Talk:Gog and Magog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
August 19, 2016 Featured article candidate Not promoted

Section on rabbinic tradition[edit]

I keep removing this section and an editor keeps removing it - this despite the fact that the editor who added it and I have agreed to rework it together. Anyway, to head off an edit war, I'll explain here what's wrong with the section:

  1. It's badly presented. It begins: "An important part of the eschatological drama..." Any ordinary reader would have no idea what this is about - what eschatological drama? What is an eschatological drama? I happen to know the answers myself, but the average reader won't, and we're aiming at the average reader. In short, it's not pitched at the right level. The entire entry is like that.
  2. It's cut-and-paste from an edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia that's now around a century old. Not a good idea. Go for recent sources.
  3. The material in it is already in the second para of the next section, but presented far more coherently and comprehensibly. This is that paragraph:
After the failure of the anti-Roman Bar Kokhba revolt in the 2nd century CE, which looked to a human leader as the promised messiah, Jews began to conceive of the messianic age in supernatural terms: first would come a forerunner, the messiah of Joseph, who would defeat Israel's enemies, Gog and Magog, to prepare the way for the messiah of David; then the dead would rise, divine judgement would be handed out, and the righteous would be rewarded.[29] The aggadah, homiletic and non-legalistic exegetical texts in the classical rabbinic literature of Judaism, treat Gog and Magog as two names for the same nation who will come against Israel in the final war.[30] The rabbis associated no specific nation or territory with them beyond a location to the north of Israel,[31] but the great Jewish scholar Rashi identified the Christians as their allies and said God would thwart their plan to kill all Israel.[32] Much later, in the early 19th century, some Chasidic rabbis identified Napoleon's invasion of Russia as "The War of Gog and Magog."[33]

That's comprehensive, comprehensible, and sourced to modern sources. It's what Wikipedia articles should look like A cut and paste from the Jewish Encyclopedia is amateurish and, if I may say, lazy - there are better sources out there. PiCo (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Concerning your comments on "cut and paste" - if a work is out of copyright (is in the Public Domain) Wikipedia has no problem with it being copied and pasted fully into Wikipedia as long as it's cited as the basis for the segment or article. See Wikipedia:Public_domain and Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain_sources.
You will find that there are hundreds of articles that are word for word copies of such works as the Catholic Encyclopedia which is out of copyright, which are in compliance as the source is duly cited.
I have heard, but can not confirm that in the beginning of Wikipedia this "copy and pasting"/importing was done by bots to generate new articles. In any case your comment about cut and paste is not a violation of Wikipedia standards as long as its out of copyright and is fully cited.
My concern isn't to preserve the prose but to preserve the citations, for example: "Syriac Apoc. Baruch, lxxii. 4; Apoc. Abraham, xxxi." I am not even advocating that these things be quoted fully, just that we don't lose the actual places for readers to look and that these citations in the article be next to or linked as a reference to the aspect of Gog and Magog the sources are speaking about. Saying "Rabbinic sources say XYZ" and not offering a notation of the sources is not as encyclopedic as making the citations. I am only advocating "Rabbinic sources say XYZ[1]" and then in the citations it has [1] Syriac Apoc. Baruch, lxxii. 4; Apoc. Abraham, xxxi.
Rabbinic sources are according to Judaism part of an Oral Torah that is as authoritative as the Hebrew Bible, if not more authoritative as the Bible (the Pentateuch/the Written Torah) is held to be mere notes of what was delivered and passed down orally from YHWH in the Oral Torah. So Rabbinic Judaism isn't the same as the cultural synthesis that has been invented since the Holocaust "Judeo-Christian" of which we have a segment on in this article. Judaism is not the same as Christianity and the rabbinic material is as unique to Judaism and as important to it as the Qur'an is to Islam, so the section "Judeo-Christian tradition" may not adequately reflect Judaism and may only focus on things both faiths can agree on - ignoring that which makes them distinct. Also the "Judeo-Christian" section starts with comments on the 1st Century and the rabbinic sources are held to go back over a thousand years before that to Mount Sinai at 1313 BCE, later prophets like Ezekiel are held to know the Oral Torah and to get some of their inspiration from it.
My concern is solely to preserve the citations and see them placed in context with what they are talking about, any alteration of the prose is fine, or even if the citations of the rabbinic works themselves were incorporated into the "Judeo-Christian" segment that would be okay as long as it can be done respectfully, nor do I make any demands that quotations be used.
Wowaconia (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Wowaconia, my apologies for not getting back sooner. Let me say also that appreciate you for being a serious and sincere editor.
You make a lot of points and I'll try to reply to them all, but briefly.
Cut and paste isn't against Wiki policy if it doesn't involve a copyright violation, but it's still a poor way to write articles. Much better is to do research across many sources. There are many sources out there.
I'd very much like the Jewish section to be longer, but so far we don't have enough material - we just deal with the first few centuries after Bar Kochba, then a mention of Rashi, then on to Napoleon. There's too many holes in that to make a proper narrative, as we have with the Christian material.
I agree that keeping references to individual texts (Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch or whatever) would be very scholarly, but I don't think it's what our readers are after. As I see it, our readers are laypeople, mostly unaware of these writings, and pretty unlikely to go look them up - something like the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch isn't readily available in any case. This is why I want to use more readily available sources.
Rabbinic sources aren't the only sources involved in defining the Jewish tradition. The belief that Napoleon's invasion of Russia was the war of Gog and Magog isn't in the Oral Torah, but it's tradition nevertheless. (I imagine that Hitler's war must also have seen as the Gog Magog war, but oddly enough I can't find any references).
You might like to look up Ginzberg - 7 volumes plus notes. He went through absolutely everything up to his time, and if it mentions Gog and Magog, it will be there. You'd have to go through all 7 volumes, plus perhaps the notes, but although it's a lot it's more valuable than the Jewish Encyclopedia entry. This link is to volume 1).
I do encourage you to write us a good section on Jewish understanding of GogMagog. PiCo (talk) 10:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that more sources is always preferable but not showing notable information because one is awaiting more sources defeats the purpose of the article. The information is notable and the source is credible and reliable. We should show this information and if more sources are found they can be added.

I am not saying we remove anything, such as the info about a Jewish view on Napoleon, I am saying the Rabbinic sources are very notable and the source providing these is reliable and credible by the very standards of wikipedia. I am not saying that Rabbinic sources are the sole worthy source about a Jewish take on this subject, merely that it is notable enough for inclusion.

Concerning your comment "I don't think it's what our readers are after" - this is an encylopedia not a magazine, we should strive to mention all notable information on the subject and not make guessses about the minds of the readers of the article.

Concerning your comment on "readers...pretty unlikely to go look them up": Wikipedia is often used as the start of a line of research, people will look at the references cited for themselves at full blown libraries (I have done so myself) so whether a text is availible online is of no issue. And again it is not our job to determine what this or that reader might want from an article, its whether information is notable and from a reliable and credible source.

I am not the editor who originally added the information. I do agree it would've been better served with a better introductionary line or two. I think from your responses that you had more issues with its prose style than just that. ---Wowaconia (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am concerned about prose style - I want something that's readable. But I also want reliable content. I'm really stymied in finding sources - can you find any?PiCo (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of source?[edit]

@PiCo &, please resolve the matter here instead of leaving messages in the constant reverts. Happy editing & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see the source issue. There is none. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
An additional problem with is the anonymity - it would help if he got an account. PiCo (talk) 03:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The content added by the IP violates WP:FRINGE. If an appropriate link were added, the content would still be considered OR according to FRINGE policy. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

No, the source proposed is definitely not WP:FRINGE and is a standard reference on the subject. Examples:

  • P. Laude, "Louis Massignon, The Vow and the Oath" page 34, 2011, London, see [1]
  • X; Accart "Guénon ou Le renversement des clartés: influence d'un métaphysicien sur la vie littéraire et intellectuelle française (1920-1970) ", PhD Thesis, Edidit, 2005, see [2].
  • R. Fabbri, "Frithjof Schuon: The Shining Realm of the Pure Intellect", Univ. of Miami, 2007, page 18, link.
  • J.-P. Laurent, "René Guénon, Esoterismo e Tradizione", Mediterrannée & Dervy, 2006, see [3].
  • J.-P. Lippi, "Julius Evola, métaphysicien et penseur politique, essai d'analyse structurale", Les études H, L'Age d'Homme, 1998, see [4].

All these authors are recognized academics. Thanks. Note: I have created can account now. Xinheart (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Xinheart, thank you for getting a user account. First, the protocol is that when you make an edit, and it's reversed, you go to Talk to argue your case- you don't start an edit war. Second, Guénon is not a reliable source on questions of the Bible or Quran - his biography shows that held no formal qualifications in the area and appears never to have published in peer-reviewed journals or with recognised publishers in this area (although I think part of your problem might be that you simply don't understand what "biblical studies" means, in an academic sense). Finally, the specific idea you want to add to the article is never mentioned by any of the 30 or so reliable sources in our bibliography, neither in the texts nor in their footnotes. This means that we cannot add this to the article. PiCo (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Just to add, since I missed this in my previous post: The references you give don't establish Guénon, or his ideas on a correspondence between Hebrew Gog-Magog and the two characters from Indian mythology, because none of them are themselves works of biblical scholarship - all are works about mysticism. Whatever Guénon's reputation as a mystic, he had none as a biblical scholar. PiCo (talk) 06:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
PiCo, without any intent to flame on you, I think you are not in a position to accuse me of war editing, since this is exactly what you did from the beginning. About "biblical studies", I doubt you've understood the rules of WP in human studies on these matters: Guénon is not a scholar in biblical studies, but he is a recognized metaphysician, and the book I mentioned here is probably the most famous and the most referenced. This book has a full chapter on Gog and Magog. He is widely acknowledged from El Azhar studies, which suffices to quote him as learned in quoranic studies. Moreover the references I give in this TP are definitely not "mystic studies" (Guénon is definitely not a mystic), the first book in particular is perfectly RS. Now, to go to the core of the subject: "Gog and Magog" are subject of multiple interpretations in Biblical and Qoranic studies, and what Guénon did was simply to recall the Islamic version of this story. The link with Hindu's Koka and Vikoka is from him, but is quoted in Laude's reference. Xinheart (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Xinheart, it's definitely you who's edit-warring - you made an addition to the article, it was reverted, and instead of taking it to the talk page you started a pattern of reversions. Now to matters of substance: You say that Gog and Magog are connected in some way to Koka and Vikoka, two figures from a Sanskrit myth, based on something Rene Guénon wrote. You now say this is "the Islamic version of this story." Really? It's not - I doubt that any Muslim anywhere, anytime, would connect the Quranic Gog and Magog with a Hindu myth.
You also say that "The link with Hindu's Koka and Vikoka is from him, but is quoted in Laude's reference." Again, it's not - assuming that is that the Laude reference you mean is this Louis Massignon book. That talks about Khadir repairing the wall of Dhu'l-Qarnayn, built to keep Gog and Magog from civilised peopled, not a word about Koka and Vikoka.
You admit that Guénon is a metaphysician, not a biblical scholar. That's the point. He's not in a position to talk about the origins of the names Gog and Magog, nor the names Koka and Vikoka. To repeat what I said earlier, he and his ideas are never, ever, mentioned in the scholarly literature on this subject.
You mention Patrick Laude as if his name should carry weight. It doesn't, for the same reasons Guénon doesn't. Laude's area is "the relationship between mysticism, symbolism and poetry" - not philology, biblical scholarship, or Sanskrit.
Since I don't seem able to make you understand this, I think the next step is an RfC. Don't be alarmed, it's simply a step where we seek an outside opinion on Guénon's status as a reliable source for biblical studies. PiCo (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
You're wrong. The mention of Guénon's book was there first (not put by me, I just restored it), and you suppressed it; Proof. And since when a recognized philosopher can't be quoted on spiritual texts ? About Laude I just proved here that, as opposed to what you said, the passage in question is quoted in RSs. Xinheart (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
RfC would be the best way to resolve this dispute. What ever happens...happens according to RfC. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, probably. One more thing, PiCo: you should definitively update your little library: the connection between Koka, Vikoka, Gog and Magog is mentioned as early as 1935 in the very scholarly and academic "Bulletin de l'École française d'Extrême-Orient", Volume 34 N. 2 see [5]... Xinheart (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've added the RfC template - the bot will take care of it now. Xinheart, you can add your own comment, but keep it about the same length as mine and make sure you address the issues - notability and reliable source.PiCo (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: are Gog and Magog Hindus?[edit]


NAC close. There is no consensus to include the wording posited below, but involved editors seem to have reached consensus on alternative wording. - MrX 19:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This dispute is about notability and reliable sourcing. User Xinheart wants to add the following paragraph to the section explaining the origin of the names Gog and Magog:

In his 1945 book "The Reign of Quantity and The Sign of Times" metaphysician author René Guénon has a full chapter on the subject of Gog and Magog ("The fissures of the great wall"). Gog and Magog are related to their Hindu counterpart called demon brothers Koka and Vikoka "whose names are obviously similar", and refer symbolically, according to Guénon, not to groups of people on earth, but to entities belonging to the "subtle world" and having an existence presently hidden from the human realm and symbolically described as subterranean.

