Talk:Moloch

Sourcing

Ronnie James Dio, of the heavy metal band Black Sabbath, recalls his grandmother referring to Moloch when she made the sign for the 'evil eye', index finger and pinky finger extended, that he then popularized during concerts and has now become the universal sign of heavy metal in pop culture[citation needed].

This cannot be sourced, as it is from VH1's "Rock Docs: Metal", a TV special with no webpage (AFAIK). --71.34.12.223 08:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The ancients would heat this idol up with fire until it was glowing, then they would take their newborn babies, place them on the arms of the idol, and watch them burn to death.

I removed this as it is 1) stated earlier up in the article, and 2), a word for word quote from the Watchtower magazine, a religious pamphlet distributed by the Jehovah's Witnesses and it's neutrality is *severely* lacking in this case. The wording of the paragraph in the section it was in was sticking out like a sore thumb (sorry, I can't think of a more literary way to put that) and really seemed tacked on by someone with a religious agenda. If this is inappropriate, please switch it back, and apologies from me.

Translation please

Many parts of this article are not only argumentative but need to be translated into idiomatic English.

Article rewrite by Jallan

Two year Review of Article

This article has gone DOWNHILL since the Jallan rewrite. It needs to be re-written. It is pretty awful.--Blue Tie 22:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC

The whole section on Molech in popular Culture is worthess. Peope will NOT read this article to find that stuff. If anything, they will hear the name Molech in popular culture and look up what it ACTUALLY means, not all the places the name turns up. That section should GO!

The section about the Bohemian Grove is nonsense. Having now just wasted an hour and a half watching the expose film, I can guarantee that the only connection between the Bohemian Grove ceremony depicted there and Molech is that Molech was an idol and there was a fire associated with him. But that was true of many many many many gods, including the God of the Bible sometimes. The name Molech is not used in the Bohemian Grove ceremony, it is only the fundamentalist Christian editor trying to make a claim who makes this accusation, but with almost no evidence for it. Indeed, his evidence rests almost exclusively upon his interpretation of a cartoonish drawing of the "Cremation of Care" which is DEFINITELY NOT represented as though it were a child and, in fact, is not specifically human, but is rather an anthropmorphicly represented concept of "Dull Care". Like Love or Hate. The voice of Dull Care is not that of a child but is that of a fully mature (deep booming voice) man. The figure is not "Molech". It is "The owl of Bohemia". And the whole ceremony is far more druidic than anything else. Even the Christian researcher admits that. This whole section should go. It is irrelevant to the Molech article.

--Blue Tie 15:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, it's just that the owl of Bohemian grove (logo and the idol statue) as well as the owl on the US senate grounds (seen from the air) both are representations of Moloch or Molech. This is no christian conspiracy theory, however, I guess/know you will not believe that... I'm from Norway myself, and two owls can also be observed here in Oslo, as ornaments on a building located very close to the kings castle. I even suspect the owl often used as symbol of education/universities, represents the same thing. Then again, I'm just a 'crazy' conspiracy nut, so I guess you can just ignore me... (I'm not saying this should go into the article, though, I'm just saying its the truth... so sue me ;) -- A-ixemy 23:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Original Entries under this Heading

User:Jallan has done an outstanding rewrite here. more than a rewrite. This sets a Wikipedia standard. Wetman 05:42, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I undid Trc's revert: the annihilation of so much work (a complete rewrite) requires an explanation longer than 200 characters. Trc, you are welcome to explain your reversion more fully on this talk page. —No-One Jones 17:31, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I recognize that the version prior to Jallan's edit was a mishmash. But it strikes me as unlikely that so much was wrong with the previous content, and that so much is correct about the new content. The new content is akin to a short journal article, proposing ideas and theories, leading the reader along with operative phrases rather than reporting on what different paradigms suggest. I get the sense of paradigm replacement based on novel approaches to the subject matter. The section "Pure fiction" is gratuitous, the icing on the cake: after casting doubt about earlier interpretations, a fiction is referred to, giving the article's overall outline that delicious sense of a glorious modern reproof of the past. Trc | [msg] 06:16, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is unfortunately not unlikely that old theories long debunked or very suppositious continue to be repeated as fact and get into tertiary works, including Wikipedia. That happens in every area of knowledge. Anyone who thinks any of the material I left out or that I deprecated in my discussion is welcome to put it back, but to put it back along with trustworthy citations supporting it. I've no philosphical bias against an earlier source than Flaubert for mechanical arms or evidence for a "Moloch cult" outside of the Bible references or a Carthaginian connection if someone can provide evidence. Anyone is welcome to attempt to improve my discussion.

