, instead choosing to insult me while clearly and explicitly refusing to do what policy would seem to require in this instance? Do you consider your own opinions more important than official policy, I rhetorically wonder? And you are the one who has made an assumption above, that, and I quote, wikipedia "cannot make the assumption that a given religious text (alone) documents actual historical figures". I specifically asked for a citation of a policy or guideline. Instead, I got another unsupported statement. If you can point toward a policy or guideline which substantiates your quoted statement, please do so. And I seriously question how these repeated impugnings of myself, without production of any evidence of any kind on the part of you and others to substantiate your own claims, is of any use whatsoever. I am requesting that evidence be produced. By policy those who seek to add disputed material are required to produce evidence to verify such. I really cannot see any point in such rhetorical questions as you asked. Deal with the matters of policy and guidelines, not your own irrelevant, rhetorical questions. And, frankly, let's deal with the matter of policy, not continue to ask questions about whether our own, unsubstantiated, unverified, opinions, should influence content. Please produce the evidence requested. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I see what the problem is - you are objecting to an inclusion of the word fictional, because it's not supported. You want proof that he is fictional. I get that that. I interpret your objection to mean you believe Hiram Abiff was an actual living, breathing historical person. I want proof of THAT. I see it as an either or situation - if he isn't fictional, he's real. Unless legendary is a completely different ball of wax.--Vidkun (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What you want is not what policy demands, however, and, frankly, you have no business seeking to place your own desires before explicitly stated policy. What policy demands is an reliable, independent source which verifies the claims made in the article. As I stated above, I am the one who sought evidence of the claim of that the character is fictional. For all the accusations, insults, and other comments from you above, no such evidence has yet been produced. I honestly cannot see any basis for further discussion until and unless the source citation specifically required by policy has been presented. John Carter (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Why the hostility? Why do you insist on using emphatic formatting to jab at others? My last question was that, a question. Considering it's on a discussion page, and I'm not going back and adding the word fictional to the article, I'm just trying to get a better understanding of all sides of the issue. You, however, insist on adding more gasoline to the fire.--Vidkun (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your statments are disingenous. You specifically demanded above, and I quote, " I interpret your objection to mean you believe Hiram Abiff was an actual living, breathing historical person. I want proof of THAT." In this statement, you once again placed your own interpretation of facts, which is becoming increasingly suspect, as more important than policy. And, as I said above, if you can't understand that information which individuals seek to include in articles has to be sourced and verified, then I very seriously suggest that you review wikipedia guidelines and policies, as you would apparently have little understanding of either. John Carter (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

And, as I said above, if you can't understand that information which individuals seek to include in articles has to be sourced and verified, then I very seriously suggest that you review wikipedia guidelines and policies, as you would apparently have little understanding of either. Back off with the insult. I get that all insertions have to be supported. My opinion, and it may NOT be in line with policy, which is flat out why I haven't put the word fictional back in, is that opposition to listing someone as fictional logically means you support that the person isn't fictional.--Vidkun (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You have done little but insult, since you first arrived in this conversation. And, as you stated above, your opinion may differ from policy. Unless you believe your opinion, whether it disagrees with policy or not, takes precedence over policy, then frankly you have contributed nothing to the discussion except your own demands and insults. John Carter (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

We seem to need to talk about this more.... OK...

I think the root of this argument is based upon the fact that we are talking about two different things. John is talking about a biblical/historical Hiram, and the rest of us are talking about a character in a play. If we said that the biblical/historical Hiram was fictional, I could see his point. The reality of biblical figures is a matter of POV... whether you believe the Bible is recounting real history or not. NPOV demands that we at least discuss the possibility that it does. We would certainly need a citation to state that the biblical/historical Hiram was fictional.

The rest of us, however, are not talking about the biblical/historical Hiram... we are talking about the character named Hiram Abiff, that appears in the Masonic drama - a character that is based upon the biblical/historical person.

Many works of fiction contain characters based upon real people and events etc. ... Robert E Lea in Harry Turtledove's "Guns of the South"... Thomas Jefferson in the musical play 1776 (I could go on, but you get the point). These characters are based upon real people, but in the context of a discussion about the work of fiction, they are fictional. Hiram Abiff may or may not have been a real person... but the character of Hiram Abiff that appears in the drama is fictional.

