From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

American Jurisprudence[edit]

As revealed in the television program News Radio, because they are all members of a secret sect of Freemasons, all judges in the United States must find in favor of any party who says the word "Tubal-cain" in a court of law.  Mr JM  01:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As News Radio is a sitcom, and not a factual program, I don't believe that this comedy sketch was intended to be a reliable source of information. Regentswift (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Even so, this claim is commonly made about the Masons, and should be referenced in the main entry. The name is used as a kind of password in Masonic ceremonies. --Hugh7 (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


The etymology of Vulcan is indeed unclear, but no serious classicist (or Indo-Europeanist, or indeed Hebraist) would suggest it descended from Tubal-cain. This is really more of a religious belief than a philological one, so I've added the disclaimer shown. -Senori (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The way you phrased it is problematic - "This has been dismissed by most scholars" - because then anyone can say "Okay, please cite just ONE who has dismissed it" and then it turns out not a single one has dismissed it or even addressed it. If you make a claim like most scholars have dismissed it, you have to back it up with scholars who indeed dismissed it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. To be honest, I strongly doubt anyone has ever taken the suggestion seriously enough to dismiss it; not only is it etymologically implausible in the extreme, it requires cultural connections between two civilizations (the Etruscans and the Hebrews) who otherwise have no evidence for contact. That said, I'm not sure the best way to address your criticism; one could note that Henry Morris's work is heavily criticized by nearly everyone in academia (which can be cited) but that doesn't specifically address this claim about Vulcan. It might also be worth simply deleting the whole comment entirely as deeply implausible. -Senori (talk) 03:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)