But neither my approach or paradigms presented were novel. The paradigms are standard ones and I reported on their implications and on criticisms made of them.

Outside of the molk sacrifice, all this is very old. My discussion is little different from that in the Moloch article in the 1899 Encyclopædia Biblica, just a going over the necessary material. See Encyclopaedia Biblica: Minni - Mordecai]. See also the 1908 [Catholic Encyclopedia: Moloch] which also disassociates Moloch from Milcom and cites the theory that the sacrifices were made to Yahweh, though it argues against this, quite possibly correctly. I've no stake one way or the other. But the theory should be mentioned as readers will find it in various soruces. Neither of those older encyclopedia articles so much as bothers to acknowledge suppositious attempts to connect Moloch with Melqart or with Carthaginians. Such ideas were never unworthy of being raised as a conjecture, but have never been supported by any evidence.

Indeed the 1899 Encyclopædia Biblica notes that there is no evidence anywhere for a Moloch cult outside of Jerusalem. The only discovery since 1899 to change that is the finding in 1928 that there was such a thing as a molk sacrifice which provided a possible new interpretation, an interpretation which became the scholary consensus interpretation and may still be the most common scholarly interpretation. This should not be new or novel in 2004.

But *Sigh!* see [Encyclopedia Mythica: Moloch] for nonsense still repeated without citation as it was in the previous version in the Wikipedia, including Flaubert's mechanical arms and the Carthage connection. The bogus material floats from tertiary reference to tertiary reference, no-one checking (or if checking, simply finding the same bogus material elsewhere). Pointing out that one source of such accounts of Moloch is Flaubert's novel rather than scholarship is, I think, important, not gratuitous. See, for example [From Infant Sacrifice to the ABC's] which discusses in part the attempts of historians to undo the vivid pictures which Flaubert raised.

It is gratuitous to revert a Wikipedia entry in any area of knowledge with which one is unfamiliar except on grounds of vandalism. A "sense of novel approach" should be verified. Is the approach a novel approach by the writer? Or is it only novel to a reader who is unfamiliar with normal and longstanding mainstream scholarship in a particular area? jallan 17:25, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ezekiel passage

Ezekiel 20.35 even suggests that Yahweh himself at some point had commanded the sacrifice of children in order to defile his people:

Moreover I gave them laws which are not good and rules by which they cannot live: When they set aside every first issue of the womb, I defiled them by their very gifts – that I might render them desolate, that they might know that I am Yahweh.

The relevant verses, in some bibles at least, are Ez 20:25-26. This section of the new version is problematic because it does not take into account the understanding of how the Scriptures mean. What this verse means, rather than implying that God commanded the sacrifice of children, is that God permitted the sacrifice, and other pagan practices, so that the people should discover their rebellion against "my statutes". Ez c. 20 is filled with remonstrations about how the people are not observing the statutes, despising "my ordinances that bring life to those who keep them". But this portion of the new edit implies quite the reverse, that God actually wanted to defile His people. This is, I think, an example of a misuse of Scripture to editorialize. Let me emphasize, however, something that may have gotten lost in all this: I fully accept the inclusion of these new points of view. I reverted to encourage a better integration. I see now we shall have to work at this the other way. I am not sore or unhappy about this. I agree that User:jallan has provided some important new material. I didn't intend to imply otherwise. In any case, I consider this quoted passage, above, to be such a misuse of the Scripture cited that I have removed it from the article. Trc | [msg] 20:46, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Quite correct: the passage is Ezekiel 20:25-26. Correct it in the entry, please. The relevant context is what this verse meant to the writer and his original hearers, and perhaps to the 7th-6th century BC editors of Ezekiel. What it means to anyone since is material for the entry Ezekiel, not Moloch. What it means to any of us is not Wikipedia material, period. Please restore suppressed information, and set it in historical context if needed. Wetman 21:21, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It must be the height of philological speculation to suppose than an excerpted verse can magically mean the opposite of absolutely everything around it. Misuse of text is wrong in any context. Trc | [msg] 02:18, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Ezekiel passage is quoted in the Moloch article in the 1899 Encyclopædidia Biblica as the strongest evidence for the theory that the offerings were considered to be to Yahweh (along with Jeremiah 7.31). Both passages are also cited in the Moloch aritlce in the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia which reponds rather weakly (in my opinion): "But this position is to say the least improbable. The texts appealed to may well be understood otherwise, and the prophets expressly treat the cult of Moloch as foreign and as an apostasy from the worship of the true God." It is cited in 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica: Moloch] with the comment: "Note, also, the attitude of Ezekiel in xx. 25 seq., 31, references which cannot be explained away." The article The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: Molech; Moloch] treats it rather strangely, remarking:

That this prophet regarded the practice as among the "statutes that were not good, and ordinances wherein they should not live" (Ezekiel 20:25) given by God to His people, by way of deception and judicial punishment, as some hold, is highly improbable and inconsistent with the whole prophetic attitude toward it.