The problems with this are:

  • The idea that the names Gog and Magog are related to the names of the two Hindu demons Koka and Vikoka never appears in any of the sources listed in our bibliography - there must be thirty or so books there, and it's not mentioned once, whether in the text or the footnotes. This is not a notable idea.
  • René Guénon is not a biblical scholar - as his biography shows, he never acquired any formal training in the disciples that biblical scholars need (Hebrew language, various other languages, various forms of criticism, etc), never held any academic position connected with biblical studies, and never published in the relevant journals nor had any books reviewed in those journals (at least so far as I can tell). Nor is he ever mentioned in the books in the bibliography. He is not a reliable source.
  • The idea that Gog and Magog, or for that matter Koka and Vikoka, are "entities belonging to the subtle world," "hidden from the human realm," and "symbolically described as subterranean" is somewhere between incomprehensible and plain wacky. It has no place in a serious encyclopedia. Needless to say it never appears in reliable sources. PiCo (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Hello,
  • Since yesterday, I've seen and I am a little bit surprised of the recent discussion around the « Gog and Magog » thematic that is occurring in Wikipedia. I didn't want to intervene in the first place but since I'm the one who first mentionned René Guénon's book both in « Gog and Magog » and « Koka and Vikoka » Wikipedia articles, and since these edits are questionned and have been cancelled by a contributor caled PiCo, here is what I have to say about it.
  1. Asserting that the <Gog and Magog- Koka and Vikoka> connection is non-academic, non scholar and of « mystic delirium » nature, as PiCo says, is really not serious. In fact, although there is of course no etymologic derivation between the Sanskrit and semitic names, the comparison between the respective apocalyptic « entities » is an old story in academic references : see Jean Przyluski Revue de l'histoire des religions Vol. 100 (1929), pp. 1-12 Armand Colin Publishing house, Revue internationale de Sinologie, E. J. Brill, 1930, see also Bulletin de l'École française d'Extrême-Orient, 34(2), 1935, among others.
  2. Now, for the islamic version of it, the link <Gog-Magog/Koka-Vikoka> goes backs centuries ago, may be as far as, but this should be checked, the translation of Patanjali into Arabic, and this subject is known to Islamic scholars. In Arabic "Gog and Magog" are known as "Yajooj and Majooj" and such coincidences in the naming are known to be traditionally significant in Islamic theology, due to particularities of the Arabic language in these matters. For instance : « An Islamic View of Gog and Magog in the Modern Age », I.Hossein, page 97.
  3. Despite all of this, the main dispute seems to be around the René Guénon reference on that subject, that is to say the mention of Guénon's « Reign of quantity and sign of times » chapter called «  The fissures of the Great Wall » which is probably the best exposition in english langage of the <Gog-Magog/Koka-Vikoka> link as known in islamic esoterism. It is true that René Guénon is not a scholar in biblical studies, but he is an aknowledged metaphysician (he is definitely not a « mystic » as PiCo writes it). That book has been translated in more than 20 langages, and it is clearly a source that can be used in Wikipedia. Guénon's book has the advantage of summarizing the « traditionnal » exposition on the subject, and such an exposition has its place in a Wikipedia article, side by side with biblical studies.
  4. Also, to be honest, the view on Gog and Magog presented by Guénon is probably as valuable as that of respectable scholars such as ... Reagan and Bush... mentioned in the article in its present form (laughs...)
  5. I think that Xinheart is right when he writes that PiCo has done edit-warring on the subject : the mention of Guénon's book in the « Gog and Magog » Wikipedia article has been done by me, years ago. The article has recently been completely overhauled by PiCo. So I think may be PiCo could have explained tn the TP why he deleted the passage, instead of reverting Xinheart many times. TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 10:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Reply to User_talk:TwoHorned by Pico. Thank you for coming, I value your input and welcome your intervention. I've taken the liberty of bulletting your contribution, simply to make it easier for us to differentiate between various editors at a lter stage, when, I hope, there will be many such interventions.
  1. First, I think there's not much point discussing who began the edit warring. My own view is that the version of the article I created had been pretty long-standing before Xinheart began his intervention and he should have followed protocol and gone to Talk when he was reverted. But that's all water under the bridge.
  2. Second the issue: It's this: Xinheart wishes to add to the article the idea that Gog and Magog are connected in some way to Koka and Vikoka. His source is Rene Guenon (forgive the lack of diacritics). Rene Gueron is not a biblical scholar. Call him a mystic or a metaphysician, but he's not a biblical scholar. His biography shows that he lacks the tool-kit of biblical scholarship - familiarity with Hebrew and other relevant languages, familiarity with ANE history, familiarity with the critical tools. Nor did he ever publish articles in the relevant journals, nor did he ever publish a book reviewed in those journals. Nor, and this is most crucial, is he ever referenced by modern biblical studies - he's not in Van Der Kamm's "Dictionary", which is the base reference work, nor is he in any other work. He's unknown.
  3. Third, Guenon doesn't mention the Islamic versions of the names, only the Hebrew ones. He does this in a way that shows he isn't familiar with the methodology - "they sound the same," he says. No philologist would suggest that similarities like that are evidence of linguistic linkages. Guenon may be a mystic or a metaphysician, but he's no linguist. (Nor does he pretend to be - his CV shows that he never studied linguistics and has no qualifications in the field).
  4. A further note on the Islamic Gog/Magog, or Jooj/Majooj: you say "the link <Gog-Magog/Koka-Vikoka> goes backs centuries", but it doesn't - it begins in the early 20th century, with Orientalists such as Guenon. Joj/Majooj and their place in the Quran come from a Syriac version of the Alexander Romance, as is well known. Nothing to do with Hindu epics.
  5. So, to sum up, you seem to be giving us, in Guenon, outdated ideas that have never gained traction in mainstream academia - as I think I noted, neither Guenon nor the Koka/Vikoka idea are ever mentioned in modern biblical studies.PiCo (talk) 11:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  1. There are two different things there, and the title of this RfC section ("are Gog and Magog Hindus?") seems to be intentionnally misleading: 1) the correspondence between Biblical/Koranic Gog-Magog/Yajooj-Majooj and the Kalki Purana's Koka and Vikoka and 2) the nature of Gog-Magog (what is meant behind these names ? Are they people ? If yes, then, whom are they referring to ?). On 1) The relation between Gog-Magog/Yajooj-Majooj and Koka/Vikoka is not an invention of Guénon. It goes back to presence of Islam in India, and as such, it is a data of islamic esotericism. I'm sorry User_talk:PiCo but being a "metaphysican/philosopher" is not exactly the same as being a "mystic" as you falsely wrote it in the first place. Ideas expressed by philosophers have their place in articles like this (after all, as User_talk:TwoHorned puts it, we have the version of Reagan/Bush on this matter in the article...) even if these philosphers reproduce data of eastern metaphysics. By quoting Guénon on Gog/Magog, we are not saying they are like this or that, we are just reproducing a minor but real explanation of the myth. 2) Now about the nature of Gog/Magog, the article must reproduce all versions. Some theological and religious interpretations relate Gog/Magog to some people on Earth, but there are other descriptions. In the islamic tradition, Gog and Magog are described in different texts as "giants and dwarfs", so they belong to some kind of folklore which don't describe them as human beings. To be exhaustive the wikipedia article must reproduce all authorized descriptions, be they religious/theological, political (as with Bush/Reagan) and "mythological" as it is in the Islamic folklore. Xinheart (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Xinheart. I'll just repeat here the text you want to add to the article, as we seem to be drifting off topic:

In his 1945 book "The Reign of Quantity and The Sign of Times" metaphysician and author René Guénon has a full chapter on the subject of Gog and Magog ("The fissures of the great wall"). Gog and Magog are related to their Hindu counterpart called demon brothers Koka and Vikoka "whose names are obviously similar", and refer symbolically, according to Guénon, not to groups of people on earth, but to entities belonging to the "subtle world" and having an existence presently hidden from the human realm and symbolically described as subterranean.

Breaking this down, it's saying that:

  • Gog and Magog are related to the Hindu demons Koka and Vikoka, apparently because the names are similar;
  • They "refer symbolically ... not to groups of people on earth, but to entities belonging to the "subtle world" and having an existence presently hidden from the human realm and symbolically described as subterranean."

