Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 614: | Line 614: | ||
::::::::::::::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? [[User:Snow Rise|'''''<font color="#19a0fd">S</font><font color="#66c0fd">n</font><font color="#99d5fe">o</font><font color="#b2dffe">w</font>''''']] [[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><font color="#d4143a">'''''let's rap'''''</font></sup>]] 22:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC) |
::::::::::::::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? [[User:Snow Rise|'''''<font color="#19a0fd">S</font><font color="#66c0fd">n</font><font color="#99d5fe">o</font><font color="#b2dffe">w</font>''''']] [[User talk:Snow Rise|<sup><font color="#d4143a">'''''let's rap'''''</font></sup>]] 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" [http://global.britannica.com/topic/Yajuj-and-Majuj]. [[User:Xinheart|Xinheart]] ([[User talk:Xinheart|talk]]) 07:07, 12 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" [http://global.britannica.com/topic/Yajuj-and-Majuj]. [[User:Xinheart|Xinheart]] ([[User talk:Xinheart|talk]]) 07:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC) |
||
:(Just party crashing since you guys won't stay off [[Help:Watchlist|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 [[WP:PSTS|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 [[WP:PSTS|non-primary source]]. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 07:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:40, 12 July 2015
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
wikipedia is neutral concerning religious material
Why is Mohamed being honored by stating(peace be with him) in the islamic explanation? This isn´t a religious website, it´s a neutral site. I believe this should be altered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toothfairy72 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
evidencefortorah.com
In no way does this source meet our criteria at evidencefortorah.com. If any of this material is to be added it should be reliably sourced and with consensus. Dougweller (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Why is http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/khazars1.html not a good source? Its a legitimate university, and brings down an exact quote of the letter, where Khazarian king gives his genealogy. If the www.evidenceForTorah.comxa.com is bothering you, fine, I can remove it. The reason I've added this source, was because they are the ones that brought this issue up. King Joseph gives his genealogy, which contradicts the view that Khazars are Magogites. To not add this fact to the article, i think is an intellectual crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.158.55 (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Fordham.edu is a fine source, but that text is a primary source, and editors can't insert their own interpretations of primary sources into articles. That's what your edit was doing.--Cúchullain t/c 15:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, so what if i just write this. "However, according to the Khazar correspondence (Forham.edu), 'Know this, we are...'" I completely leave out any opinion, and just use the quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.158.55 (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, because it's not relevant. The Khazar source doesn't mention Gog and Magog at all, so it doesn't belong on this article.--Cúchullain t/c 12:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Why do you feel its not relevant? The Khazar source mentions its ancestor as, "Togarmah". According to the bible, Togarmah was the nephew of Magog. Is that not relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.158.55 (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't get your point. There is already a section of the article explaining what the traditional Jewish interpretation of Gog and Magog is, and anyone can see that it isn't Khazars. I don't see any justification for putting in an argument against other interpretations. Almost all the sources arguing for one interpretation include reasons against other interpretations; should we include them all? It is better to just list the interpretations that have been made. Actually there is a very important one missing: the theory that Gog and Magog were entirely mythological. Zerotalk 03:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
My point is not to include the Jewish view. My point is to include the Khazar's own point of view. Since, we are talking about Khazar's, shouldnt we include their point of view (on this issue)? If their view is documented somewhere, why not include it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.158.55 (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Standing on the shoulders of giants
I have removed the paragraph relating "Standing on the shoulders of giants" on the UK £2 Coin with Gog and Magog and the City of London. It is not referenced and is directly contradicted by the Royal Mint[1]. Alansplodge (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
New edits by User:Koakhtzvigad and the need for consensus
User:Koakhtzvigad has indicated, through edit summaries and notes on my own talkpage, that he scorns the consensus process; he feels there is no need for consensus because he feels this is a topic "belonging" to Jews and therefore only the Jewish Bible (complete with "Hashem") shall be used on wikipedia. He also denies edit warring, despite his having reinstated this version four times today. Even more alarmingly, the significant fact that the phrase "Gog and Magog" (the subjects of this article) appears for the first time anywhere in the New Testament, has been repeatedly removed by this user, who is new to the article. I am all out of 3RR reverts now, but I have warned him, and I also appeal for anyone who is paying attention to rollback these unwarranted and undiscussed unilateral changes. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
(moving discussion - Gog and Magog what consensus?)