As to whether we have to cite this fact... My stance is that a character, as portayed in a work of fiction, is fictional by definition... simply by virtue of it being in a work of fiction. This is an obvious and simple fact. Wikiepdia consensus has long held that you don't need to verify obvious and simple facts. Asking for verification is like asking for verification that water is wet. Blueboar (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You have a point, and I actually acknowledged that earlier. And, for what it's worth, as I indicated earlier, the argument isn't about whether the character is fictional, but whether the word "fictional" or an approximation thereof should be inserted in the opening sentence without relevant sourcing. Your own statement, that this is a "simple and obvious fact", is potentially OR. It has been pointed out that your simple and obvious fact does not conform to the extant definition of fictional character as per that page, that you haven't yet produced a source which explicitly describes that character as fictional, and that there is at least one source who has specifically referred to the character from Chronicles as Hiram Abiff. All of this makes the potentially OR assumption that this is a "simple and obvious fact" more than a little suspect. As has been indicated before, it probably isn't in the interests of clarity and accuracy to introduce the word in the opening sentence of the article. Doing so not only, in effect, indicates that the character in the play is fictional, but also can be seen as indicating that the characters in the biblical books are as well. That is not yet supported. Now, personally, I am myself far from certain the Biblical characters are necessarily historical. In Chronicles, he is mentioned in a letter written by a neighboring king, and it isn't necessarily likely that such a letter is fraudulent. Having said that, it isn't proof that he isn't, and it has certainly been the case elsewhere that Biblical content is influenced by stories outside the Bible which are at best dubious. The reference to Moses's place of burial in the New Testament is one such example. However, considering that this discussion had been already ceded by you above before Vidkun came in with his, ahem, "input", I suggest that we return to the matter of how much weight to give the various forms of the story. I've just googled the name again, and found not much to indicate that there are other versions, but the majority of the sites that appear first are clearly biased, and may not deserve much attention on that basis. It might be worth noting that this page indicates that the Kentucky Monitor, whatever that is, says that the burial place of Hiram "has been identified as Golgotha". This page expands the story a little, but doesn't provide any real differences. I can't speak to its reliability, though. This page seems at first glance to be related to official Freemasonry in some form, presenting alternate versions of the story. I can't say whether it should be cited or made an external link, though. There are doubtless others, and like I said I am not an expert in Masonic lore, although I am somewhat versed in mythology. As soon as I finish the copyediting of another article I'm working on in userspace, I can at least try to review the material and see how much, if any, might merit inclusion and maybe propose some additions here. John Carter (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You keep pointing me back to Fictional character... it says: "A fictional character is any person, persona, identity, or entity whose existence originates from a work of fiction". This definition fits the character of "Hiram Abiff" that appears in the Masonic drama. The character, as portayed in the Masonic drama (as opposed to any other portrayal, from any other legend, or biblical story) originates in the Masonic Drama... a work of fiction. Later in the Fictional characters, it says: "Sometimes characters obviously represent important historical figures" In other words, a fictional character can be based upon a real person. This is backed up by a statement in the lead of the article on Fiction, which states: "...works of fiction need not be entirely imaginary and may include real people, places, and events." That this character is based upon a biblical/historical personage does not change the fact that the character in the Masonic Drama is fictional. The rest of your comment does not really apply... as you once again shift to talking about theories concerning the biblical/real Hiram and not the character in the play.

One final thought... The lead of an article is designed to define what the article's topic is about. So if the lead states that "Hiram Abiff is a fictional character from a Masonic play", then the article is talking about a fictional character named Hiram Abiff in a Masonic play. It isn't talking about some other non-fictional Hiram Abiff. It isn't even talking about a Hyram Abiff that is in some other work of fiction. That lead sentence is what defines the article. It does not need to be referenced (for one thing Wiki-MOS frowns upon citations in the lead). If there are non-fictional characters or persons named Hiram Abiff, or other non-masonic references to a Hiram Abiff, we should have a disambig page and discuss them in other articles.

You have not responded to my "water is wet" contention. There ARE some kinds of statements that do not need to be verified. Blueboar (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the last. My apologies. Some statements clearly do not need to be referenced. I am not entirely sure, however, that your central statement is one of them.

And, actually, it is the lead section, not just the lead sentence, which defines an article. Your possible conflation of the definitions from later in the Fictional character article and the fiction article strikes me as being somewhat suspect. Also, without criticizing, I would acknowledge that any other Hiram Abiff's out there might merit separate articles, if there is sufficient content to support any other articles. At this point, I don't see any evidence one way or another regarding that possibility. If they don't as per the precedent Queen of Sheba page, they would probably be included in this one. That page does seem to stand against your stated view that all such versions of the character would have separate pages. Also, again, it has, to date, yet to be sourced that Hiram Abiff has always been seen by Freemasonry as a fictional character. Without such a clear source, it is at least potentially misleading. From that era, there were any number of stories written as other than factual which were later perceived by others as factual. I don't doubt that the author of the story probably intended it as allegorical. But it has yet to be established that those who later used the rite knew it to be strictly a fiction. That information would presumably be relevant, as they may have seen him, potentially, as being real. Radu Negru, which is an example of a potentially similar case, does not use the word "fictional" but rather "legendary". Personally, that word I would have no objections to. I also think that restoring to the lead the statement that the story is currently seen as being entirely fabricated would state the same thing as the word "fictional", but without the extant ambiguity about specifically what is being referred to by that word. Again, there is still no explicit statement in the article that even today Freemasons inherently view the character as fictional. It is simply, apparently, assumed that he is such. The article as it is currently constructed does not indicate when the story was apparently created, by whom, and what their purpose in so doing was, all of which would seem to be required to establish that claim. As such, the word "fictional" is completely unsupported by the extant content. That would make it an unreferenced comment in the lead, which is supposed to summarize the following content, not replace it. If it can be established that Freemasons have always seen the story as being other than historically accurate, I would probably then have no objections, depending upon the exact statement of the source. At this point, however, there is no extant content in the article to establish that the character is fictional, which makes its inclusion in the lead extremely problematic. John Carter (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Draft of expanded article

I have made some changes to the article, including adding some material obtained from the sources I cited above, to a draft of the article located at User:Warlordjohncarter/Hiram Abiff. I haven't yet placed the citations, although I think all the material comes from the three sources referenced above. I would welcome any comments. John Carter (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)