It seems to me that the version preferred by 91.209.115.8 is better than that preferred by Willfults. The latter version, in the subsection "Roman Catholic Church", contains a poorly written, illustrated and sourced attack on the Roman Catholic Church. Scholarly views should appear first in the article, as they do in the version of 91.209.115.8.
In the version of 91.209.115.8, I think that WP:UNDUE requires trimming of the "Other views" section, especially the "Jehovah's Witnesses" subsection. It adds little of value to the "Historicism" subsection. If "Jehovah's Witnesses" is retained, it would be helpful to add some scholarly sources, preferably from the last couple of decades. Watchtower and Awake are a reliable source for what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, but seven citations of material published by Jehovah's Witnesses should not be necessary in this article and may be promotional or advocacy. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd respectfully disagree with 91.209.115.8's version being better, although I would like to see all viewpoints accurately represented and sourced. Consider the section "Earthly Jerusalem" in Starting with the paragraph "In Jeremiah 13, Judah is warned that because of her whoredom, the cups of all of the people will be..." it's all original research. Moving up one paragraph to "For example, in Matthew 23:34-37 and Luke 11:47-51" that is also primarily original research with 1 reference which has no page, year and publisher. It's unverifiable. I tagged these sections before removing them. Likewise with the paragraph "The first to see Jerusalem in Revelation's Babylon were the French Jesuit Jean Hardouin " again no references, original research, unverifiable. Also the section says "Scholarly views", and lists only preterists viewpoints. That's POV. Like the other viewpoints are not scholarly? The whole article is rather slanted.
Regarding the comment in regards to my version stating.... the "subsection "Roman Catholic Church", contains a poorly written, illustrated and sourced attack on the Roman Catholic Church" Scholarly views should appear first in the article, as they do in the version of 91.209.115.8." ......
There are only 2 references in 91.209's version for that section, and it's debatable if those are scholarly. The other is a Roman Catholic defense, and the section is designed to discredit the historicist viewpoint and promote the above two viewpoints. In my version there are 14 references from various sources, from major organizations that actually represent that viewpoint like Amazing Facts, which is from a Protestant church (SDA) and the section properly explains the historicist viewpoint. Of course those who are slanted to the other viewpoints will disagree with the historicist perspective, but blanking the whole section as one user did is not in accordance with wikipedia policy.
Also 91.209.115.8, going around and blanking my other changes in articles without giving any reason is against wikipedia policy. I understand that you lean heavily toward the preterist viewpoint, yet censoring other opinions because you disagree with little or no wikipedia policy foundation is not good faith editing. 91.209.115.8's version of the historicist section is a poorly written and sourced attack on the historicism viewpoint. All viewpoints should be represented, not just preterists. I'm fine with the other viewpoints like Earthly Jerusalem being in the article, if it meets wikipedia standards, which at the moment in 91.209's version does not.
"If "Jehovah's Witnesses" is retained..." The "Jehovah's Witnesses" position should be retained, as some points laid out in the section have direct references to Watchtower material. Although if there are any sections without references then they may be OR and removed (or cited properly). Willfults (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I propose a compromise solution of working off the current version but expanding the Earthly Jerusalem section (with cited material). Also using inline tagging for any part of the Jehovah's section that may need sourcing or removing. Willfults (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with you. The Catholic section is obviously an attack not a NEUTRAL PRESENTATION. And why was the Catholic Answers counter argument removed by the POV user?
- The Roman Catholic Church denies the claim that it is being referred to by the Book of Revelation as the Whore of Babylon. Catholic Answers argue that in Rev 17:10, it states that the seven heads of the Beast are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he comes he must remain only a little while (Rev. 17:9–10) "If five of these kings had fallen in John’s day and one of them was still in existence, then the Whore must have existed in John’s day. Yet the Vatican City did not even exist at that time. Since the Whore persecuted apostles and prophets, the Whore must have existed in the first century. This totally demolishes the claim that Christian Rome or Vatican City is the Whore. Rome was not a Christian city at that time, and Vatican City did not even exist, so neither of them could be the Whore. Furthermore, Fundamentalists continually (though wrongly) claim that Catholicism itself did not exist in the first century, meaning that based on their very own argument Catholicism could not be the Whore! "Catholic Answers: Whore of Babylon Why did the POV editor blanked this reliably cited scholarly section without VALID EXPLANATION?