What possible consensus are you talking about? Are you telling me that the modern Christian NIV translation from KJV into English is better than two Jewish sources with a dozen rabbis signing in them? Next you will be telling the Chinese how to read the I Ching? WP:Bold is one thing, but this is not it. Do you even know where NIV comes from? Its a commercial cite that sells bibles! Should not even be used in Wikipedia. And how many clicks does one need to find out the translators? Try here http://www.niv-cbt.org/translators/ Half the people are New Testament specialists, with a couple of Greek language specialists. I see four people with PhD from the Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning, which seems to be "the" prerequisite for teaching Hebrew in Christian education institutions. And this despite saying "The NIV is founded on the belief that if hearing God’s Word the way it was written and understanding it the way it was meant were the hallmarks of the original reading experience, then accuracy in translation demands that neither one of these two criteria be prioritized above the other." But it is better in the original, right? Compare that with studying Hebrew from 7, Mishnaic Hebrew and Aramaic from 10, full time, for life. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Stop this. I am not edit-warring, but editing. All you had there is the wrong translation, and unreferenced. There is no call for consensus where consensus is explicit in the sources provided. I don't need to seek consensus on the translation of the Hebrew Bible by Jews....its their Bible! If you want to say that the Christians translate the Hebrew Bible differently, you are welcome to it. However, if you persist to remove my edits and their accompanying references, you will be reported Koakhtzvigad (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- You do know what the word "consensus" means, right? It's how we operate on wikipedia. You don't make UNILATERAL changes against policy, like determine which Bible translation is "acceptable", without consuting other editors. There is no such policy saying your favorite translation only shall be used because it is the best or whatever. As for "Gog and Magog", the article should point out clearly the fact that the exact phrase "Gog and Magog" originally occurs in the Christian New Testament book of Revelations for the first time anywhere -- but your edit has the effect of obscuring this point. Revelation should certainly be listed prominently along with all the other books where these names are mentioned, and attempting to censor it on whatever pretext isn't going to get very far. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Firstly don't give me the 3RR. You completely failed to see I was editing. Did you see the now words with new references? Thats editing, not reverting, which is what you did.
- WP:CONSENSUS - Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. So, what is your legitimate concern, that Jews don't know how to read the Hebrew Bible? Or is it your insistence of the one mention of Gog and Magog in Revelations be displayed more prominently then the three sources in the above-mentioned Hebrew Bible from which it is derived? If this is not WP:POV, I don't know what is.
- My editing was not "unilateral", I usually edit alone! I didn't see you editing there, and in fact you hadn't edited since 03:26, 23 January 2011, so what is your problem? How far back should I go, and how many editors should I consult before I press EDIT?
- Censor what? I merely repositioned the reference to Revelations in its chronological order, that is after the Hebrew Bible. What is the problem with that? It originates from Ezekiel, so why would you "put the horse before the cart"? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have a habit of just making up your own policy as you go along? Once again, THERE IS NO SUCH POLICY that says because your POV is that this is an exclusively Jewish topic, we have to use a "Jewish" translation. You are making this stuff up. Now if you do it once, it could be overlooked, but hitting the revert button FOUR TIMES is called "edit warring" on wikipedia, regardless of what you may call it. The article formerly mentioned that the phrase "Gog and Magog" (as a pair) was first originated in the Christian New Testament. Now it doesn't mention that any more. Don't you think that ought to be made clear? Please answer on the discussion page, since discussing the topic here isn't fair to editors on that page. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Are you serious? Did you even read ANY sources on the subject? Even Wikipedia says that the Book of Revelations is derived from Tanakh, so how can you possibly claim it originated with New Testament? So the answer is no, I don't think we ought to mention in Wikipedia something that is untrue and would constitute WP:OR.
- The policy is to edit using reliable references. I have. Before then there were no reliable, or even unreliable references. The only thing that was there was a link to the verse on a Christian Bible selling site.