In order to have these ideas stand, you need to demonstrate that modern biblical scholars accept them. So far you haven't come close to doing so. I'm waiting for your evidence.PiCo (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot). Alright guys, before I even get into the convoluted arguments put forth above and their questionable consistency with policy (with regard to the assertions of both sides), there's a few procedural points that need to be addressed first. To start with, PiCo, you may want to read the RfC guidelines before you file your next one, because this one if woefully deficient with regard to the two most important criteria: 1) That it be phrased in a neutral fashion that presents the arguments of the differing sides in an equal and non-prejudicial fashion, and 2) that it ask an unambiguous question to which other editors may respond, preferably one which proposes a course (or courses) of action that might resolve the present conflict. Next, all parties need to read the talk page guidelines and learn how to appropriately format their postings in a talk page discussion (especially with regard to indenting) before this thread becomes even more of an unreadable mess of a wall of text for further respondents (and on a side note, PiCo, you really shouldn't be formatting another editor's postings without their permission, no matter how much you think it improves the reading -- that's considered highly inappropriate, though in this case, it's clear it was a good-faith effort and as there's been no objection from TwoHorned, I'd say it's not worth discussing -- except I would be remiss if I didn't tell you it could get you into a spot of trouble and you should avoid it in the future for anything other than trivial edits, such as indenting/outdenting).
Now, getting to issue at hand, and how policy defines the appropriate action here, I'm afraid PiCo was also in error with regard to which particular policies govern this issue; this is not in the slightest a matter of WP:Notability, and only incidentally an issue of WP:Verifiability. Rather the governing principle that is being addressed here is one of WP:WEIGHT/WP:NEUTRALITY. The root issue is not whether Guénon has the credentials and degrees that PiCo (or any other particular editor) would accept as qualifying him to speak meaningfully on this topic -- that's just not how things work on Wikipedia for establishing reliable sources. Guénon's work need only pass our WP:RS standards in order that it qualify for citation here.
However, all of that said, there are issues here which may very well disqualify the contested piece of text for inclusion. As I mentioned, the main barrier is one of weight; Guénon may well be a perfectly reliable source, but that still leaves the question of whether the link he proposes between Gog/Magog (or Yajooj/Majooj) and Koka/Vikoka is one which has received any significant degree of discussion in other sources. As with near any biblical topic, there's a great deal of scholarship (and other valuable sourcing) on this subject -- and indeed, a fair number of references in this article alone. Therefore I'd say there is a need for additional sourcing in order to establish a trend of thinking (however minor) for this historical/etymological link, or else I'd say inclusion of the notion does tend to be suggestive of WP:UNDUE weight. And to 'some extent, it doesn't really matter if the sourcing relies on biblical scholarship, metaphysics, or outright mysticism, because these are all aspects of this topic which we may be able to discuss in an encyclopedic fashion, provided that the claims are appropriately contextualized and attributed. But the sourcing has to be clarified (and probably augmented) considerably before we can make any firm determinations as to whether the suggested link with Koka and Vikoka ought to be mentioned here.
I do agree with PiCo a little more thoroughly on one point, though: the statements in the second half of the proposed text, regarding the symbolism of these entities is so abstract and non-contextualized as to be virtually nonsensical and certainly is not appropriate for a general-purpose encyclopedic review of the topic. Frankly I think this aspect of the contested text ought to be avoided entirely, but in any event requires some significant reworking before it comes close to encyclopedic tone and clarity. But I'd start first with finding additional sourcing (which meets RS standards) to corroborate the more central point of contention of Koka and Vikoka. Snow let's rap 07:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
OK Snow I agree with your request. I will collect references on that subject. To begin with, here is the full sentence (in french + english translation) in the reference brought by TwoHorned Jean Przyluski Revue de l'histoire des religions Vol. 100 (1929), pp. 1-12 Armand Colin Publishing house: "Koka et Vikoka ne sont pas des noms aryens et il est tentant de les rapprocher de Gog et Magog. Ces deux noms ont pu pénétrer dans l'Inde." ("Koka and Vikoka are not aryan names and it is tempting to relate them to Gog and Magog. These two names may have been brought in India". I will put other references soon. Thank you. Xinheart (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
A book on Islamic eschatology that refers to the description of Gog/Magog given by Guénon and the relation with apocalyptic Koka and Vikoka: Andrés Guijarro Araque, Andrés Guijarro, Los signos del fin de los tiempos según el Islam, EDAF, 2007, Spain, page 123, ISBN 978-84-414-1882-0. Xinheart (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Xinheart, are you really interested in improving the article, or just in getting a reference to Rene Guénon into it? A book or article from 1929 is hardly what we want - we need to show what current thinking is. Can't you find anything in English, and current? More important, have you read the article's existing section on Gog and Magog in the Islamic tradition, and the para at the end of the modern apocalypticism section dealing with modern Muslim thinking? Read them, and then ask yourself if there's really anything to add. PiCo (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes I've read them and the first part lacks whole classical interpretations, for instance the one of Ibn' Arabi (among others), while the second is just pathetic and proves that this articles does indeed need "improvement". Guénon's excerpt summarizes more classical islamic interpretations, while the references provided (more to come) justify the proposed inclusion. Academic references can be in any language and the Revue de l'histoire des religions is really a scholar one. Xinheart (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Reference "Bulletin de l'École française d'Extrême-Orient", Vol. 34 (2), 1935, p. 501: "les quatre rois contemporains de Kalki ressemblent à la tétrade musulmane : Élie, AI-Khadir, Jésus et Idris ; les adversaires de Kalki : Koka et Vikoka rappellent Gog et Magog de l'Apocalypse, etc." : "the four contemporary kings of Kalki resemble islamic tetrad: Elie, Al-Khadir, Jesus and Idris; Kalki's opponents: Koka and Vikoka resemble apocalyptic Gog and Magog, etc.". I'm sorry PiCo but you were asking academic references and they are here. Xinheart (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Xinheart, you'll have to explain yourself. The section on Classical Islamic interpretations is thorough and is based on contemporary reliable sources (they're all noted in the bibliography). What exactly do you find lacking? (Your translation of that passage is not quite accurate, by the way - "Koka et Vikoka rappellent Gog et Magog de l'Apocalypse" should be "... recall (not "resemble" - rapeller is to recall) Gog and Mogog of the Acopalypse" - he's referring to the NT book). PiCo (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
For instance there is an important apopcalyptic litterature starting from Ibn' Arabi and developed by many (such as Sadr al-Dīn al-Qūnaw') that develop on the meaning of Gog and Magog, the signification of the great wall that separates the "human realm" from the land of Gog and Magog, and the timing between al Mahdi, the Antichrist, the onset of Gog and Magog and the end of times. In your article your completely bypass the fact that, as it is well known in traditionnal islamic litterature, events and objects can be represented by counterparts in our ordinary world, while it is always meant that this is purely symbolical. In particular, it is clear that the great wall described in theses texts cannot be an existing wall in our world, so it refers to something different. The same for Gog and Magog who are explicitely described in a way that suggest they are not human beings in this islamic folklore. I quoted Guénon's book because it reproduces htese ideas very clearly. I'm surprised you refuse to quote a passage that reflects a whole set of traditionnal islamic litterature (the question is not if I believe or not in these things, but to reproduce as closely as possible). Xinheart (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The article is extensively backed by reliable sources. If you can find extra sources (secondary, not primary) fine. That all relates to a metaphorical rather than literal interpretation of the Islamic figures (but as our sources illustrate, contemporary Islamic apocalypticism is literal, not metaphorical, just like the American version). None of this relates to Gueron: all you've produced is an outdated source almost a century old!PiCo (talk) 10:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Countless sources are used across numerous articles on this project daily which are "almost a century old" (and indeed, some that are vastly older than that) and yet are regarded as valuable citations -- it's all a manner of context as to when these references are appropriate under our policies, but the age does not in itself discount a given source from providing viable verification on a given claim. Likewise, you need to stop trying to disqualify sources based on the language they are written in, as this is not a factor which has any policy relevance. I really think you need to read WP:RS before you make any more of your mounting absolutist assertions as to why this or that source is not acceptable which are simply not consistent with community consensus and policy on these matters. I've reviewed the recent edit history on the article, and though 3RR has been barely skirted in most cases, I'm still inclined to agree with the comments from others above that you've basically been engaged in prolonged edit-warring to preserve your preferred version of the article, frequently reverting the bulk of contributions by virtually every other editor the last few months -- often while invoking policy principles which this discussion and (your edit summaries) suggest you don't have a thorough understanding of.
I tried to make my initial comments on this topic as neutral as the circumstances allowed, because I believed (and still do) that the merits of the text being contested in this discussion are as yet unestablished, one way or another. But even if we ultimately decide that the relationship to Koka and Vikoka do not pass muster for established weight, the fact remains that your arguments seem to be far more predicated on WP:IDONTLIKEIT sentiments than in accurate interpretation of policy, and you definitely seem to have developed a bit of an WP:OWN attitude with regard to this article that's probably going to run you afoul of administrative action if you can't scale it back a bit; I note the page has just been locked down as a result of the edit warring, though you are hardly the only one to blame with regard to this most recent bout, I will say.
Personally, I think everyone here could be better spending their time by looking for a reasonable compromise solution rather than staking out non-negotiable territory on this issue. Though I'm not completely won over yet, it seems that the notion that Koka and Vikoka may share a historical current with Gog and Magog is not unique to Gueron, so there's a chance some manner of reference to that effect will eventually go in, so perhaps you should adapt your goals to examining the wording of the content we will add and see if there isn't middle ground that both sides can meet upon. There is not only room for non-biblical scholarship on this topic, it's breadth actually demands a broader look.
On a last note, while it is true we have to be wary of original research here, there are plenty of circumstances under which primary sources are acceptable for supporting claims. In any event, I'd be careful about throwing those stones, because many of the current sources which you are so quick to reference as supporting an article that is presently excellently sourced are no less primary than the Gueron citation. Snow let's rap 09:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Snow, you seem to misunderstand your role here: the C in RfC stands for "comment", not arbitration. If we get to a request for mediation, things will be different, but not yet. In the meanwhile you've still to actually offer a comment, though you've been very free with unsought advice. Most of that advice, unfortunately, is off-track. The issue here is not due weight but admissability (i.e., should we admit into the article the two points contained in the Guenon quote, with or without Guenon as source). The article subject is to entities (sometimes individuals, sometimes nations) which occur only in two places, the Bible and the Quran, plus the folkloric traditions deriving from those: therefore the relevant scholarly areas are Biblical or Quranic studies and folkoric studies. All of this you fail to grasp. As should be obvious, I have no confidence in your ability to offer a valuable comment, and I think it would be for the best if you were to refrain from further input for now. The request is still open and I hope others will contribute. PiCo (talk) 09:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
PiCo, I think you need to take a deep breath, center yourself and then consider whether this line of discussion is really going to help your case here, because you battleground attitude and antagonistic approach (including now towards uninvolved third voices summoned her by your own RfC) is tracking increasingly towards blatant violation of WP:C. Now, let's take a look at your comments in detail:
"you seem to misunderstand your role here: the C in RfC stands for "comment", not arbitration. If we get to a request for mediation, things will be different, but not yet."
A suggestion that you consider a middle-ground solution is hardly the same thing as putting on airs as to my role here. It's not only a reasonable thing to suggest under these circumstances, it may very well be the only thing which keeps some element of the content you dislike out, since you're arguments have virtually no policy backing to them at all. You may not see it just yet, but this kind of collegial approach would benefit you more than anyone here, since your current approach (edit warring, hostility towards alternative positions, inability to search for compromise) is one of an editor on a collusion course with administrative involvement. We don't have to be in the midst of formal mediation in order that I suggest you try a less absolutist and inflammatory approach.
"In the meanwhile you've still to actually offer a comment, though you've been very free with unsought advice."
Putting aside for a moment that the second clause of that sentence suggests that you think the only worthwhile and appropriate advice is that which you sought and expected to see, somehow I find that it's actually the first comment that is the ballsiest one under the circumstances. My opinions have been thoroughly predicated on community consensus as regards these issues. I have cited numerous policies and specifically detailed how they relate to the contested content and the sources being discussed, and I've only previously posted twice here. By comparison, in the entire run of your conflict with the other active editors here, you've yet to cite a single firm principle from an actual policy. And when you do reference the notion of policy, it is always with vague assertions which are not consistent with any actual community consensus, using Wikipedia terminology like buzzwords without any apparent understanding of the actual reading of the related guidelines.
For example, amongst the reasons you have cited for why Guenon is not an RS are A) that the author is not a biblical scholar, and only biblical and quranic sources are relevant here (apparently by your personal decree?) B) The source is not written in the right language, and C) It is too old. None of these are principles found in WP:RS, a policy you've several times been politely asked to review before making these kinds of assertions. It is a fundamental principle of sourcing known to most every experienced editor that a source's language is no bar to it's inclusion and the age of a reference does not preclude it's usability either, though it may be a contextual factor, as has been explained to you. And while it seems to be only the tip of the iceberg in your misconceptions about how content is determined on Wikipedia, I nonetheless feel compelled to explain to you that the scope of an article is determined not by our personal feelings on the matter or by fiat of the most strong-willed editor, but rather by what the sources say on the matter, as determined by a consensus of all involved editors.
"The issue here is not due weight but admissability (i.e., should we admit into the article the two points contained in the Guenon quote, with or without Guenon as source)."
Ah well in that case you can direct me to where I can find the community consensus on this vague principle of "admissibility", because somehow I've never heard of it, and it seems to be missing from its namespaces. I'm sorry but you are utterly and completely wrong on this point (just as you were when you launched this RfC under the assertion that this was a matter of WP:Notability(!?) and WP:Verification). That is, this is absolutely a question of WP:WEIGHT before all other major policies and guidelines. Much as you want to WP:IDONTLIKEIT it out of existence, Guenon is a reliable source ([using actual community standards rather than the idiosyncratic ones you have invented above), so the content is actually completely permissible under WP:V. The only question is whether the claim has significant weight in the overall coverage of the topic to warrant inclusion, or whether it represents a fringe perspective that would be more misleading than useful to our readers on the balance. And frankly you are now attacking the one editor who actually was supporting your efforts to keep some or all of the contested content out, by directing the discussion towards a policy that actually might argue for opposing it....
"All of this you fail to grasp. As should be obvious, I have no confidence in your ability to offer a valuable comment, and I think it would be for the best if you were to refrain from further input for now. The request is still open and I hope others will contribute."
Well, see the thing is PiCo, you don't have the authority to decide (or even to suggest) limits on how much another editor can contribute to this or any discussion on this project, nor to unilaterally determine what is useful advice and what isn't. That is a completely arrogant, uncivil, non-constructive and utterly inappropriate way to address anyone on a talk page, let alone someone who is here because of your request for additional opinions. You don't own this article or this talk page, and you don't get to act as moderator to this discussion simply because you filed the RfC -- that's not how these processes work, and this is not the first evidence to suggest that you launched this RfC without properly investigating how such a discussion is meant to be laid out and approached. You don't have authority here (you are one amongst a great number of equals) and while you are completely free to decide not to attribute value to my positions and to convince yourself that your preferred intuitive approach is policy just because you think it should be, you are not entitled to essentially tell other contributors "It's time for you to shut up now," no matter how indirectly you phrase it.
And while I am in a position to decide to let these comments slide of my back so long as they are directed towards me, if I see you continue to try to silence other differing opinions and to generally comment in a combative and hostile manner, it'll be clear at that point that administrative involvement is necessary here, and I'll be forced to bring the increasingly inappropriate tone of this thread to the relevant noticeboard. And I encouraged anyone else here to do the same, if it comes to that. In the meantime, I continue to hope that a compromise solution may be reached on this particular issue. Snow let's rap 11:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Snow, with respect, you need to step back and take a look at where this headed. I asked for comment on the inclusion of a paragraph; you gave no comment. There was, at that point, no personal conflict between me and Xinheart. There still isn't; I have no complaint about his behaviour, apart from the edit-warring, an he seems to have none about mine, except again the edit-warring, which is what the RfC was supposed to end, by focusing attention on content. And now we have personal conflict, and it's between you and me, not Xinheart and me. Ask youself, honestly, if your intervention here has been of benefit. PiCo (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
There's no personal conflict between you and I either, PiCo -- not by any measure. I was summoned here by a bot to comment on the content issue. I did that. You can continue to insist that my comments were not based on addressing the relevant content through a strict application of policy and community consensus until your fingers turn bruised, but the record is right there, immediately above this, for any experienced editor to see that that is exactly how I approached this situation, discussing the contested content at length -- as most any editor would with a random RfC. The fact that I have additionally had to comment about the edit warring going on here and some obvious ownership tendencies with regard to both the article and this process is not on me; that too is something that any reasonably experienced editor would comment on here, if the approach of another contributor struck them as entrenched and disruptive, as your seems to me. So, you can try to paint me as some manner of aggressor because I came here as a summoned third opinion and found errors with your approach to both content and your fellow editors, but I'm confident any further additional editors arriving here will see who is personalizing things here with inflammatory language about what the other editors fail to grasp and instructions for them to desist in commenting further.
I'm sorry, but you just should never have started this RfC if A) you weren't capable of formatting it according to policy and approaching it in a neutral manner and B) you were only willing to entertain additional opinions which mirror your own. So, you can pursue this silly notion that we're involved in some sort of personal dispute simply by merit of the fact that I've questioned your behaviour and understanding of the policy relevant to the content dispute, but it won't be the first time anyone here has seen that reaction and provided I don't shovel fuel into that fire (and I certainly won't) that line of discussion will be exhausted immediately and you'll be left with your same content arguments, which (as far as you've demonstrated them so far) are untenable under current policy. So how about we skip that step altogether, forget this little distraction and consider whether there are approaches you, Xinheart, and all other involved editors can get behind? Snow let's rap 22:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, sorry to be poorly available these days. I'll resume later all the references I am presently collecting in one paragraph; here is another one: Gibb and Bosworth (1960-2003, XI 231-3) exposed by Andrew Rippin in the Encyclopaedia of Islam: "Many traditions have developed in Islam about these people [Gog and Magog] whose origin, numbers and physical size are uncertain.". Also, the Encyclopaedia Britannica describes Yajooj and Majooj in the following terms: "two hostile, corrupt forces" [6]. Xinheart (talk) 07:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
(Just party crashing since you guys won't stay off my lawn):
Guenon is noteworthy, and his claim does concern the topic. However, Guenon isn't a mainstream academic of comparative religious history -- he was a philosopher, which is concerned with more subjective truths that we can only neutrally document if presented by a non-primary source. With just Guenon's own work as a source, we could only present the idea that Gog and Magog are Koka and Vikoka as just his belief (not as a solid fact). Saying they're definitely related would go against WP:UNDUE with just Guenon cited, and against WP:NOR if we cite sources that do not explicitly say "Gog and Magog are definitely Koka and Vikoka."
With the other sources Xinheart has suggested (at least, the ones that explicitly mention Koka and Vikoka), I would accept something along the lines of "some scholars of the early 20th century suggested that the Hindu figures Koka and Vikoka resemble the Abrahamic Gog and Magog, a view Rene Guenon took for granted and elaborated on." If we had an "other claims" section, it'd probably be more appropriate there.
The material about the subtle world, symbolic subterraneanism, etc, is WP:UNDUE without a non-primary source. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
This basically reflects all of my thoughts on the matter in a nutshell. Referencing that Guenon (and others) have believed there is some sort of link here seems likes a reasonable middle-ground solution that is acceptably supported by the sources. Honestly, I was waiting to see what all Xinheart turned up in terms of additional sourcing before we discussed adding even as much as that, because there's not a super strong case for adding this info at all, just a barely acceptable one. But now that you've voiced those sentiments, I'm inclined to agree that this is probably going to be the best way forward, in any event. We should note the association suggested by Guenon and the contemporaneous sources very briefly, but take significant care to make sure the claim is very explicitly attributed, and we avoid any suggestion that this is a notion that is widely influential in historical or etymological work on the topic -- that is, unless additional sourcing later suggests it is, but I see no evidence of that so far. Snow let's rap 08:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, thank to all of you for making this discussion progress. I admit that the present formulation on this Guénon's passage, although it summarizes very well islamic esotericism's data on Gog and Magog, is not easy to understand to a first reader. What is meant in this passage by "subtle" etc. is the point that these entities Gog and Magog are not understood as human beings. There are hadiths and commentaries that describe them as "giants" or "dwarfs", with "big ears" etc. In that respect, in the islamic folklore, they are the likes of creatures in Western legends such as "trolls" etc. and, like Koka and Vikoka, they are associated with magical arts. The "subterranean" mention is that they are some kind of "hellish" also. How can we render that in a sentence ? Xinheart (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
By finding a ref that explicitly links all that with Hadith and Vikoka, otherwise it's wp:SYNTH - hitherto unpublished original synthesis that you are premiering here. (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, the comments of the IP found immediately above, though vaguely worded, are essentially correct. We have to be very careful about synthesis here. We can't really "connect the dots", so to speak between similar traits observed in the Gog and Magog and Koka and Vikoka folklore. Rather we'd need a source explicitly positing the link in these terms. No matter how obvious (or for that matter dubious) these connections may seem to us as individuals, as Wikipedia editors we can only add such speculation if it is found in a valid reliable source that makes exactly the same claim unambiguously (and even then we have to be careful not to misrepresent exactly where they drew parallels and where they did not). With the current state of sourcing, I'd say we should steer well clear of language that tries to present shared characteristics of these two sets of figures, because that does not seem largely supported by the sourcing at present. Sure, one might be tempted to discuss notions of these entities existing in an immaterial world, but that's so vague as to not really add much to the encyclopedic understanding of the topic; we'd need more sourcing (ideally non-primary in nature) to contextualize this notion into the broader historical context here.
I'd start with something very close to the text Ian has proposed above for now, just speaking to the idea that some have proposed a link between these figures; if you'd rather not do so yourself because you're making a strong effort to defer to consensus on this previously contentious matter (which I recognize and thank you for) then I will draft something to put forward for consideration here today or tomorrow, after further reviewing your newest sources. Once that simple baseline claim has been added, we can reexamine further discussion of the metaphysical elements. Though I would not hope for too much in that vein until additional secondary sourcing is supplied, as per the WP:WEIGHT discussions above. Snow let's rap 00:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Would something like this, which starts from Ian's text, be acceptable ? While few scholars of the early 20th century suggested that the Hindu figures Koka and Vikoka resemble the Abrahamic Gog and Magog [references above], the idea was elaborated by french metaphysician René Guénon in his book "The reign of the quantity and the signs of times" (chapter ("the fissures of the great wall"), which summarizes islamic esotericism's data and description of both entities and their legendary supernatural nature. Xinheart (talk) 07:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Guenon only summarizes his interpretation of Islamic esotericism, so you would need a non-primary source to claim that his views represent a significant selection of Islamic esoteric teaching. That is, you would need a source that discusses Guenon's views on Koka and Vikoka and says that his views represent a common esoteric Islamic belief regarding Koka and Vikoka as Gog and Magog.
Also, "data" sounds scientific, which esotericism is not.
Ian.thomson (talk) 07:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
"Esotericism" is a recognized topic in the study of religious and philosophical thought. Therefore it is based on its proper set of "data", i.e. texts. For instance the subject of esotericism has official departments at the french Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, with recognized scholars such as Antoine Faivre (among others; incidentally, Faivre quotes Guénon). Xinheart (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Anthropological study of esoteric beliefs as religious beliefs can be academic, but esoteric beliefs are inherently subjective, ideal, and experiential; while science is objective, empirical, and all about documentation. The original statement and its use of "data" still suggests to native speakers that Koka and Vikoka have been studied scientifically, instead of as characters examined from the perspective of literary criticism. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Where does this idea originate, that the encyclopedic notability of idea x is measured by the number who subscribe personally to idea x? By that criterion the article Heaven's Gate (religious group) needs to go asap, because with only 39 or so adherents, they could never be notable, regardless of whether anyone else mistakenly finds them noteworthy or interesting. To stop others from finding this view noteworthy or interesting, the data must be suppressed! (talk) 11:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This edit of yours, along with others such as this one or that one or even better that fantastic one will surely contribute to raise the level of the encyclopedy. Xinheart (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't make those, never saw them before, and never even heard of those topics, but this "smart phone" is constantly reassigning my ip to someone else's editing history! The previous addresses I had can be seen recently on this article and talkpage. (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The argument about "who subscribe personally to idea x" is a red herring -- the number of persons who hold particular subjective beliefs was not brought up here (just whether academics have supported the literary critical position that the characters Koka and Vikoka were drawn from Gog and Magog or vice versa), nor does personal belief appear at WP:Verifiability, WP:Identifying reliable sources, or WP:DUE.
Wikipedia is not censored -- if it is demonstrated that an idea has been discussed by academia, even if the overwhelming majority of that discussion is dismissal, it gets included.
The article on Heaven's Gate receives coverage in multiple professionally published, mainstream academic and journalistic non-primary sources, which is the standard for subjects to have their own articles and has been for years. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson. I see what you mean and i agree. Would this be better : While few scholars of the early 20th century suggested that the Hindu figures Koka and Vikoka resemble the Abrahamic Gog and Magog [references above], the idea was expressely proposed by french metaphysician René Guénon in his book "The reign of the quantity and the signs of times" (chapter "the fissures of the great wall"), which moreover introduces an interpretation of islamic esotericism's data and description of both entities, as long as their legendary supernatural nature. In the same vein, he identifies the "great wall" which protects humanity against Gog and Magog with the Hindu notion of "circular wall" (Lokâloka) which separates the "world" (loka) from "outer darkness" (aloka). ? Xinheart (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Getting closer. This is what I propose:
"A handful of early 20th century scholars noted similarities between Gog and Magog and the Hindu figures Koka and Vikoka and French metaphysician René Guénon went further, comparing the concept of the "great wall" (which in the Abrahamic tradition protects humanity against Gog and Magog) with the Hindu notion of a "circular wall" (Lokâloka) which separates the "world" (loka) from "outer darkness" (aloka)."
This, I feel, presents all of the relevant information we can add with the current sourcing, in encyclopedic tone with plain language that is accessible to our average reader, without reducing the underlying concepts. I agree that "data" is wholly inappropriate here; its not a matter of what level of regard we have for metaphysics as a formal field, this is just simply not a semantic context in which that word is used in English. We don't need the full details of the citation in the prose, as that info can be found in the ref itself and is not centrally important enough to the claim to warrant inclusion. I've changed "Islamic esotericism" to Abrahmic tradition, since A) the concept of the "great wall" is broader than just the subfield of a school of philosophical inquiry and is apparently found in most of the ancient sources for Gog and Magog and B) that is the broader context in which the general discussion of these figures takes place in the rest of this article. I think this balances the issues with regard to verifiability and weight and presents the concepts in fairly straight-forward fashion without simplifying them. What do you think guys, does this seem like text we can all get behind? Snow let's rap 00:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
@Snow, @Ian.thomson: Neutral while faithful, encyclopedic and well written. Perfect for me, by all means. Thank you very much for your help. Xinheart (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Xinheart, since there is a general consensus (minus one voice) on the validity of the source within certain constraints, it has been a few days without further commentary, and several editors contributed to balancing the current wording of the proposed text, I'd say you've met the burden of discussion and should feel relatively comfortable proceeding with adding the above text wherever it is you think it would be best suited. Do remember the ref as well, though. Snow let's rap 22:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Xinheart (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected edit request on 13 July 2015[edit]