It is not clear what this means, quoting parts of the passage and paraphasing part of it and then adding "as some hold". This article shows itself elsewhere quite aware of the theory that infants were sacrificed to Yahweh. It also brings in bogus Moloch-worship in connection to Carthage. Not a good article in any case.

Three different Rabbinical interpretations of the Ezekiel passage appear at [1]. The interpretation by Rashi accords with the most obvious meaning, disliked by TRS, but the writer finds this inconvincing as not in accord with his own theology and prefers another interpretation. That would not be a reason to suppress Rashi's interpretation and the writer does not do so.

There is a discussion at [2] which covers in part John Day's treatment favorably but also discusses the Ezekiel passage in respect to the problem of the people's belief (and apparently Ezekiel's beliefs) that commands which Ezekiel saw as bad came from Yahweh. Note, John Day believes Moloch is not Yahweh, but that still does not answer the problems with that passage.

In short, the passage has been long used in support of the theory that the offerings of children lmlk was understood as commanded by Yahweh. It has long been in general a problem pasage. But those who feel that it is being misinterpreted do not suppress it. It is dishonest to present a theory that has been held and still is held and suppress its strongest supporting argument. On could respond by citing the Catholic Encyclopedia response (which seems to me weak). But add it with a citation if you will. But do not suppress.

The inclusion is not editorializing by me. I am presenting various theories that are held along with evidence for and against. The Ezekiel passage is cited as part of a common argument that children were sacrificed to Yahweh and normally used as support for that argument, indeed one of the main sources for that argument. My own POV, as much as I have one, is that the evidence is confused, there are good arguments as well as weaknesses in various positions, and that one should present all sides ... though of course full discussion would be a book length article.

Your particular POV on a Biblical passages is not grounds to suppress it when cited with a different interpretation, especially when it is normally cited in the Moloch context by sources usually considered reputable, sometimes very much supporting the POV that the sacrifices were to Yahweh. Even when when that interpretation is rejected the Ezekiel passage is still cited in discussion.

I don't believe that anything I have included in this article, including the Ezekiel passage, is non-standard for discussion of Moloch. I have tried to present the vanilla arguments and give enough information to allow them to be understood. One obviously cannot agree with all sides. Moloch cannot easily be at once Yahweh, an entirely different god, the name of a kind of sacrifice. Passing through fire cannot be at the same time a human sacrifice or an initiation ceremony. But people do hold different views and the task of the article is to explain these views and give their history.

It should be obvious now that your original feeling that this material was novel was incorrect. Please let the normal statements used as arguments stand, regardless of the positions.

I am restoring the passage with some reasonable weasel words to make it clearer that this is the expounding of a point of view that is held, not necessarily everyone's interpretation. jallan 03:22, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

I have rearranged the "Offerings to Yahweh" section with some additions and changes to partly absorb Trc's last additions as follows:

Trc inserted:

A more standard interpretation is that the prophet was, in all likelihood, implying the concept of slaughter. In some modern presentations, this segment of Isaiah is given as poetry, and thus more likely to use imagery.

I have accordingly provided the older interpretation explicitly. In fact only one line of the passage is interpreted differently. I omitted the reference to poetry because Mosca's translation is in verse form as a reader should be able to see. Also, it is obvious that Isaiah is using imagery, regardless of interpretation. My earlier account used the word imagery and I've now added it a second time if that helps. But I don't see anyone thinking that the reader should imagine Yahweh creating a physical hearth somewhere and physically placing the King of Assyria on it. By any reasonable interpretation the passage is metaphorical.

Trc inserted:

His use of Ez 20.25–26 is at odds with the remainder of Ez c.20, in which Yahweh is clearly shown to be remonstrating with the Israelites for having "despised my ordinances that bring life to those who keep them". A more standard interpretation of vv. 25–26 is simply that Yahweh permitted the people to defile themselves. Bibles tend to indicate in footnotes to this section that the theological language of the time had a tendency to attribute to Yahweh actions for which the people themselves bore responsibility.