- Also, do not' misrepresent what I said. I did not a)feel this is a topic "belonging" to Jews and b)therefore only the Jewish Bible (complete with "Hashem") should be used. What I said is that these sources, that are Jewish, seem to be reliable so far as translation goes. As for using Hashem, its a direct "quote"! However, I see nothing wrong with using the Jewish edition of a Jewish Bible as a source, do you? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, I don't see anything wrong with using a Jewish translation provided there is discussion and consensus among editors to do so. I do see a problem when one editor keeps ram-rodding it in there, and is so convinced of his own correctness in doing so, that he scorns the need for consensus, denies he is edit warring, and abusively tells me to "get a grip" for not seeing things his way. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- And regardless of your personal theories about the origin of Revelation being in the Tanakh, the well-known fact remains that the phrase "Gog and Magog" never appeared in print until the New Testament. Don't beat your head into a brick wall. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- If you don't see a problem with my sources, what are you seeking consensus on?
- I don't have personal theories about the origins of the Book of Revelations. Those are referenced in the article on it. :::::::The first print appeared in the 16th century :) "Gog and Magog" are used by John as a reference to a well known set of verses in Hebrew. Hence no need to translate word for word (unless, see below).
- What is the significance of them being "together"? Can you add a source that highlights this significance and say why it is significant?
- The fact that it is the first time it appears as such is mute since it is the only time it appears as such, and in Greek. Remember, most Jews at the time were either bi, or tri-lingual, and learned texts by heart since scrolls were expensive and highly perishable. Greek texts written on papiraii even more so. If John's mother tongue was Aramaic, he may have had less command of Greek, so translation word for word would have been tasking. On the other hand if he was a Hellinized Jew, he may have only head a general knowledge of the verse, or had seen it in the Greek translation, and so could not have had it translated from Hebrew even if he had the manuscript.
- In general only scholars (rabbis) were fully conversant with Biblical Hebrew (hence Mishnaic variety). However, this is speculation on my part that I remembered seeing somewhere. If you think this should be included, I'm sure sources can be found since there is no shortage of publications on this subject KoakhtzvigadMobile (talk) 06:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Continued edit-warring by User:Koakhtzvigad
Once again, User:Koakhtzvigad is opting for unilateral edit-warring his POV in lieu of discussion with other editors on this article. I implore you to be patient and wait for consensus in accordance with policy, rather than take this approach of reverting everything you don't like. The name of the article is "Gog and Magog". It is of the utmost significance to most scholarly sources that this exact phrase "Gog and Magog" first occurs in the New Testament, but not in the Old Testament, where one is a prince and the other is a land. Indeed, this fact was sourced in an entire book written on the subject (the one by Sverre Boe), which stands as a definitive scholarly and exhaustive work on every single known allusion to Gog and/or Magog in all of historiography. However, because you seemingly wish to suppress this unassailable and sourced fact on the pretext that you find it too trivial to the subject "Gog and Magog" to mention where the source first occurs (or possibly because your theology is uncomfortable with acknowledging this sourced fact?) you have placed your own opinion above the source, and removed the source on the origin of the phrase "Gog and Magog". In addition you stated that I know nothing of the subject. You have already reverted four times in the last 24 hours. Once again, I implore you to stop being a one man revert machine, and reach some consensus here on the discussion page first, before summarily reverting references on the subject just because you don't like what they say. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Continued problems with User:Koakhtzvigad's view of this topic
"Gog and Magog" in folklore is a concept unto itself. That is the main scope of this article, hence the title, "Gog and Magog". It occurs in folk beliefs of people around the world, like it or not. Like many related folk beliefs (eg "Armageddon"), the beliefs often do not square exactly with their Biblical origin, but they have taken on an extra-biblical life of their own. They are what they are, and we have to describe them as they are.