please change

|editor1-last = Schreiber |editor1-first = Mordecai |editor2-last = Schiff |editor2-first = Alvin I. |editor2-last = Klenicki |editor2-first = Leon


|editor1-last = Schreiber |editor1-first = Mordecai |editor2-last = Schiff |editor2-first = Alvin I. |editor3-last = Klenicki |editor3-first = Leon

this work has three editors, not two. (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks for the fix! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Guenon, again[edit]

Here is the Guenon source. It discusses the Great Wall as a Hindu concept, and only indirectly suggests application of that concept to Islam -- unless one checks with previous chapters, in which case we see that he is discussing the concept of fissures in the closed system of mechanical world views.

Reading more into this, the formulation about the great wall being just extrabiblical is starting to look more like WP:PRIMARY interpretation of Guenon's beliefs. I will attempt to adjust it to the most direct summary. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I also pulled up the second source that was cited (here, but not in the article) to support the Koka-Vikoka connection, and that's a review of the first source cited. I'm adding that citation to support its inclusion, but noting that it's only Jean Przyluski. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Abegg's and Przyluski's work may be appropriate on the issue of themes, but additional verification is needed to demonstrate that the connection is etymologically sound, and in what direction the influence goes. The sources also connect Maitreya to Mithra, which our article labels speculation. For these reasons, and because its presence in the name section could imply that Gog and Magog derive from Koka and Vikoka (instead of the other way around given that they are mentioned in a work written in the 16th century CE), I have moved the material to an "other views" section on "comparison with Hindu figures." Ian.thomson (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Reverting to earlier better version[edit]

I allowed the discussion/editing process to go ahead, but the result has been a severely degraded article, the added material being unbalanced and based on primary or inadequate sources. Nor have I seen anything to convince me that Guernon is a reliable source or his ideas notable. I've therefore reverted to the last good version. PiCo (talk) 04:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

A few things here, PiCo....
A) You didn't "allow" the discussion process to go forward; consensus building is the basic methodology of Wikipedia and you have no special authority to dictate when and how it is applied on this article, or anywhere else on this project. You seriously need to read WP:OWN.
B) You do not get to unilaterally force your preferred version of the article against consensus. You are a minority of one here, against numerous other editors who collaboratively discussed the issues with regard to sourcing and content and came to middle-ground conclusions on what was best for the article. You are not in some rarefied, elite position that allows you to chuck these decisions because you personally do not agree with them.
C) Quite beyond trying to force your preference in defiance of consensus and the most basic rules of Wikipedia editing with regard to a single change, which would be ballsy and anti-collaborative enough in it's own right, you've actually gone miles further and reverted dozens of changes, literally any change made by any of the other active editor here over the last couple of months, rolling back a huge amount of work (constituting 12.5 kb of content!) en masse in order to suit your idiosyncratic notions of the "best version" of the article--which apparently to you means a version that allows only changes which match your personal preferences.
I can't fathom how you think this remotely an appropriate way to behave on Wikipedia, but I assure you, it is not and if you attempt this kind of effort to lay dictatorial claim to the article again, in defiance of the consensus of an RfC you yourself opened to seek third opinion, someone will most assuredly take this matter to an admin. And this is not exactly a vague case that can result in anything but a block for you, you should take my word.
@Ian.thomson, Xinheart, Mr. Stradivarius, TwoHorned, JudeccaXIII, Yajuj, and Mikalra:, @MiladTheEditor, Wowaconia, TropicAces, Jeraphine Gryphon, and Chadchumley:, @Redrose64 and Karvansara: I will be busy in the coming weeks and highly recommend that this article be watched closely. If PiCo attempts unilateral control of this article again, I wouldn't waste a second in securing administrative oversight. Frankly I shouldn't hesitate to do it myself now, but I'm hoping he will take this message to heart before it becomes necessary. Nevertheless, as the admin who recently added full protection to this page to spare it from edit warring, KrakatoaKatie may be interested in this activity. Snow let's rap 09:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
But I don't really have a problem with the majority of PiCo's changes. It cuts out a rather unacceptable ton of WP:PRIMARY WP:OR from the Islam section, and makes some of the phrasing more concise elsewhere. For the sake of inclusionism, I could potentially see going back to what PiCo did and reworking in the Guernon material in the "modern speculation" section. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
If PiCo wants to make good-faith changes to the article, that's one thing. He can propose those changes (or even WP:BRD some of those which have not been previously discussed), just like any other editor. To the extent the material he wants to remove is original research, he should have little problem getting a consensus (with regard to some of the most recent changes, he would have my support). But what he is definitely, clearly, not entitled to do is unilaterally toss out every contribution made by every single other editor of the article other than himself, back to the point where he was happy with it. That is unambiguously WP:OWN mentality and WP:Disruptive editing, and cannot be tolerated or enabled. It's one thing to say that you agree with many of the content changes, but procedurally, this is not how we get things done on Wikipedia. Note that the Guenon material was clearly, from his own comments, a central driving focus in his revert. Half a dozen editors discussed those changes at great length and came to what they felt was the best treatment of the sources in the article, and all of them disagreed with his opinion (which, let's not forget, has suggested a very weak understanding of some very basic policy, see the thread above on Guenon). But he has decided that he is entitled to toss that consensus out the window in order to suit his own WP:IDONTLIKEIT perspectives. That's just not gonna fly here.
If he wants to try to form a new WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on Guenon, fine; I don't think his chances are good, but he's entitled to try. If he wants to (in a methodical, non-sledgehammer manner) revert some of the other content that has more recently been added because he thinks it is undersourced (and then discuss those changes if those who made them decide to engage here) that's also fine. What he is not entitled to do is say "I gave consensus and free involvement on these issues a chance, but I don't like the outcome, so I'm now resetting things to where I like them", as if he rules over this article by fiat. And that's not exaggeration; that's basically exactly what he says above. He ignores the fact that there was clear and overwhelming consensus on Guenon but says he is reverting it because he hasn't seen anything which convinces him that it is a reliable source, as if his is the only opinion that ultimately matters. That's childish and obviously not the way Wikipedia works. Snow let's rap 19:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
So at the moment we have two in favour of reverting to an earlier version as a basis for further editing and one against. Are there any further views? PiCo (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
That is not how consensus works on this project, PiCo. We have half a dozen editors who have, within the last RfC and related discussions held just weeks ago, expressed the opinion that Guenon and is an acceptable source and who between them came to a consensus of what the content based on that source should look like. That is the standing WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. You are the one and only editor who disagrees with that consensus (which originated from an RfC you yourself requested). Furthermore, Ian.thomson clearly expressed that he wanted that source to stay in and did not in any sense endorse your methodology of completely wiping the page to your preferred version. And even if he had done so, two editors cannot make the decision to remove two months worth of work by 15 different contributors. They can at best make a working consensus for individual reversions on content which has not been previously discussed, provided they are the only two active editors, but what you are proposing is clearly unacceptable under any vaguely reasonable reading of our most basic procedural policies. How you can have been on Wikipedia for nearly ten years and still think this is acceptable behaviour is beyond me, but in any event, I am seriously a heartbeat away from bringing this to the attention of an admin, or ANI. And I very much suspect that once the community begins to take a broad look at your behaviour here, a number of people are going to become curious about how you comport yourself on Wikipedia in general. And I think you might find that level of oversight will have deep implications for how you are allowed to behave on articles of a religious nature in particular. You seriously need to stop trying to force your idiosyncratic view against consensus. Snow let's rap 12:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Strongly against. Per WP:OWN this is not PiCo's private project, as with theology articles in general (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