It is not Mosca's use of those verses that is at odds with the remainder of Ezekiel 20 but the verses themselves. Nothing is clearly shown or there would not be so many interpretations of this passage, none of which, in my opinion, is compelling and some rather obviously an attempt to explain away the passage rather than explaining it. As to what Bibles tend to indicate in footnotes ... I find no such notes in a quick check of various Bibles, ... possibly not looking in the proper Bibles. But such a statement is absurd as a counter to any theory. "Gee, some Bibles somewhere in their notes, right next to Archbishop Ussher's dates, give a counter-theory; so you should believe it." As to the theory itself, I'm unaware of any such tendency in the Tanach for Yahweh to be portrayed saying he did something which he did not do in those accounts, which humans did. Of course atheists would quite accept such a theory, that since there was no Yahweh he indeed had nothing do with anything that is claimed for him, it all being either being imaginary or a mixture of human activity and natural causes.

In any case since Trc insists on concrete indication that the Ezekiel text has been intepreted otherwise, I have placed a number of other common interpretions of the passage along with sources. This somewhat burdens the article, but perhaps at some future time they might become the nucleus of a separate article Ezekiel: statutes that were not good with a link from here.

I have also added to the external links. jallan 03:30, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"It is not Mosca's use of those verses that is at odds with the remainder of Ezekiel 20 but the verses themselves." This is strained reasoning, as the verses occur in a context that should be taken into account. Bible notes are prepared by scholars of various kinds, and are not irrelevant. Your new paragraph containing extra interpretations is a help. Trc | [msg] 04:46, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Flaubert novel

The section describing Flaubert's novel is in grave danger of elimination. The only sentence connecting it meaningfully to the article is the very last one, for which no example is provided. It seems unlikely that a work of fiction has been considered a source of information by anyone. I think it is added as a zingy extra, intended to lend a dashing flavor to the article. The fact is that Flaubert does not define Moloch. Trc | [msg] 04:51, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

lmlk

Could this be "El Molek" that is "l" before "mlk" acting as the definite article. Thus "passing through the fire lmlk" could mean passing through the the fire of Molek.

For the Wikipedia reader

Could this entry now be given an opening paragraph that approximately answers the average reader's question: "Who or what was Moloch?" with the briefest sense of where interpretive disagreement lies? Then the interested reader might continue, into the entry as it exists. --Wetman 19:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

problem section

The following section (now in the popular culture section of the article) seems problematic to me:

Compare ancient Moloch worship (offering one's children as a burnt sacrifice) to modern suicide-attack tactics of blowing one's self up with explosives within the same region in which, historically, the inhabitants have worshipped Moloch, and that there is strong documentation of parents encouraging their children to "pass through the fire" caused by self-detonation by explosives worn on the body. This seems to indicate that although his name is no longer used, the old habits remain, much as in the same manner in which European Christians (and their American progeny) continue ancient Pagan practices in Christmas and New Year's observances (evergreen trees, mistle-toe, etc).

Apart from the fact of the odd placement within the pop culture context, the linkage of ancient and modern behaviours seems tenous, speculative and implicitly racialist in tone; some ancient Jews are thought to have worshipped Moloch, but there is no suggestion of similar behaviour as a carry-over of ancient practises by modern Israelis, nor is there any explanation of how this alleged motivation of suicide bombers in the Levant could explain similar behaviour outside the areas where Moloch was worshiped (such as Iraq, Chechnya, Indonesia etc).--Centauri 05:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Though well written, this looks like (a) a highly personal viewpoint with no citable references, (b) a thinly veiled anti-Palestinian message (e.g. "the old habits remain") and (c) an anonymous user. I'm removing. --Air 09:55, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Morlocks

Problems with this addition by -Ril-:

"Morlocks (based heavily on Molochs) feature as technologically advanced, but physically weak, enemies, in the famed novel The Time Machine by H.G.Wells"

1. "based heavily on Molochs" - what does this mean? Moloch is a god (singular) with no physical representation.
2. "technologically advanced" - no, H.G.Wells' Morlocks are technologically backward.
3. "physically weak" - no, Morlocks are physically strong.
4. "enemies" - of whom exactly?

The link between Morlock and Moloch has been pointed out in one or two places but I don't see a point of any depth.