For example, in more than a few cases the name has actually fused in the popular imagination into one, "Gogmagog". I can tell you from personal experience that in Ethiopia, a country that has known of the Bible longer than many countries have, there is a derived political expression "Gugmangug" meaning roughly autocrat or misguided dictator, e.g. "Gaddafi is a Gugmangug". (I haven't looked for a source for this yet, so I'm not about to add it to the article)
Back on topic - just about every book or study ever written on the subject, or encyclopedia article written on the subject, will mention the significance of the fact that the original phrase "Gog and Magog" makes its first definite appearance in the New Testament Book of Revelation. In the Book of Ezekiel, when it mentions "Prince Gog of the land of Magog" this is invariably seen as a sort of obvious ancestor or prototype of the later concept "Gog and Magog", but not precisely the same. Every other study, article or source outside of wikipedia on the subject, sees fit to preserve this precision in detailing the origin of the concept, but here we now have a user Koakhtzigad who feels it is "UNDUE" if wikipedia contains the same information as is available everywhere else. And feels so quite strongly, gauging from the amount of pillorying he has subjected me to for opposing his unilateral overhauls of the topic. The fact that the prototypical Ezekiel concepts took its current form in the New Testament apparently doesn't sit well with him. He also has indicated that it is so important to him to sweep this fact under the rug, that he sees no need for things like "consensus" because it would seem the correctness of his own views on the subject trump all consensus. As a result, the article is rapidly becoming distorted, particularly the part on REVELATION.
It looks like the familiar situation whenever someone is uncomfortable with the truth, so: first they accuse you of "OR". Then they cry it is "UNDUE". Then they come to fight you, yelling you don't know the first thing about it... and then... ? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- ...and then you get a reply.
- Its very simple. The Greek form "Gog and Magog" is derived from the Hebrew form "Prince Gog of the land of Magog". No source can change that Ezekiel lived 500 years before Christianity begun. After 500 years there was nothing original about "Gog and Magog" which probably became a euphimistic allusion for the entire 38th chapter.
- Rather what you want to say is that, "The Greek rendering paved the way for the later view[who?], according to which Gog and Magog were the names of two persons[why?] (see Rev 20:8). The LXX rendering of Ezek 39:6 as Gog for MT's (Masoretic Text) Magog. This also seems to confirm that the names Gog and Magog were interchangeable." (J. Lust, Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible,pp.536-537), however, this would be a huge leap-of-a-theory. Firstly what is the source of interpreting them both as personal names? Secondly, what is the proof that the extant LXX MS is not corrupted? Finally, as one of my sources points out, the use of just two words instead of quoting the entire passage by the author of Revelations clearly suggests that he was using it as a reference for the reader, rather than trying to confuse the future reader of his writing. Who were these potential readers? Not Greeks, and not Romans, nor any other local pagans, but fellow (though perhaps Hellenised) Jews who were just as familiar with the Tanakh. This is the importance of dating the Revelations. However, even the most recent date is still within a generation of the destruction of the Temple. There was no Christian community to speak of just yet.
- What you need to find therefore is some reliable source that plausibly argues for abandonment of the exegesis of Hebrew Ezekiel for the Greek Revelations reference you are so adamant to give prominence in the article.
- You do of course have a wide choice of literature since there is no shortage of suggestions for this exegesis ranging from "sublime to ridiculous".
- However, when you do, you can be assured I won't be reverting or removing anything. Just make it as rational as possible please Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, we still don't seem to be communicating on the same wavelength. I am not arguing any unusual origin theory, please don't complicate the issue. My position could not be simpler. Either we mention, as every other source does, where the phrase 'Gog and Magog' makes its first appearance in that form, or else this basic fact is, as you say, UNDUE and insignificant to wikipedia (though it would seem significant enough to all the sources one can easily find elsewhere.) Since its relative significance could be more of a subjective point, it is proper to solicit opinions and consensus from other editors per WP:BRD, since we never have been, and never will be, governed by the fiat of any one editor. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Didn't say its unusual, the Greek texts are replete with paraphrased excerpts from Tanakh.
- It says in the article now where 'Gog and Magog' makes its first appearance in that form
- "it would seem significant enough to all the sources one can easily find elsewhere", so you shouldn't have any problems finding one?
- "it is proper to solicit opinions and consensus from other editors" - Well, I am giving you my opinion that its significance is only within the realm of those commentators which choose to interpret it as such in isolation from the Ezekiel text. I'm happy to hear from other editors who may differ.