We now have two for revising to an earlier version as a basis for further edits, and two against (although one of those is an anon ISP). We'll leave it a little longer before doing anything, to give more people time to comment.PiCo (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Gog and Magog are two groups of Turks[edit]

"Gog and Magog are two groups of Turks, descended from Yaafith (Japheth), the father of the Turks, one of the sons of Noah." (The Appearance of Gog and Magog. Imam Ibn Kathir. From "The Signs Before the Day of Judgement". Muslim Students Association of IUPUI - Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yajuj (talkcontribs) 14:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Referring to the relative date of Genesis was deleted & NPOV[edit]

There will be no consensus on the dating and authorship of Genesis here. I can cite authorities for Moses and a date around 1500 BC; and the liberals can site the JEDP theory and people who follow that route (against the POV of the Lord Jesus). The citations given for the sentence into which the parenthetical dogmatic statement was introduced, do not establish the date or authorship of Genesis. Mounce's commentary on Revelation says no such thing (I searched it). The other writer does not appear to be writing on the topic of the date of Genesis either, though I don't have a copy of his work. I would expect Mounce to support the Mosaic authorship of Genesis, though I have not read him on the topic. (EnochBethany (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC))

Does a photo of Ron & Nancy on a boat add any relevant information to the topic?[edit]

I have multiple issues with User:PiCo's treatment of this article, but just to start with the easiest first: I doubt if anyone else really finds much value in this imo rather stupid photograph of the Reagans to illustrate the topic, or to attain whatever desired aesthetic effect. Am I mistaken? What do other editors say about this photograph which keeps defeating all attempts to remove it from the page? Philip Mexico (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm puzzled why you object - it's just a photo. Ronald Reagan is mentioned in the section, so a photo seems relevant. Reagan himself is relevant/notable because of his literalist belief in the G&M prophecy and because he was once President of the United States - but we could replace him with George Bush if you wish.PiCo (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
@Philip Mexico: I tend to agree that a picture of Reagan is probably not well-suited to this particular article, but, unfortunately, it is the least of our issues with PiCo with regard to his WP:own mentality on this article. I see he has once again been excising any and all content he disagrees with, regardless of the clear consensus established on those points in previous discussions. No matter how many editors take a different stance on the sourcing or content, he just waits until eyes are off the page and then makes the changes he wants, asserting that he's formed a "new consensus" by himself, even if its mere weeks after a discussion lead to a consensus upon a different approach and he was the sole dissenting voice against a consensus of seven other editors (see above). His block log indicates he has been blocked four times for edit-warring in the area of biblical topics and, taking a cursory look at the kind of tendentiousness he brings to this area through his contributions, I'm surprised it's only four. Unfortunately, I don't see a resolution to these issues short of bringing this behaviour to an appropriate community forum for discussion; he just will not respect consensus (or the views of other editors generally) when he is convinced he is in the right, meaning nothing short of privileges will stop him from riding rough-shod over an article he has decided is in his purview. Snow let's rap 07:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Snow you're always at liberty to take my editing behaviour to an appropriate forum, of course. I'm just a bit curious though as to what the specific complaint will be? For example, I suspect that a photo of Ronald Reagan in a section in which Ronald Reagan is quoted would be rather easier to defend than to attack.PiCo (talk) 09:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
It is awkward to ask if there is some sentimental attachment in light of the rumors running rampant in other parts of the internet, about gop politicians mentally abusing australian children now in their 40s, with ramblings about Gog and Magog... Philip Mexico (talk) 12:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Philip Mexico, I have no idea what you're talking about. Could you explain?PiCo (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I have actually seen that very story being propagated on other forums especially by someone known as 'et tu brightass' but I'm sure that's nothing to do with you Philip Mexico (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Let's not get distracted by goings-on in forums outside the project, as they have no bearing to how we will decide such a content issue here, unless they concern a reliable source we might be missing. I'm sure PiCo (or whoever added the Reagan content to begin with) is not the first to make note of the president's use of the phrase, and I'm sure its been the topic of speculation in more than one forum. The only questions for us here though, are A) is the event appropriately sourced? B) if it is sourced, does it reflect WP:Due weight on the core topic of this article to mention it here, C) assuming an affirmative to both these question, to what extent should we cover it, and D) does a picture of Reagan fit with the appropriate scale of that coverage and not step outside the vein of the main topic of this article.
Now, I'm largely ambivalent to this issue, but my opinions on each of those questions are as follows. A) Yes it is clearly sourced. B) It's probably not important enough to an encyclopedic understanding of the topic of the article to include one man's usage of the phrase, be he even the president of the U.S., but I can see how others might reasonable see otherwise, and I can see why the fact was added. C) Nevertheless, mention of this fact should be kept very brief to reflect it's overall weight in sources discussing this topic. D) the picture is almost certainly overkill here. It doesn't illustrate anything about Gog and Magog which expands the understanding of the topic for our readers, which is the standard by which we judge that addition any photo or graphic to an article on this project. It illustrates who Reagan is, but this space is not meant to treat that subject, and anyone who wishes elucidation there can click on the link to his article. Snow let's rap 22:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, re-reading that quote, it's clear that Reagan put some stock in this notion (or at the least claimed to), so I agree some degree of mention is probably required here. However, there are considerable issues with a failure to encyclopedic tone and WP:Neutrality in the way that section is worded, especially after the Reagan quote. The entire section reads as if it is a personal essay or comes from someone's dissertation on the sociological influences of the bible, which is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. It needs serious attention in this regard. Snow let's rap 22:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
No, as best I know, there's been no former discussion of that photo on this page (though the issue of whether Reagan should be mentioned at all has been raised, without significant consensus, from what I saw). However, there are numerous other examples of your behaviour on this article that have crossed way over the line into WP:OWN and WP:DISRUPTIVE territory. For example, I see the Guenon source and the content it supported are once again gone from the article, per your preferred version, even though the RfC (which you yourself requested) had a clear consensus that they were to stay, after a balanced approach was negotiated. Six other editors hammered out a compromise solution to that issue, while you were the sole party who wanted that content gone. But as soon as I and the other editors summoned to this article by the RfC were gone, you just reverted to your preferred vision of the article. You've been told repeatedly that this is not how consensus works on this project (which, after six years here, you ought to know anyway), but you clearly do not care; looking through your other contributions and your ban log, it is clear that you feel that you are the final authority on what constitutes a valid source for biblical studies and no amount of differing opinions from your fellow editors will stop you from implementing the changes you see fit, despite consensus. In fact, comparing your contributions against the revision history of the article, it looks as if, since arriving here, you've reverted the lion's share of the changes made to the sourcing or content of this article by any other editor, usually without discussion--or against consensus if discussion does occur and you don't like the results. Those are the issues I will be taking to the appropriate forum, when I find time to compile the appropriate diffs. Snow let's rap 20:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Let me know when you do that. I imagine arbitration would be appropriate.PiCo (talk)
I'd be laughed off the project for taking this directly to ArbCom, but whatever the community forum, rest assured I will inform you at the same time, as required by policy and common collegial decency, so that you can present your interpretation of matters. Snow let's rap 21:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
This thread is headed/titled "Does a photo of Ron & Nancy on a boat add any relevant information to the topic?". If you want to raise some other topic (e.g. my editing history) please open a new thread. PiCo (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

something with do eveil?[edit]

goog from 2015 abandon dontdoeveil madgoog is the AI system in runaway mode arba da karba see you soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4301:6E23:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Good article rating?[edit]

Does anyone think this article is ready for good article rating? Just curious, opinions would help improve the article even better. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I'v decided to nominated the article for featured. Before I initiate the nomination, are there any objections or concerns? Personally, I think the article is also ready for good article rating, but I would start with feature before anything else. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Have you read the FAC instructions, particularly those concerning contacting the main contributors before nominating? Graham Beards (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Graham Beards, I know...but I'm thinking about removing the nomination. It seems a recent war in the article is apparently reemerging again via article's current contribution history. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Attempting to resolve the Hindu (Koka and Vikoka) connection[edit]

The Koka/Vikoka matter has, of course, been discussed quite extensively in an earlier thread, but I voluntarily withdrew from that discussion to avoid a personality conflict with another editor. The result of that round of editing was, frankly, an article substantially worse than it had been at the beginning, for which reason I reverted to the last good version. User:Xinheart has now reopened the edit war, and this thread is for the final requirement before taking it to DRN.

First, this is the paragraph User:Xinheart wants to add:

A handful of early 20th century scholars noted similarities between Gog and Magog and the Hindu figures Koka and Vikoka[9] and French metaphysician René Guénon went further,[10] comparing the concept of the "great wall" (which in the Abrahamic tradition protects humanity against Gog and Magog) with the Hindu notion of a "circular wall" (Lokâloka) which separates the "world" (loka) from "outer darkness" (aloka).

The reason I feel it doesn't belong in the article is essentially due weight. The idea that Koka and Vikoka are related in any way to Gog and Magog appears nowhere in modern literature. Koka and Vikoka are not mentioned in the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, which has an exhaustive discussion of the names Gog and Magog, it's not mentioned by scholarly commentaries on either Isaiah (which is one of two biblical book where G+M are mentioned) and Revelation (the other biblical book that mentions them), nor in any other scholarly work dealing with the bible. It's simply a non-issue. Hardly surprising, since the article he uses for a source was published in 1929, almost a century ago. (By the way, User:Xinheart sources this to a scholar named Jean Przyluski, but it's not - Przyluski is the author of an article reviewing the study, which is by a man named Emil Abegg. This is not terribly important, but it's nice to get the facts straight).

The second idea raised by User:Xinheart is the Lokâloka, a "wall" which surrounds the world according to Hindu belief (says User:Xinheart). His source for this is Rene Guernon, a French auto-didact and mystic who wrote on metaphysical subjects in the the early part of the 20th century. He had no academic training, held no academic posts, and is never referenced in modern scholarly works. Never. He is not a reliable source. In this specific case he's spectacularly wrong, as the lokaloka is a mountain, not a wall.

This paragraph would mislead readers by implying that these ideas are current and are part of respectable modern scholarship. They are not. They should not be included in our article.