In any case I think speculation on the origins of Wells' Morlocks should be in Morlocks, not here. I'm moving it. --Air 18:21, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If In the video game Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance, the boss-character Moloch... has a place in the pop culture section, I'd say Morlocks do, but I agree the sentence above is weak. --zippedmartin 02:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

More meanings

Moloch or "moloch horridus" is also the scientific name of a kind of horned lizard also known as thorny devil. See e.g. http://digimorph.org/specimens/Moloch_horridus/head/

I put a mention of that on the disambig when I overhauled the article. See thorny devil. Sam Spade 08:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Bohemian Grove

I removed the prominent mention of this from the opening paragraph but didn't touch the section itself. Surely it's enough to have a long section on the naive and spurious identification with "Moloch" (made by the film crew?) of the mumbo-jumbo antics at Bohemian Grove, which simply mark the start of their "care-free" retreat. The owl is too familiar as an emblem of Wisdom to need identifying; laid before it, slips of paper on which Bohemian Club participants have written their secret worries and fears are ceremonially immolated. Putting a reference to this in the opening paragraph gives it unwarranted prominence. --Wetman 20:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I gave it prominence because of its current nature (one of the best aspects of the wiki). In 10 years or so if Alex Jones gets forgotten and some new breakthru interpretations of the Molech concept comes out, I would assume it would take his special status on the cutting edge of Molech info. Sure, it sounds wacky, but such wacky theories regarding freemasons were of signifigance historically, even resulting in an anti-masonic political party in the united states, and anti-mason persecutions in europe. Sam Spade 20:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"Interpretations?" You dispute these claims then, Sam? GeorgeC 20:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I think nearly everyone disputes all these claims. Don't you? Its irrelevant tho, since my opinions are not notable in the context of the article. Sam Spade 20:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't imply that they were. I don't have a problem believing them given the well-documented flirtation with astrology and occultist activities in the White House. GeorgeC 04:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

...um, just maybe the journalists are confusing Moloch with Mammon. The connections to Moloch are too tenuous to be presented in the opening paragraph, but I didn't touch the section itself. --Wetman 10:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Alex Jones definitely means Molech, the dull care ceremony involved binding a child on an alter in early years, and currently the burning of one in effigy. Here is a link, which has various information, as well as some video clips [3]. You may also want to read Bohemian grove, Skull and bones, bilderberg group and etc... if you want to know more. Sam Spade 10:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The Bohemian Grove section should be flagged for neutrality.

The Bohemian Grove section should GO! Just because one person improperly associates the Bohemian Grove with Molech does NOT mean that wikipedia should accept that is valid. This is an egregiously bad edit and should be removed. --Blue Tie 15:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

they worship molech at bohemian grove, there are interviews pics and VIDEOS to back it up!!!

I have see the Bohemian Grove videos as well, and I truley believe in its validity. It should be in the article nuetrally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.41.74 (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Why was this removed?

The idol Moloch that devours its follower's children has appeared in at least two modern works of art. In Fritz Lang's 1927 dystopian film Metropolis, the hero, Freder, when he first witnesses the proletariat workers horrible conditions and watches an accident occur, has a delusion where the enormous machines of the city become anthropomorphic, with flaming mouths. The workers carry their children to the machines and cast them in, and Freder calls "Moloch!", recognizing the ancient god.

Is the above inaccurate? Sam Spade 22:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I based it on a recent viewing of the new restoration of Metropolis. It is merely descriptive. I'll reinstate it. --Wetman 10:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do, I found it to be a portrayal of Molech in significant contemporary art (as opposed to video games ;) The wording was rather nice as well, and I think it added to the article. Sam Spade 12:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Added piece in popular culture section.

I added the following,

"Moloch was a member of the Spookhouse organization along with your character, The Stranger, in the 1999 PC game, Nocturne (Game). He was portrayed as a large red demon with three horns (his top right horn was broken off) framing his face, two torn and shredded wings on his back, and hoofed feet. He fought other supernatural threats alongside humans because his fellow demons cast him out of hell centuries before (he claims to have been cast out of Heaven as well). He drew his power from heat and blood (nonhuman as they don’t have enough blood to satisfy him), had great physical strength, the ability to make people’s eyes see a normal man instead of a demon, and could even create a duplicate of himself, so as to throw off pursuers."