- I edited that the same form is found in Hebrew from the Dead Sea scrolls Koakhtzvigad (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Does your source really use the word "proves"? Would you mind putting the exact quote here? I fail to see how the existence of the Hebrew Qumran fragment can be taken as "proof" ( a very strong word) that Greek Revelation borrowed from it, and I do know most competent scholars tend to be far too cautious, to recklessly throw around claims of "proof". I suspect that the "proof" part is more of your editorialising / pov pushing. But even if that source does call it "proof", we cannot ignore another prominent scholar (Boe)'s treatment of that same Qumran Scroll. Boe, who wrote a scholarly book specifically about the phrase "Gog and Magog", does not even seem certain that the tiny scrap allegedly bearing the isolated words "Gog and Magog" really say that at all. And he does give that scroll an in-depth treatment too -- so I fear it may be a bit premature for us yet to go about endorsing any strong claims of "proof" of the original inspiration of the Book of Revelation. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Is there a reason why you can't look up the reference yourself? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Does your source really use the word "proves"? Would you mind putting the exact quote here? I fail to see how the existence of the Hebrew Qumran fragment can be taken as "proof" ( a very strong word) that Greek Revelation borrowed from it, and I do know most competent scholars tend to be far too cautious, to recklessly throw around claims of "proof". I suspect that the "proof" part is more of your editorialising / pov pushing. But even if that source does call it "proof", we cannot ignore another prominent scholar (Boe)'s treatment of that same Qumran Scroll. Boe, who wrote a scholarly book specifically about the phrase "Gog and Magog", does not even seem certain that the tiny scrap allegedly bearing the isolated words "Gog and Magog" really say that at all. And he does give that scroll an in-depth treatment too -- so I fear it may be a bit premature for us yet to go about endorsing any strong claims of "proof" of the original inspiration of the Book of Revelation. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, we still don't seem to be communicating on the same wavelength. I am not arguing any unusual origin theory, please don't complicate the issue. My position could not be simpler. Either we mention, as every other source does, where the phrase 'Gog and Magog' makes its first appearance in that form, or else this basic fact is, as you say, UNDUE and insignificant to wikipedia (though it would seem significant enough to all the sources one can easily find elsewhere.) Since its relative significance could be more of a subjective point, it is proper to solicit opinions and consensus from other editors per WP:BRD, since we never have been, and never will be, governed by the fiat of any one editor. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
4Q523 Qumran reference
This is in reference to 4Q523, a Qumran fragment published by E Puech in 1996. His translation of line 5 included the only legible letters “Gwg u Mgwg” (Gog and Magog) but no surrounding context. This is described in the source that you brought to the table, despite obliging me to do the hunt for your source.
“It is possible that 4Q523 contained an eschatological prophecy, but this cannot be inferred from the remaining lines. Therefore, 4Q523 cannot be used as an early witness to the existence of an eschatological Gog and Magog tradition. Nevertheless, 4Q523 is still important for our present purpose, since it contains the earliest known reference to 'Gog and Magog' instead of 'Gog of the land of Magog'. Moreover, it is the only occurence of the combination of Gog and Magog in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In commentaries on the book of Revelation, it has been argued that the expression 'Gog and Magog' depends on the LXX of Ezek 38:2, 'Gog and the land of Magog' instead of the Masoretic 'Gog from the land of Magog'. The discovery of 4Q523, however, has demonstrated that the phrase and Magog' originated in Hebrew, not in Greek. It may be that [Gwg u mgwg] came into being as a short formula for 'Gog and (his people) Magog’. [...] Perhaps the combination ‘Gog and Magog’ stems from a tradition consisting of an abbreviated version of Ezekiel’s prophecy about Gog and Magog. Unfortunately, 4Q523 is too damaged to draw any conclusion in that respect...”
The other source, Boe, says very much the same thing in a section beginning on 177 of his book on “Gog and Magog”. here’s a link for your convenience. He tentatively speculates these are “negatively loaded terms for contemporary political enemies.” but concedes “The very fragmentary nature of these texts makes it impossible to interpret the Gog and Magog reference meaningfully. Still it is very interesting to find both names together with only a conjunction between them.”