User:Xinheart, you may now like to state your case. PiCo (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Saying that you "voluntarily withdrew from that discussion to avoid a personality conflict with another editor" can also be understood that you didn't convince the other contributor (nor me or the other ones) by encyclopedic arguments, and in any case does not justify from a rational point of view that the article would be "substantially worse than it had been at the beginning". What you are giving here is just a personnal argument. Moroever, everyone can read above that the "other contributor" has been extremely polite towards anyone, be it me or you, consequently your "withdrawal" from the discussion is just the fact that you didn't succeed by imposing a weak view on the subject. Now to the core of the subject. Your appreciation of the influence of René Guénon is just your personnal view. This author has an enormous influence in intellectual Europe of the XX century, inside or outside academic milieux, even if he didn't choose the academic path. Corbin, Massignon, Durand and many others recognize its authority. Consequently, the point of an "intellectual connection" between Gog-Magog Koka-Vikoka being mentionned by him is sufficient for being included here, whatever your opinion on this author is, which cannot be taken into account here. The book in which this connection is mentionned is sufficiently recognized as a masterpiece for inclusion here. Second, you are completely wrong on Lokâloka: it is a circular mountain, and as such a protection as a big wall. In hindu mythology, that circular mountain acts as a protection which separetes the "world" from its dark surroundings and remnants, according to a symbolism in which the light of God "illuminates" the world, represented in the form of a circular shape. For your information, PiCo, traditional hindu texts state symbolically that Lokaloka Mountain has a radius (hence... circular...) of 125,000 thousand yoganas and that the circular mountain of Lokâloka acts as a wall, dividing the illuminated region of Bhumandala from the dark, uninhabited region, called Aloka-varsa, which extends from Lokaloka to the shell of the Brahmanda. Lastly, you are definitely wrong by calling Guenon a "mystic"; he has wrote extensive texts on mysticism, being critical of it, and he cannot be described as a "mystic" in any way. Xinheart (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
This doesn't address the issue - the idea that Koka/Vikoka are in some way dependent on Gog/Magog. or vice versa, doesn't appear in modern biblical scholarship. It didn't appear in earlier 20th century biblical scholarship either - Albright, for example, never mentions it. Nor is a connection between the Hindu world-circling mountain and Alexander/Dhul-Qarnain's wall ever mentioned in the relevant scholarship. Nor is Guernon ever mentioned. Nor does your paragraph here suggest that they are. Please address the correct area of scholarship, which is Biblical studies. PiCo (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
This is where you are wrong. The subject addresses not only Bilical studies, but also metaphysics and symbolic studies. Because we are talking about the interpretations of the symbolism of Gog and Magog, and all aspects must be contemplated. There are other interpretations of this symbolism, which don't identify litteraly Gog and Magog with any given population, be it past or present, Turks, Scythians etc... Xinheart (talk) 11:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Whether Gog/Magog have anything to do with metaphysics and symbols is something we can take up at the DRN. But I take it you have no sources linking your edit to biblical studies, Koranic studies, or even Hindu mythology?PiCo (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
We are not going to redo here the discussion that occurred before and which can be seen above. Readers can refer to it. It is clear that a main reference for this inclusion is René Guénon's book and it is notable. You are just trying to overpass the previous discussion in which you didn't give any valuable argument. Xinheart (talk) 08:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
@Xinheart I asked you before to list me the names of modern scholars who support your inserted edit: "A handful of early 20th century scholars noted similarities between Gog and Magog and the Hindu figures Koka and Vikoka", which you did not list. If you would kindly please, this will probably/most likely clear this whole Koka and Vikoka/Gog and Magog issue. Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
@JudeccaXIII All these issues have been addressed above, before PiCo went back again about it. Please refer to the sections above this one where all the references have been given. I see no reason to restart ad nauseam a discussion just because someone didn't get the last word. In particular, refer to the sources given by me and TwoHorned. Thanks. Xinheart (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
@Xinheart and PiCo, I have taken the liberty of having to read all of the previous discussions in this talk page and examine on what other editors think of this dispute/sources etc., and I would have to agree on what Ian.thomson has said previously. Noteworthy, however, Ian.thomson pointed out that the edit is mostly relying on Rene Guernon's source. I think the edit should be a little bit more clearer/honest as example, "A few European scholars" etc. instead of a "handful" as I think that is too much of an exaggeration via not enough sources to verify. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Also, @Xinheart, please don't try to make the content you're adding to article: Koka and Vikoka correlate with this article per WP:CITEVAR. I would assume you're POV pushing to get your views assured on articles. Happy editing & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
@JudeccaXIII I agree for "a few european scholars..." instead of "a handful", thnk you. On Koka and Vikoka, no POV pushing, it is just that it is the same subject. I am not displacing a war edit elsewhere, it is just that someone attempts to take the polemics on related subjects. Thanks again. Xinheart (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
@Xinheart, you've had a reasonable amount of time to demonstrate that this idea (the idea that there's some connection between Gog/Magog and Hindu myth) is widely held and you haven't done it. You've given only two sources, one of them from 1929 and of very dubious relevance, the other, the Rene Guernon, almost as old and even less relevant. If you want this edit to stand you need to prove that it's mainstream. Until you do, I'm reverting it. PiCo (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
PiCo, that's enough. Per all the other contributors who spent their time here, until the most recent discussion and conclusion above, your position is not reaching consensus. You are not in a position to delete the material that has been subjected to such an intense discussion, which conclusion does not follow your views. Xinheart (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

PiCo, relevance here for our purposes is defined objectively as 'does the source mention the article topic', not subjectively as 'does user x feel like this is relevant today." (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

"Relevance" in this case means does the information Xinheart wishes to add have relevance to the subject of the article. It clearly doesn't: I can't find a single source from biblical studies that mentions this Hindu connection. PiCo (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
And once again, your insistence that any material presented must meet your approving high standard of"mmainstream" is perplexing particularly on an article like Gog and Magog where it is difficult to argue that there is any "mainstream" view everyone must comply with or adhere to. (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Gog and Magog are figures from the Bible (Book of Ezekiel, Revelation, and some inter-testamental Jewish works). They later appear in Jewish and Christian folklore, and then in the Quran via a Syriac version of the Alexander legend (Syriac is a language). After that they continue to appear in both Muslim and Christian literature (and some Jewish sources) down to the present day, when they appear in apocalyptic Christian and Muslim writings. Anything that touches on these is relevant. If some connection with Hindu myth were recognised, that also would be relevant - but so far nothing like that has been demonstrated.PiCo (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

"Recognized"? Cut the passive voiced weasel words. Who would have to"recognize" it for your satisfaction? The PiCo theological board of approval???? (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

All of this has been discussed above, with many others contributors sharing their views. The subject has given rise to symbolic and metaphysical interpretations that are worth mentioning here and which are given by at least a very good reference. Xinheart (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
If it were true that "symbolic and metaphysical interpretations" of Gog/Magog are important in ay branch of academic discourse there'd be more evidence than two works both over half a century old, one of which doesn't even seem to mention the matter.PiCo (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Notability is granted by a standard referecne from symbolic studies. This article is not constrained to Biblical studies, but is more larger. Xinheart (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think so - Gog and Magog come from religious texts and folklore; but even if you were right, there's no sign that anyone out there is discussing Gog and Magog in terms of their symbolic value. But anyway, we've demonstrated that this dispute is intractable; it's time now to go to dispute resolution. I gather you're not experienced in these things so I'll undertake to open the process. There's nothing hostile about it, I promise to e polite, it's just a way of resolving problems like this when editors can't agree :) PiCo (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
This has already be done by you, with the result we all know. Try it again, if you will. Xinheart (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite based strictly on sources[edit]

  • I know it's been a few months, but I was handling exams and classwork while this was going on and so didn't realize that his happened. One question: What sources are there that indicate that anyone besides Guénon and Przyluski has discussed this topic? That's the standard for whether something is accepted by mainstream scholarship, and 172.58 disgustingly and uncivilly failed to WP:Assume good faith from PiCo in the above discussion(s).
Looking into it, Przyluski was reviewing Abegg's "Der Messiasglaube in Indien und Iran, auf Grund der Quellen dargestellt," which itself does not appear to mention Gog, Ya'juj or Ma'juj Ya'jooj or Ma'jooj, or (as the German Wikipedia lists them) Magog, Ya'gug or Ma'gug. Another review of Abegg's book does not touch on Gog and Magog, either. As far as can be demonstrated, this idea appears to only be brought forth by Przyluski (who was admittedly a linguist) and Guénon (who was writing from, frankly, a theological perspective instead of a scientific one).
Przyluski is clear that he believes that Koka and Vikoka are derived (via Arabic literature) from Gog and Magog: "Koka et Vikoka ne sont pas des noms aryens et il est tenant de les rapprocher de Gog et Magog. Ces deux noms ont pu pénétrer dans l'Inde par l'intermédiaire de la littérature arabe." (page 4).
Guénon is not explicit in the idea of the Great Wall being Islamic, he regularly alternates between Islam and Hinduism without noting when he has changed lanes. As such, the current material appears to be interpretation rather than summary.
I think we should only limit this to:
Jean Przyluski suggested that the characters Koka and Vikoka were derived from Gog and Magog via Arabic literature.(citation with quote and page number this time) René Guénon likewise noted that their names were "obviously similar," combining their apocalyptic roles in his book The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times.(citation, specifically mentioning page 173)
This version contains WP:No original research nor WP:Undue weight. If further detail about Guénon is truly merited, then non-primary sources would be available. If there are no sources, zealotry is not a substitute. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Ian.thomson Are we keeping the content based upon an editor's negative behavior? I supported based on your suggestion that we should keep as a plausible link of the figures, but a weak keep because the sources can't properly be verified. Now that I think about, this isn't even a minor view agreed upon scholars...just Wiki policy because of the outcome of the entire discussion. I'm willing to reverse my decision because of the lack of sources to support this. In fact, I think the we should remove the content as I see no true reason to keep a one-view opinion. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Obviously, negative behavior would be no reason to keep the material, and I am inclined to ignore anything 172.58 has to say from now on beyond reprimanding any future personal attacks, and hesitant to accept any additional citations Xinheart brings forth without a specific quote and page number. The version I have suggested is a result of me scouring the sources immediately available. I grant that it's entirely possible there's additional sources hidden in some specialist non-English journals from the early-to-mid 20th century. A lot of those are either stolen from the public domain by Kassinger-like thieves, or else the publisher decides "there's not enough demand to reprint it or sell digital copies for less than $1 a page, but we're still gonna use our copyright to get rid of the Google preview." Still, I've seen no evidence of this (Przyluski doesn't cite anyone else for that claim). I was going to suggest that we drop the material entirely, but then it turned out that Przyluski was a linguist with relevant specialties. Still, his suggestion is closer of a side remark than a developed thesis. It would perhaps be appropriate to eliminate the material from this page, link Koka and Vikoka in the "See also" section, and include the material I suggested there (instead of pretending that it was a popular idea in the 20th century as that article currently does). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree, the content isn't worth keeping. I think the result was based on accusations of uncivil behavior towards PiCo, which I don't really see in the discussions above. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Material removed. Will try to deal with Koka and Vikoka later if someone else doesn't do it (although I was supposed to fix a friend's computer this past week... >_> ). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Xinheart, I don't think you completely understand what me and Ian.thomson are trying to say to you. The content you added we no longer consider valuable because the sources are unreliable or not mainstream or even supported by a minor group of scholars if any at all. Even though we supported the possibility of any connection to Koka and Vikoka in previous discussions above, it was just by a "possibility" only. Also, you did your best to try and make the Koka and Vikoka article correlate with the content you are trying to re-add here in this article which is not allowed per WP:CITEVAR. And there is one more thing, I personally do not trust you as an editor because you only seem to edit Wikipedia to just keep adding the same content on this article via your contribution history, so I'm going to assume you are just trying to sneak in your personal research into this article per WP:OR. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@JudeccaXIII,Yes JudeccaXIII, sorry for editing only in the few subjects i know a little; i would like you to stick strictly on the WP:GF at least as much as I do it on your side. Now for the subject, there has been very long discussions here on this TP. There is at least one consensus that anyone can see: Guénon is a reliable source in Symbolism and metaphysics; The new paragraph I added relies only on that author. Thank you. Xinheart (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
No, Guénon is reliable for his views on those matters, not on those matters in themselves. Even then, you really need a non-primary source to establish what parts of his claims are noteworthy (beyond merely "he mentions Gog and Magog"), and to interpret his views. Your new paragraph still has all of the same old WP:OR problems that the last paragraph did. You need a non-primary source for anything beyond 'René Guénon said that Gog and Magog were "obviously similar" to Koka and Vikoka, and combined their apocalyptic roles in his book The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times.' Ian.thomson (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
How many times are we going to turn on this ? In this TP, a contributor has launched two failed requests: in this TP and the other request pages, at least two contributors agree on Guénon as a reliable source. As such, his interpretation can be mentioned. The mention of Gog and Magog is an entire chapter in his book, which is one of the most famous among his writings. The phrasing is careful enough: I write that these are his views. His notability is enough to mention it here. I really don't see where is the problem, and why this article should suddenly engage in comparativre research on these topics. WP:OR is not accurate here, because we are just mentioning the views of one author, not interpreting. Xinheart (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
The editors who have mentioned something like support for Guénon: you, me (on the condition of requiring a non-primary source), @Snow rise: (who agreed with me on the non-primary source issue and said "there's not a super strong case for adding this info at all").
The editors wanted the Guénon mention to have a non-primary source and avoid original research: Me, JudeccaXII, @PiCo:, and technically Snow.
You cannot claim numbers on what you want and ignore numbers on what you don't want. Consensus doesn't work that way.
As was addressed previously, WP:SYNTH is possible within multiple chapters of a single work, which is what you are doing with Guénon (see "Guenon, again," above).
Furthermore, if Guénon is worth including, so is Jean Przyluski, who has more authority on linguistics than anyone can pretend Guénon has. That you're OK with dropping him makes it easy to believe you're only here to push Guénon's religious doctrines as truth (as JudeccaXII has previously hinted at), instead of simply covering what all of academia has to say on the subject. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Please suppose good faith on me. Your last sentence is sophistic because it is not as a linguist that Guenon is quoted here, but as a well known author. You are using the same false argument used by another that this article should be refered only by linguists or Bible scholars. No, this is wrong: the article has sufficient connections to be quoted by any notable author who spoke on it. And Guenon is in this case. Xinheart (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I have reverted your reverts. You are not assuming good faith, instead, forcing original research while ignoring TP consensus. I recommend a block. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
@Xinheart:, per WP:BRD, you should not restore the edit again until there is consensus here to add it. If you are the only person restoring it, then there is no consensus to add the material. You can be reported for edit warring for going against consensus over and over, even if you do not make more than three reverts in 24 hours. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Section break to try to organize perspectives[edit]

There's a lot of context with regard to the recent changes that is not detailed in the thread above, so I'm wondering if the presently involved editors (JudeccaXIII, Ian.thomson, Xinheart) can make clear exactly what the point of contention is with regard to the sources at this stage in the discussion? I'll provide my general insights as regards the previous lines of discussion but will reserve any position on the content until I know how the debate has evolved since the last flare-up. To start, the revision history is a little confused, so I think Xinheart can be forgiven if he made a revert against what appears as if it may be the new consensus. That being said, I advise him that edit warring to force this point is no more appropriate for him that it was for PiCo when the positions were against him and we told him he had to accept consensus.