My first time adding something so big; is it alright? --Gero 16:10, 10 February 2006 (UT

Gero, your add was ok, for that section but the section itself is worthless. It should go. What possible reason can exist for that virtually useless collection of information? --Blue Tie 15:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

For what reason is Moloch's appearance in Golden Sun: The Lost Age, that Mortal Kombat game, ADOM, or any number of other appearances worth mentioning? I admit looking back at what I wrote, the section is too long, but it shouldn't go. It should just be shortened. ...And done. --Gero 05:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Gero, first, let me be very clear, I was not criticizing your edit. You were fine, though I think your new version is even better. I was not criticizing any edit in particular. But I felt that the section regarding popular culture just did not belong. However, with the removal of the previous section, the popular culture section does not look quite so bad.--Blue Tie 02:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I apologize if my responce came across as too sharp. I was under the impression that you were attacking my edit; "virtually useless collection of information" would be quite harsh after all. As it is, I simply misunderstood you. Again, sorry. --Gero 19:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Molchomor

Was the sacrifice named molchomor?

Rabbinical History =

The author of that bit is jumping to conclusions by saying what the Tanakh said about Moloch was just 'jewish legends'- he gets this out of the lack of archeological evidence regarding bull shaped things called 'moloch' from that period. However, in the next paragraph someone has pointed out that in Carthage, they found child sacrifice associated with the Phonecian gods dating back to the 8th century bc. Moloch/Milqart/Baal are related gods and belong to the same religion of the Phonecians, aka Caananites. To say that the writers of the Tanakh just made it up is ridiculous and unfounded.

Moved Popular Culture References

I have moved popular culture section to its own page, but included a summary and a link. Reason: References to video games and novels distracts from the more scholarly information related to the ancient deity. I think the link is sufficient for the more curious while those who are interested in popular references can go directly to that page. --Blue Tie 23:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

- I can't edit Wiki to save my life, but Blue Tie is not correct at top of article about readers being unlikely to seek popular culture references. I can not find any link to a separate page for this information as asserted above, and the article is missing the piece I was seeking : Donny Most (Ralph Malph from tv's Happy Days) portrayed Moloch on an episode of CHIPS in the 70's. 71.112.73.85 (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Richard

Conspiracy theory?

I found this article in Category:Conspiracy_theories but it seems to have nothing to do with that category. Should it be removed? Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed this article from Category:Conspiracy_theories. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well its association with the Bohemian grove and the Illuminati seem to make it conspiracy theory related, in my oppinion. 75.161.242.149 (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ginsberg and Howl

It seems odd that Ginsberg gains no mention in this article, when the phrase Moloch is used dozens of times in the poem Howl, and likely remains one of the first associations one can make with this word.142.58.24.196 (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Just noting that "Moloch" turns up in the poem doesn't add much; it's the kind of thing that gets cleaned off periodically from those "Trivia" sections. But why not add a solid referenced paragraph on what has been said in print of Ginsberg's use of "Moloch" in "Howl"? That would be a useful addition. --Wetman (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It used to be in here as part of "Molech in popular culture". However, that section was moved to its own page on the grounds that it was considered to be a separate issue from the historical god "molech" and the scholarly material covering that matter. The article "Molech in Popular culture" contained many other references, chiefly in video games but also movies. Later, it was reviewed by a large number of editors. The question was, whether "Molech in Popular Culture" should be deleted, kept or merged back into this article. I argued to keep it. But consensus deemed it to be not worthy of inclusion in wikipedia at all. I would suggest that you start an article on "Howl" if one does not exist and then link to this article. I would not suggest that you add Howl to this article... it does not belong. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Guidelines

Look, sorry for this, but isnt the first mention of Moloch (or Molech in the "Sunrise Good News Bible") first found in Levticus 18.21 as "do not hand over any of your children to be used in the worship of Molech, because that would bring discrace on the name of God, the Lord". Incase you havent read the bible, the whole of Leviticus 18 is calles Forbidden Sexual Practices. Just saying that it is logical to think that it has something to do with child sex or perhaps (going back to the article saying that it was to do with a red hot idol placed in the childs hands) some tourture to do with a childs reproductive reagons such as a red hot idol being placed between a naked childs legs. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnecromancer (talk • contribs) 18:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

See also

The obvious linguistic connections with malik and malakh are omitted. Would mention of them elicit howls of denial? Why is this article still so resolutely without references to professional literature? I'd stick one of those "No References" tags on it, if I were a tagger. --Wetman (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Moloch & Melek

The article currently says there was no difference in the spelling of Moloch & melek (king) but I was under the impression, from certain authors, the Moloch was an older spelling for king that was "מולך" (with a letter vau) and Melek came about by dropping the vau in ancient times (before the spellings in the bible) to form just "מלך" for an non-pagan interpretation of the word as "lord". 67.5.157.160 (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)