Based on what both these two sources tell us, I am still not happy with the info in the article in general, especially the much rasher language (compared to these scholarly sources) in the current section on Revelation (and why does it have to be named ‘Christian tradition’ when the only one mentioned there is the Book of Revelation, it should rather be titled by the name of the book on a par with the sections for Hebrew Bible books.)
The mention of "Gog and Magog" in Revelation is invariably treated as central to this topic in secondary sources, yet curiously, you want that necessarily treated as "undue weight" without really establishing why this is not just some subjective POV on your part. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- I try to provide sources available online (but not always), in the first instance through GoogleBooks. However, they do not stay there forever in preview mode.
- There is no need to quote the entire page. The point is that this fragment shows use of Gog and Magog as a pair in earlier Jewish tradition in Hebrew. Not much else can be derived from the texts, either Hebrew or Greek for the purpose of an encyclopaedia article.
- Actually Gog and Magog are found in the Torah (Bible in Hebrew), Neviim (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings). This is why they are listed separately. It is also found in the Talmud.
- Revelations is not something unique to Christianity, hence Christian tradition. Other uses can come from titles like:
- The Book of Revelations: A Sourcebook of Themes from the Holy Qur'an
- Book of Revelations: A Collection of Poetry
- The Book of Revelations: A Year's Worth of Facebook Wisdom
- A Little Book of Revelations (This book is a radical reappraisal of the Christian life-style.)
- The Book of Revelations about the Sacred Company of the Virgins of Cologne (in Elisabeth of Schonau, p.213)
- Yes, it is not central to the Book of Revelations, but many (most!) secondary sources are (particularly Christian) focused on working out the future based on two words. However, when this discussion begun there were no secondary sources mentioned. As you have seen, in the more scholarly sources, even where they devote space exclusively to "Gog and Magog" it is a section in a chapter, so not really central. The book that Doug would say is not reliable (self-published in lulu) is like that. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Really? What about "Book of Revelation"? (Note, no S on Revelation - the actual title in question)... And what exactly is all that supposed to prove in logical terms anyway? We use real logic here, not hermeneutics. And in real logic, pointing at a bunch of off topic books with the word "Revelations" in the title, as if that were somehow meaningful to the question, would be called a "fallacy". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Koakhtzvigad and sources
I've just reverted an edit by Koakhtzvigad which uses a blog and a self-published lulu.com book. WP:RS makes it clear we shouldn't be using such sources. It also added a claim "no further etymological meaning can be derived." which had no source at all. Dougweller (talk) 06:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Actually you reverted the entire edit, and not only those that you refer to in the edit summary as we don't use blogs or self=published works as sources, statement "no further etymological meaning can be derived." is unsourced. Would you then please care to undo your revert and remove only those portions that you consider as not being supported by reliable sources.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Your 'not very well considered' explanation doesn't explain why you added the stuff about " why they did not specifically appear together as a pair until that book was composed before any formal separation of Christianity and Judaism." which had no reference. I'm not putting anything back without a good reason. Dougweller (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Til insisted on including that the phrase appears in Revelations once and once only.
- There is indeed no other record before appearance of Christianity where the phrase appears in Greek
- There is an example of the same phrase appearing in a Qumran fragment in Hebrew, but dated clearly to well before appearance of Christianity.
- This established, as I wrote in preceding text (referenced) that it was a well known form of reference that was used as much by the Essene sect in Hebrew as by the Christian sect in Greek
- The sentence you quote is simply a closing for the paragraph, and doesn't need a reference.
- However, if you can find a reference where someone proves that something didn't exist, i.e. Greek reference to Gog and Magog before appearance of Christianity, be my guest
- However, what you did is to perform a wholesale revert without offering adequate explanation, indeed you were selective
- My editing restored a number of edits that PiCo removed due to what I would politically call bad judgment
- It seems to me that there are guidelines about what one describes in edit summaries, and they ought to describe as closely as possible what editing you had performed, which in your case they did not.