Now, as to the sources in question, my position in the RfC I was summoned here by (and the other threads connected to it which immediately followed) was a very narrow one, and not a position of blanket support for the source against all possible criticism. Specifically, I joined the consensus in the RfC because I felt that the "he's not a scholar of X variety" argument being forwarded by PiCo had no basis in policy--which obviously remains the case. That being said, there are other ways in which that same source could be found to fail our WP:RS standards in this context. I'm still not sure what the flaw in question is thought to be, but it seems the new consensus prevails against any mention of the Koka and Vikoka connection? As I said, the above arguments have confused me as to each party's current stance, but it seems as if Ian.thomson and JudeccaXIII have re-evaluated their positions based on a kind of WP:WEIGHT argument. That is, they have doubts that one or two primary sources are sufficient to support mentioning the theory that there might be some connection between these two pieces of religious folklore. That's a very different argument from the one that was submitted before, and worth examining in its own right, though, personally, I'm not sure I have a strong opinion either way. But am I reading the situation correctly here? Snow let's rap 07:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The weight reasons are different for each source, but they do not stand up individually, and combining them together approaches WP:SYNTH due to the large difference in their natures.
If there was a linguistic connection or the argued linguistic connection was noteworthy, it'd exist beyond one source that mentions the idea in passing and a second source that says "no, that's not right at all" likewise in passing. That appears to be the totality of any idea. It doesn't even really get to WP:FRINGE, because as far as can be found, it appears to have been a single brainfart by Jean Przyluski followed by Paul Pelliot waving his hand in front of his face while continuing his end of the conversation -- both actions completely ignored by the rest of the academic world. Even though I think Przyluski was probably right that a 200 year old Hindu apocalypse started doing to Islamic eschatology what Dinkan does to Mighty Mouse, his one sentence on the matter may as well have never been written.
That leaves Guénon. I'd be more open to inclusion if there was a non-primary source to establish that this is an important or significant part of Guénon's doctrines. Yes, yes, he himself is notable, he influenced Eliade and Evola, and some of his ideas are interesting, etc -- but that doesn't mean that every single word of his needs to gone over in detail at every possible opportunity. I would also like to see a non-primary source to better summarize the material to avoid WP:OR. In that chapter, Guénon regularly switches between Islam and Hinduism without signalling his lane changes, so the safest that can be included is 'Guénon believed Gog and Magog are "obviously similar" to Koka and Vikoka, and commented on the roles they play in Islam and Hinduism in his book.' Anything about walls, lokas, etc, is interpretation that should be left to non-primary sources.
Przyluski was not commenting on Guénon, so he cannot add weight to Guénon. Guénon was not citing Przyluski, so their weight cannot be added together on those grounds either. Przyluski was at least a linguist and so (if his idea was more than a barely noticed brainfart) he could in theory be cited for any historical connection between G&M and K&V. Guénon's writings belong in the theology and philosophy section, not in history or linguistics section. That does not invalidate his beliefs of any supposed spiritual connection (or that those beliefs may be noteworthy), but his ideas should not be treated the same as Przyluski's. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
And I take it that you don't feel these concerns can be addressed by careful attribution in any content based on the sources in question? Snow let's rap 04:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Careful attribution doesn't address the weight problems. It would address WP:OR, but attribution alone doesn't resolve that problem (we need to avoid interpreting Guénon, which is best done by summarizing non-primary sources on the matter). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm back and basically, I am sorry to completely disagree whith what Ian Thomson writes here: first when he says that contributor like JudeccaXIII brings views against mine. This is wrong because JudeccaXIII has never put any opinion during this long-debated subject, she is just backing you blindly, point. Second, when you say that I am alone here: this is equally wrong, Twohorned has put argumentation that favour the point I am rising here. So basically there is only you and Pico. This does not allow you to erase my edits. At last, JudeccaXIII has written openly above that she is not supposing good faith on me so I don't consider hers views to bring anything positive to the debate. I repeat my point here, it is very simple: R. Guénon is a well known author that has expressed views on this subject. From this perspective, he can be quoted in the article. There has been two failed RfC launched by Pico, which didn't conclude favorably for his views. This should be enough now. Xinheart (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not a she, second, I clarfied my reasons previously in the discussions above why the content should't be no longer added. Mainly, you keep reverting/restoring the content avoiding new consensus with reasons such as "see TP" or "I have consensus, see TP". You have never received consensus until me an Ian believed there might be a possibility of a connection between Gog and Magog and Koka and Vikoka. It's obvious you have some sort of agenda if your only reason to edit Wikipedia is to keep adding the same content and correlate it with the Koka and Vikoka per violation of WP:CITEVAR. You have an obvious pattern of adding your own research per WP:OR. I also reaffirm Ian Thomson and PiCo's arguments, yet you keep doing the "agree to disagree" despite consensus. You should be topic banned or blocked for your constant edit war with other editors. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright, here's my final reiteration of my insights on the matter, folks. To start, my original !vote regards solely the issue addressed in the RfC which brought me here. That is to say, I think the Guenon source is, in the broadest sense, WP:RS, and is a viable source here regardless of the author's field of specialty. Both points also seem to remain the consensus outcome of that RfC. But discussion has clearly moved on to a separate issue of whether the source, not withstanding being RS, is sufficient in and of itself to support the claim that it is attached to. That is a more of a WP:WEIGHT and WP:V issue, and it's one I don't have a strong opinion on, so I won't wade into that debate. Eschatology not really being my strong suit, I've little to contribute on this subject other than an evaluation of the source in question in policy terms, and I think I've exhausted all useful opinion I have on that topic as well.

I'll check back in, in a few weeks or months, and hope that matters have resolved themselves amiably, and wish you all luck in breaking this back-and-forth deadlock. I'd like to suggest that both sides strive towards a reasonable middle-ground solution they can agree to, because the situation I see here now is one of Xinheart and PiCo getting the upper hand in turns, swaying the moderates like Ian.thomson and JudeccaXIII to one side or the other in particulars, but never really resolving matters in a long-term fashion, because neither will be gracious when they are in a superior position and suggest a softening of their stance such that both sides can live with the results and move on. Frankly folks, it long ago passed a silly place, this debate over an obscure piece of theological imagery. More editorial time, energy, and social credit has been wasted by parties to this argument than the content in question can possibly justify, whatever the outcome. I like to maintain a neutral disposition to any discussion involving religion, but frankly, this nit-pickery is exactly why studies in this area have a bad reputation for needlessly contentious and myopic attitudes.

Anyway, I'd like to request I not be pinged back to this discussion to support either side here, unless a) it is absolutely vital to clarify my position above or b) this goes to ANI or another community space for discussion of behavioural problems on this page--and frankly, I worry this is inevitable, given the degree of WP:OWN and tendentiousness on this page. Other than that, I wish you all the best of luck and hope to see you in other, less intractable discussions elsewhere on the project. :) Snow let's rap 04:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, to some extent, I've always leaned on this side. My first post on the matter did point out that non-primary sources were needed, and I thought that the first academic source that Xinheart suggested was indicative there'd be more to come. The area where I've changed is that (having investigated Przyluski myself), I realize his work is completely unrelated to Guénon and not at all representative of a wider trend. JudeccaXIII likewise asked for "the names of modern scholars who support" the claim that it exists beyond Przyluski and Guénon. In other words, we've had the position 'this would be fine with additional sources' from the beginning, but Xinheart tended to ignore the latter. We were given some hope that sources would appear, and it turned out there were no sources (and that the one source that was presented was not related at all).
Also, looking back on you interpreting "I don't really have a problem with the majority of PiCo's changes" to somehow mean that I had "clearly expressed that he wanted that source to stay in and did not in any sense endorse your methodology of completely wiping the page to your preferred version" before citing a silent majority that made no objections to PiCo's edits.
Between your attitude toward PiCo (which you may not see but others do), JudeccaXIII and I not yelling "WITH ADDITIONAL SOURCES" in every post, and our willingness to wait for sources that Xinheart never provided (because they do not appear to exist), and Xinheart's apparent conviction that Guénon's doctrines are WP:THETRUTH, we seemed to have coddled Xinheart into thinking that he "won" once and for all and that he didn't need to provide more solid sources. If he or anyone else does manage to bring forth something good, like an encyclopedia of eschatology or a study about Guénon's eschatology, published by the likes of Wiley-Blackwell or Brill Publishers, then the issue would definitely be reopened. But as Xinheart doesn't appear willing to actually do his own homework but instead claim past conditional consensuses without ever filling their conditions, I don't see how that will happen. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

"Ezekiel is older than Genesis" claim is dubious[edit]

This article currently includes the text Ezekiel was probably substantially completed by the end of the 6th century exilic period; the dominant view among scholars is that the Book of Genesis in the form in which we have it is post-exilic. The claim is dubious, because "in the form in which we have it" and "substantially" are both being used to create an implication of something that is patently wrong while not directly stating it. The Pentateuch, including Genesis, was canonized and probably came to something close to their present form far earlier than the prophetic works. "in the form in which we have it" appears to refer to the exact words of the text, which of course is true -- the earliest manuscript evidence for any of these books is the Dead Sea Scrolls, and those all differ at least slightly from the Masoretic text and other later versions; this is true for both Genesis and Ezekiel. "substantially" is also a very slippery term.

What's worse, though, is that this text is cited to two sources, one of which appears to discuss Genesis and the other Ezekiel, and neither of which directly support our article's claim.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 15:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The Genesis material doesn't appear to be relevant to Gog and Magog at all, especially since the preceding sentence is pretty clear that any Gog in Genesis is unconnected to Gog and Magog. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Material removed. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

You are quite right, that is absolutely a textbook case of New-Age revisionism, only a few years ago that would have been rightly regarded as a "lunatic fringe" position, but if Wikipedia is good for anything, it's giving a platform to these lunatics with a "vested interest" in attacking certain selected religions, where they have room to crow and strut around like the pigeon on the chessboard. (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Please actually learn what New Age, revisionism, and Wikipedia are and how they each work before posting like that. Your post actually almost hurts the argument to remove the material. We're not a platform for you to crow and strut around attacking certain selected religions, either. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

You say that real authoritative and prissy like, as one convinced that she is entitled to the final word with starting attacks on editors, but I am going to burst your bubble and continue replying, you arrogant shit. I defy you to explain what the hell you think you're waffling about with ME attacking a specific religion, and please do elucidate what specific religion you fantasize that I am "attacking", fool (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

IP blocked for not being willing to handle things like a grown up. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Alternate images[edit]

The people of "Gog and Magog" being walled off by Alexander's forces.—Jean Wauquelin's story of Alexander. Bruges, Belgium, 15th cent.

As per FAC comments I made that perhaps the main image should be European rather than Persian. I fetched and uploaded this image from BnF Mandragore:

As I argued there, if you use a Persian miniature (Image:Iranischer Meister 001.jpg) I think you'd need to explain who "Dhu-l-qarnayn" is in-caption, rather than expect people to study up on this by following the blue link. Yes check.svg Done --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Kiyoweap I will not be adding new images to the article because of copyright reasons. If you know about uploading files and copyright, by all means, please do so. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I dont want to push the European version I found, because it admittedly looks duller. However, "dull" is consistent with the portayal of "Gog and Magog" as rather ordinary looking humans (except size ?) in two atlas images I've now listed.--Kiyoweap (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Persian miniatures with demons building the wall[edit]

The main image used in hte current version (File:Iranischer Meister 001.jpg) is confusing because the demons depicted here are obviously helping the wall to close off the "Gog and Magog" people. It probably needs explaining somewhere that though it is strange or "curious" they should be helping to erect the walls to shut themselves off, that is nevertheless the case, as given in Haila Manteghí Amín (2014), PhD thesis, p. 196.

Note that René Guénon article thinks they are not Gog and Magog, but jinn enlisted to help build the wall. I don't know if that conflicting interpretation could be sourced, but it is plausible. Alexander is said to have enlisted the help of Satan when erecting this wall, as in he Catalan Atlas.[9]--Kiyoweap (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Lede reworking[edit]

@PiCo:: I am not married to my own prose-writing, but there are issues with the version of the lede you reverted to. The lede mentions Ezekiel and Revelations repeatedly in close proximity, and there's WP:OVERLINKING of these terms as well. This crowding allows for less room to bring up other significant topics, such as Josephus and Gates of Alexander. So if you'd like to take control of style in the lede that's fine by me, but please rewrite it yourself in some way in order to remedy this imbalance.--Kiyoweap (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give a try.PiCo (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
See how that goes :) PiCo (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response, looks like you've taken care of my concerns perfectly.--Kiyoweap (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Section names[edit]

@PiCo: @JudeccaXIII: I also changed or added section / subsection names, so you may want to review them. The old section name was something like /* Judeo-Christian tradition from Antiquity to near-modern period */ which I felt need shortening for logistical reasons. In section edits, when a long section name is inserted at the beginning of Edit Summary, that leaves fewer bytes remaining to write actual summary. However, in afterthought, it's probably would be inconsequential to restore a longwinded Level2 section name, so long as it is divided into shorter-named Level3 subsection names, because the logistical problems can be averted by working on the subsections. The subsection names I gave are pretty tentative. For example, I dont know if /*Midrashic writings*/ is appropriate and perhaps it should be something else like /*Rabbinical literature*/. --Kiyoweap (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

My personal view is that a large number of short one-paragraph sections looks messy. Can you amalgamate a few of them? (For example, I think the Gates of Alexander material belongs logically with the Alexander Romance). Maybe create a new full section for Jewish approaches post-70 AD so that we'd have sections on Jewish, Christian and Muslim? PiCo (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
PiCo I did as you suggested according to what content best correlates with each other. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Geoge W. Bush statement[edit]

Geoge W. Bush allegedly made a quip referencing "Gog and Magog" when he was pitching the idea of the Iraq War to President Chirac of France. Although I'm not much interested in this part of the article, (talk · contribs · WHOIS) performed deletes on grounds of it being "apocrphal". I dont think apocryphal is merited and I reverted this.

The first source deleted was Anton Wessels, and he may not be a household name, but in footnote cites Chirac's statment in a book by Fr:Jean-Claude Maurice who seems to be a distinguished journalist in that country.

The second source, Thomas Block, might also may not have clout, and footnotes a webzine for the quote.
However, the same quote was easily to be found elsewhere in a book by Jean Edward Smith, Bush p. 339, whose source, note 43, was Kurt Eichenwald, 500 Days, p. 458-9, so I inserted this as replacement.--Kiyoweap (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

FAC1 Comments by FunkMonk[edit]

  • I was first hesitant to review this, since it is never ideal when a nominator had no hand in writing an article (makes for example checking sources and elaborating on text difficult for them, and they may not be as familiar with the subject and relevant literature), but since the above review seems to have gone well, and because the subject is interesting, I'll go ahead. Any reason why the main writer isn't a co-nominator? FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The intro seems short for an article this length. It should be a summary of the entire article.