Most Bible scholars (sources: Babylon in the New Testament, International Standard Bible EncyclopediaWomen in scripture: a dictionary of named and unnamed women in the Hebrew,Encylopedia Britannica) agree that "Babylon" is an allegory of Rome; perhaps specifically at the time to some aspect of Rome's rule (brutality, greed, paganism), or even a servant people that does the bidding of Rome. That interpretation goes back at least to the time of Tertullian (Adv. Marc., iii. 13). This interpretation was adopted by Jerome and Augustine and has been commonly accepted by the Roman Catholic church.[1] The Roman Catholic New American Bible commentary,New American Bible, Revelation 17:5 footnote the evangelical Protestant commentary of the New International Version Study Bible, the Rastafarians and the Protestant commentary of the Oxford Annotated Study Bible all concur that "Babylon is the symbolic name for Rome" and that [1st century] Rome was the "type of place where evil is supreme" (Jerusalem Bible, commentary to Rev. 17). In 4 Ezra,[2] 2 Baruch[3] and the Sibylline oracles,[4] "Babylon" is a cryptic name for RomeBabylon in the New Testament[5]. Elsewhere in the New Testament, in 1 Peter 5:13; someBabylon in the New Testament[6] speculate that "Babylon" is used to refer to Rome. This is bolstered by the remark in Rev. 17:9 that she sits on "seven mountains" (the King James Version Bible-the New International Version Bible uses the words "seven hills"), which could be the seven hills of Rome. A roman coin minted under the Emperor Vespasian(ca. 71 CE) depicts Rome as a woman sitting on seven hills.[7][8] There are a number of smaller symbolic clues that some see as suggesting a link between Rome and Babylon — the Roman Empire in its military occupation of Israel, its repression of the Jewish nation and religion, its destruction of Jerusalem following Jewish revolts in 70 CE and 135 CE, and its persecution of Christians, would lend meaning to the imagery of the 'whore, drunk with the blood of martyrs,' as a wantonly violent and bloodthirsty entity.Babylon in the New Testament - 202.153.172.99
Well for one your source is just a copy paste from a website that doesn't directly represent most of the texts cited. For example, look at
http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/B/BABYLON+IN+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT/ and I don't see anything in that reference that refers to the last sentence quotation of 'whore, drunk with the blood of martyrs,' or the dates 70 and 135. It's like someone desperately just referenced a random site because there were no citations in the paragraph. Also the reference http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/B/BABYLON+IN+THE+NEW+TESTAMENT/ is not enough to consistent "Most Bible scholars" as mentioned in the first sentence. I gave a reason for why http://books.google.ca/books?id=NIMam563-fsC&pg=PA528&lpg=PA528 was removed a while back. It's used to state "most Bible scholars" but the source also just states "most Bible scholars" without mentioning who. I believe I may have tagged that with a [who?] tag, before removing it. If you'd like the http://www.catholic.com/library/Whore_of_Babylon.asp reference in the historicist viewpoint then I'd gladly add some "neutral representation" in the Earthly Jerusalem section as well. But wikipedia is not about debunking positions, it is about stating each position clearly. If we had counter points to every section the article would be massive and lack flow. At least separate the sections into different viewpoints for clarity. Again as stated earlier I'm ok with a section stating that people believe that Babylon refers to Rome, if it is properly cited and doesn't fail validation.
Also it seems like I may be arguing against just one person? 202.153.172.99 using words such as "scholarly section"? With 0 contributions besides this talk page?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/202.153.172.99
202.153.172.99 can you identify yourself so perhaps we can follow the discussion better? Thanks. Willfults (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- 202.153.172.99; Bible History Online appears to be a WP:SPS. "Self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable." Absent evidence to the contrary, we assume that the creator holds the copyright. Please see Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Short quotations that are identified as such may be considered fair use. "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes." Please follow this guidance.
- Willfults; Google Scholar finds nearly 4000 uses of the "whore of babylon". I think a good article could be written. But, many of the article sources do not satisfy my reading of WP:RS, in my opinion. If the view of Jehovah's Witnesses is notable, it should be easy to find scholarly sources for that content. Google Scholar finds 60 citations for "whore of babylon" "jehovah's witnesses". But, crudely speaking, 60/4000 or 1.5% of the article should be devoted to that topic to be consistent with the guidance of WP:UNDUE or WP:SOAP. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- The protection has been in a version containing a non-neutral section on the Catholic Church. Simply put, the final paragraph of that section is acceptable and historical, while the rest appears to me to be advocacy of a POV. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
@Walter, considering your points I'm in agreement in regards to the Jehovah's Witness section. Perhaps I would allow more than 1.5% though but it depends on what the content is. The section does need some work, yet I am not qualified to state their position. Hoping someone else can help out in regards to that. Willfults (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
2 Baruch 10:1-3, 11:1, 67:7
Sibylline oracles 5.143, 159-60