- I'm happy to describe why PiCo's prior editing was 'not very well considered', but I'm not here to cause embarassment to other editors Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- If you can find a reference in a reliable sources saying there is no such record, fine. Without such a source, we can say nothing about it. I'm surprised you think my edit summary less clear or explicit than yours. Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- If I started undoing all of PiCo's bad editing one at a time it would take too long. The problem is that he removed content that should not be removed, but merely improved, usually through better referencing. Having badly referenced content which is essentially valid is better than having none, which conflicts with PiCo's philosophy of editing. It is very much more difficult to re-reference content while having to look for it in the revision history. In PiCo's editing history of over 17,000 entries, only a couple of dozen are edits accompanied by references. These are unfortunately offset by removal of references that PiCo thought were 'old', and removal of content because it had no references, but was in fact viable. Hence I was content to leave the (as you pointed out) less good references (though still acceptable despite your assertion to the contrary), because it left a clue as to what to look for while providing continuity in the content, rather than leaving an integrity gap that arbitrary removal creates, and which is often evident in very many Wikipedia articles.
- However, I'll humour you. Below is the content as I edited it which you removed. Please Specifically point to what you have a problem with.
- If you can find a reference in a reliable sources saying there is no such record, fine. Without such a source, we can say nothing about it. I'm surprised you think my edit summary less clear or explicit than yours. Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Your 'not very well considered' explanation doesn't explain why you added the stuff about " why they did not specifically appear together as a pair until that book was composed before any formal separation of Christianity and Judaism." which had no reference. I'm not putting anything back without a good reason. Dougweller (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The term "Gog and Magog", as distinct from Ezekiel's "Gog of the land of Magog", first appears in the Christian New Testament's Book of Revelation.ref name="BelyeuIrene" The discovery of the 4Q523 Dead Sea scrolls fragment proves that the expression in Greek is derived from Hebrew which is the earliest record of 'Gog and Magog' rather than 'Gog of the land of Magog'.Buitenwerf, Rieuwerd, The Gog and Magog Tradition in Revelation 20:8, in, H. J. de Jonge, Johannes Tromp, eds., The book of Ezekiel and its influence, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007, p.172 Gog and Magog appear in only one verse of the Book of Revelation (Rev. 20:8), and are equated in the vision with "the nations in the four quarters of the earth".name="BelyeuIrene"The more recent interpretation of the prophecy in the received Christian text that suggests a battle waged by the Satan's forces, "god of this world"ref name="BelyeuIrene" at the close of the Messianic kingdom is based on the Strong's Concordance entries #01463 Gog, #04031 Magog, #04902 Meshech, and #08422 Tuval.ref name="BelyeuIrene"
The abbreviated Greek form of the Hebrew borrowing by John may have been because the passage was well known to him ref Berner, Douglas C., The Silence Is Broken! God Hooks Ezekiel's Gog & Magog, www.lulu.com, 2006, p.282, and in the Jewish community where this Ezekiel passage precedes those read on Shabbat Chol Hamoed (intermediate) of Sukkot festival, the Ezekiel 38:18 - 39:16 haftarah.Scherman Nosson & Zlotowitz, Meir, eds., TANACH: The Torah, Prophets, Writings, The Twenty-Four Books of the Bible Newly Translated and Annotated, Mesorah Publications, Ltd., Brooklyn, 1996, p.x
The tradition is difficult to date due to the protracted period of Hellenization in Judea.
- You then replace it with the following
While "Gog and Magog" are closely associated with one another in the Ezekiel passage, they are used only as a reference in the Christian New Testament Book of Revelation, and not as a complete translation from Ezekiel, which is why they did not specifically appear together as a pair until that book was composed before any formal separation of Christianity and Judaism.
- The part "and not as a complete translation from Ezekiel, which is why they did not specifically appear together as a pair until that book was composed before any formal separation of Christianity and Judaism." was added by me before I found that in fact the pair did appear together before the book of Revelations was composed, and the dating of the Qumran fragment is dated before separation of Christianity and Judaism, hence the part is edited out and replaced with information on the 4Q523.