Great, I'll continue my review shortly. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "The first mention of the two names occurs in the Book of Ezekiel" Make clear this is in the old testament of the bible. All readers may not be familiar with biblical subjects.
  • It seems many of the footnotes lack citations. If citations can't be found, they should be removed.
  • "; and in Revelation" I don't think an "and" is needed after a semiciolon.
  • Everything linked and spelled out in the intro should also be linked and spelled out in the article body, which it isn't now.
I transcluded the above for continued discussion.--Kiyoweap (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Alright. You can also ping me once you nominate it again, I was planning to continue my review, but then it was archived. FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
1. Regarding the lead paragraph (#1 of 9 August) I think it pretty much covers the ground.
Some sections liked /*Precursor texts in Syriac*/ isnt given much notice in the lead, as the use of the word "Precursor" indicates, this should be considered "background" bibliographical material to /*Alexander romance*/ so I dont think mention is necessarily warranted in the lede. I think this kind of thing happens a lot. In articles the first mention of something etc., often is considered deserving of inclusion, but there are often less-than-simple bibliographical circumstances that require more than a tiny amount of words to explain.
1.I dont really think Hebrew Bible and Old Testament need be both mentioned. Isnt it common knowledge these correspond? The situation might be diffent if Ezekiel was among the apocrypha.
2. In most cases, the explanatory notes are just supplementary information and spill-overs from the sentence where they occur. In which case they are cited to whatever REF that's given at the end of that sentence or paragraph. Repeating the same citation woul look cluttery. However, some explantory notes do require additional sources, in which case "nested footnote" was used.
There are a couple of explanatories that may be citable for {{cn}}. One is the note on the "mountain of Tus". It is easy to find sources that say Tus = Susia where the historical Alexander has traveled to, but harder to find somehting that says "mountain of Tus" corrsponds to that same geographical location. So I may have to take out this note and remove the blue link to be conservative.
3.semicolon Yes check.svg Done
4. #I couldnt really figure out which words stood out as being unlinked in the lede. There is such a thing as overlinking. --Kiyoweap (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

FAC1 Comments by jfhutson[edit]

Transcluded Comments by JFH
  • The article needs to be about a particular topic, but the lead says Gog and Magog has several unrelated meanings without immediately choosing one. The article should start out saying that Gog and Magog has an apocalyptic meaning in Ezekiel and Revelation and then limit the article scope there (it looks like the article only addresses that one in depth). You can mention the other meanings while making it clear they are unrelated to the apocalyptic one. Right now the lead says "sometimes" it's eschatalogical, but then you read the article and it's all about the apocalpytic meaning.
  • "end time" needs a definite article
  • Don't abbreviate OT and NT and they need definite articles
  • "The legend also appeared in the Alexander Romance, in some versions, as an encounter with the Unclean Nations that engaged in human cannibalism; Goth and Magoth named among their kings." no independent clause follows the semicolon.
  • "These Gog and Magog people" sounds informal and maybe ungrammatical. Maybe "people identified as Gog and Magog"?
  • "Medieval cosmological maps or Mappa mundi" if these are the same thing add a comma after maps
  • "They appear in the Quran" prob need to specify antecedent of "they"
  • "as Yajuj and Majuj (Arabic: يأجوج ومأجوج‎‎ Yaʾjūj wa-Maʾjūj), as" get rid of second "as"
  • "The first mention of the two names..." this sentence starts off as if it's about the first mention of the two names, but lists the Revelation mention in addition. I'd split the sentence.
  • "by Brutus's crew" if you're going to name Brutus I need to know something about who he is. It's probably sufficient to just say Gogmagog is a giant in British legend.
  • "(chapbook version)" unclear on what this means. chapbook version of the legend?
  • "6th century BC prophet" adjectival century needs a hyphen
  • "chapters 38–39" I expected the link to take me to chapter 38, but it took me to Ezekiel. If you're going to convenience link Bible passages, do it for all of them.
  • The footnote for the Ezekiel quote should specify the verse numbers and version. I believe the NRSV is preferred by academics.
  • "In all the books of the Old Testament" get rid of "all the books of", unnecessary
  • ""Why the prophet's gaze..." attribute quotations in text

--JFH (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion continued from archiving. --Kiyoweap (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)}

I am collapsing the transclusion of JFH above because I'm recopying them here and checking them off as {{done}} or still open. --Kiyoweap (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

  • "end time" needs a definite article
    • →the "end of days" Yes check.svg Done
  • Don't abbreviate OT and NT and they need definite articles Yes check.svg Done
  • "The legend also appeared in the Alexander Romance, in some versions, as an encounter with the Unclean Nations that engaged in human cannibalism; Goth and Magoth named among their kings." no independent clause follows the semicolon.
  • "These Gog and Magog people" sounds informal and maybe ungrammatical. Maybe "people identified as Gog and Magog"?
    • "Gog and Magog" is a conventional set phrase to designate the people. The ill-soundingness is therefore entrenched. Your suggestion does not work here, because it misleads the reader into thinking the maps couch reference to G&M in a "people identified as" sort of language, like a commentary, which isnt really the case. I could just remove "people" if it sounds jarring. Yes check.svg Done
  • "Medieval cosmological maps or Mappa mundi" if these are the same thing add a comma after maps
  • "They appear in the Quran" prob need to specify antecedent of "they"Yes check.svg Done
  • "as Yajuj and Majuj (Arabic: يأجوج ومأجوج‎‎ Yaʾjūj wa-Maʾjūj), as" get rid of second "as"
  • "The first mention of the two names..." this sentence starts off as if it's about the first mention of the two names, but lists the Revelation mention in addition. I'd split the sentence. Yes check.svg Done
  • "by Brutus's crew" if you're going to name Brutus I need to know something about who he is. It's probably sufficient to just say Gogmagog is a giant in British legend.
    • Yes, this isnt indispensible detail here.
  • "(chapbook version)" unclear on what this means. chapbook version of the legend?
    • If mention of "chapbook" confuses more than enlightens readers who are unfamiliar with the term, it will be removed from here.
  • "6th century BC prophet" adjectival century needs a hyphen
  • "chapters 38–39" I expected the link to take me to chapter 38, but it took me to Ezekiel. If you're going to convenience link Bible passages, do it for all of them.
  • The footnote for the Ezekiel quote should specify the verse numbers and version. I believe the NRSV is preferred by academics.
    • I changed the given REF at biblegateway site from NIV to NRSV version. Yes check.svg Done
  • "In all the books of the Old Testament" get rid of "all the books of", unnecessary
    • I made this change, but I'd have to check with PiCo or whoever if something was meant here.
  • ""Why the prophet's gaze..." attribute quotations in text

--Kiyoweap (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

FAC1 bibliog cmts by jfhutson[edit]

Bibliography issues
  • Note the difference between monograms and monographs.
  • Why specify "on-topic", hopefully everything is.
  • None of the reference works are "General references", they are specialized.
  • There are two categorization schemes: type of work and topic. I've never seen a WP bibliography topically organized, but you need to pick a scheme.
  • The "Religious" sources are not religious, they are works of biblical scholarship.
  • Some sentence case titles, some title case, and not following the original publication case (e.g. Block's commentary)
  • Place of publication is expected for books.

That's all for now.--JFH (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion continued from archiving. --Kiyoweap (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)}

Well, I'm sorry I introduced some errors in the process, but I was trying to do a single edit to organize the citations (i.e., rather hastily to prevent edit conflict).
I've changed from listing every single source in Bibliography, to listing only repeatedly used sources there.
Also deleted most of unused sources pointed out by comments by Lingzhi.

Since it was still a long list I thought WP:BIB#Topical bibliographies might be helpful here, but maybe that opinion isnt generally shared.
Perhaps the topic headings are okay now after fixing, but if every reviewer is going to find something else wrong with it, I should just drop it and put it back in robotic alphabetized order so as not to hamper FAC process. --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Some sentence case titles, some title case, and not following the original publication case (e.g. Block's commentary)
I think outside US, Can, UK etc. people use the lowercase style even if writing in English, but for consistency's sake I changed to uppercase for English titles. Yes check.svg Done
Place of publication is expected for books. Disagree
No, there's no urging to indicate place each time under WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY. Additional publication detail is for wherever useful.
I made some "place=" visible where the publishing house was minor (no links). Adding "Leiden, New York, and Köln" next to Brill is not useful outweighing cost of legibility suffering.
Place for "Granite Hill" is elusive. Might be an e-publisher whose Encyclopeida Judaica got picked up by Macmillans for 2nd Ed printing.--Kiyoweap (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Unrelated meanings of G&M[edit]

  • The article needs to be about a particular topic, but the lead says Gog and Magog has several unrelated meanings without immediately choosing one. The article should start out saying that Gog and Magog has an apocalyptic meaning in Ezekiel and Revelation and then limit the article scope there (it looks like the article only addresses that one in depth). You can mention the other meanings while making it clear they are unrelated to the apocalyptic one. Right now the lead says "sometimes" it's eschatalogical, but then you read the article and it's all about the apocalpytic meaning}}--JFH (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC), from #FAC1
JFH's reading is that "the lead says Gog and Magog has several unrelated meanings but that's not what is meant to be conveyed at all. It just says Gog and Magog are prophesized as enemies (of Israel) in Ezek, but fails to note this elsewhere (Genesis). I don't see how that logically leads to the inference the peoples in these passages must be unrelated and of different meanings.
The relationship is explained the article: Ezekiel took the names from the Table of Nations in Genesis. Well, not just superficially their names but their identities as Japhethites. Perhaps that should be elaborated on to avoid your sort of confusion. --Kiyoweap (talk) 07:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah I can see there is some relationship which I missed. The point is that the lead needs to clearly and concisely tell me what the article is about. It is now a little clearer, but I still see after reading that these individuals, peoples, or lands are God's enemies that "the people mentioned in Genesis bear no such ominous connection." If I haven't read the article I don't know what that means. --JFH (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The topic sentence needs to say that Gog and Magog are names in the bible. That's all they are, fundamentally, just names.PiCo (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
You arent supposed to write one Wikipedia article about the same name with different meanings (except as a WP:DAB page), and this is WP:NOTADICT policy, although not the policy of e.g. Encyclopeida Britannica.
It is clear from reading the article that "eschatological" Gog of Ezekiel and the Japhetite Magog were conflated. (Whether this conflation was not there originally, if you want to establish where scholarly opinion lies on that point, go ahead and present evidence, and supporters vs. dissenters in a fair NPOV way.)
Since the conflation occurred, this article is properly about a single topic.
A new paragraph seemed warranted to explain that "Gog of land of Magog", though not directly called a Japahetite, is associated with the tribes of Meschech, Tubal, Gomer who are all Japehtites ("brothers" of Magog) according to Genesis. I think this needed to be stated before explaining Meshech ruled over which parts of the world, etc. Hopefully this clarifies the "relationship" JFH was failing to see.--Kiyoweap (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

End time[edit]

Looking over the Ezekiel material, I began to think you couldnt really say in the lede that Ezekiel places the timing of the conflict at end time (since I undestood this to mean "end of history" on earth).

Tooman (2011), pp. 94–97 explains the situation. In Ezekiel the phrase for "end of days" should more conservatively be taken to mean "latter days" (Hebrew: אחרית הימים‎, aḥarit ha-yamim. So it is not clear from the plain reading of the text that "end-of-history/apocalypse" is meant, though that is oftentimes the interpretation.

The section goes on to say that 20th century scholars tended to keep using "end of days" but loosely, "as a techical phrase for the eschaton, but without the apocalyptic notion of the end of history". I doubt many readers are aware of this. I was not, and was using eschaton and apcalypse interchaneably.--Kiyoweap (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

In Jewish eschatological thought of the 2nd century BC (which is when the Ezekiel Gog-Magog prophecy seems to have been added to the older 6th century Book of Ezekiel), the phrase "end of days" meant the end of history: After a period of terrible trial when the Jews would be oppressed and worship in the Temple ended, God would end human history and the Jews would rule over the world as his regents. This is what lies behind the Book of Daniel, as well as other Jewish apocalypses that didn't make it into the bible. The first 11 chapters of the Book of Genesis, incidentally, form a work separate from the rest of Genesis and date from the same period. PiCo (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
No, I think that some scholars fall into your camp, but others do not. At least that is what I read from Tooman. Tooman was a source that was extensively used in the article elsewhere, and not something I reached over and fetched from somewhere else to make my point.
Tooman talks about being careful to use "latter days" in translating the passage, so he must be talking about the originally intended interpretation, it seems to me. --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Rabbinical scholars may continue to use the phrase "end of history" so as not to tread on toes, and what they have done is expanded or extended the meaning beyond convention.
Tooman explains that he takes the term to mean "end of history-as-we-know-it and the initiation of a new historical age"
This is not how the average person conventionally understand "end of history". It ends, but a new historical age begins??? --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Dhul Al Qarnyan[edit]

Alexander the great was NOT Dhul Al Qarynyan as Alexander was a Muslim while Dhul was a mothiesist therefore i am removing him. Akmal94 (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Akmal94: I quite realize Alexander lived in a world of Hellenistic polytheism, and could not have been Christian or Muslim. Legends do contain many such contradictions or anachronism, you must realize.
I am also aware Dhul-Qarnayn and Alexander arent an exact match, however, that is generally the identification that is made. So that piece of information should remain.--Kiyoweap (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
BTW, I think there was a valid point to be made that "Iskandar" isnt explicit in the Quran, so it has been reworded to avoid it.
Unfortunately I had to sacrifice something else bcz of this, which is to point out that "Dhul Qarnayn" is an epithet (nickname), which is a point that even the objectors agree.
Alternatively it could have stated "Quran and other Islamic literature" to avoid this, but I didnt make that change before since it seemed to be excessive parsing.--Kiyoweap (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)