- The blog reference is good because it provided English translations of Hebrew (but not linked) which are referenced. However, I can find more acceptable sources for the same material. The self-published (lilu.com) book is not authoritative, but is typical of its genre, and has references for what it says. I haven't looked, but I'm sure it will not be difficult to find similar statements in other books by similar-minded Christian authors.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Islamic tradition
I believe Islamic tradition of Gog and Magog should have its own sections, just like Christians and jews. Why its in other traditional in the first place ?? 188.66.153.95 (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Are they the anderthals?
Are they the anderthals? the same discription as in quran? has anybody thought of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasriDefend (talk • contribs) 01:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for this sort of discussion, you need to find a forum somewhere else. Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Dispensationalist View
As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I am hesitating to post anything myself, but I would submit that, in various re-edits, the Dispensationalist view (which was once presented in this article) has disappeared and should be restored.
In short, most Dispensationalists view Gog and Magog as a reference to Russia (and, usually to a Russian leader), citing Josephus and similar ancient sources.
Citations of authority: "The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text" by Gregory Beale (1999), at page 1025;
"The Man of Sin: Uncovering The Truth About the Anti-Christ" by Kim Riddlebarger (2006) at page 57.
Thoughts?
AVERHOES (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- The view that Gog/Magog is Russia is in the article, though I guess your point is that it should be more detailed. I rather doubt that myself - a simple mention is enough, surely. PiCo (talk) 10:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Pico - You are correct that there is a reference to Russia being identified as Gog and Magog in a couple of contexts (a) ancient Jewish scholars such as Josephus associated Gog and Magog with the Scythians; and (b) "during the Cold War", Russia was identified as Gog and Magog. The Dispensationalist view predates the Cold War, and continues to be held to this day - that Biblical references to Gog and Magog refer to Russia. My point is that there was once a statement in the text affirming that a modern theological movement still views Russia in this light, but that such a statement disappeared from the text about 6-8 months ago. As currently written, a reader could assume that no one in the post Cold War period subscribes to the belief that Russia is viewed as Gog and Magog, which is demonstrably incorrect. I would also respectfully point out that several paragraphs are included on legends (not having any scriptural basis and not embraced by any segment of modern Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) that Gog and Magog references either Ireland or England. If this theory is worth several paragraphs, surely a single sentence could be devoted to Gog and Magog as Russia?
Averhoes — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVERHOES (talk • contribs) 19:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
bavel v magog
I think what this phrase "by turning BBL ("Babylon" in Hebrew script, which originally had no vowel-signs) into MGG (Magog), but this account, like the others, has problems." is really trying to describe the following: In Hebrew Bavel is spelt bbl. The relationship to magog (mgg) is to advance each letter by 1 so that b>g b>g l>m and then spelling it backward. I find this interesting, but... not very likely. Most obscure things would normally be encoded in a variant of an atbash cypher. However, ad hoc, this would be yyo - which doesn't help. It is interesting to note that "gog" in hebrew means "ceiling". Persia at the time of the prophecy was pretty much at the top of the known world and Russia could be considered as descended from "the roof of the world" or "magog" (as opposed to Europe which is generally considered as being descended from Eisav via Troy>Italy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weedmic (talk • contribs) 11:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, this page is not a blog for engaging in speculation and conjecture by wikipedians. We can't 'decide' anything here. We can only use speculations that already appear in 3rd party sources. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Gog and Magog in the Islamic sources Qur'an, Hadith
lot of information but need to translation
ياجوج وماجوج اسم لشعب يظهر في اخر الزمان، عند خروجهم من تحت الردم يقومون بأبادة جميع الشعوب التي تكون في طريقهم حسب المصادر الإسلامية.
ويكون اشتقاق الأسم من أجت النار أجيجا : إذا التهبت . و من الأجاج : وهو الماء الشديد الملوحة ، المحرق من ملوحته ، وعن الأج : وهو سرعة العدو. و مأجوج من ماج إذا اضطرب، ويؤيد هذا الاشتقاق قوله تعالى ( وتركنا بعضهم يومئذ يموج في بعض ) ، وهما على وزن يفعول في ( يأجوج ) ، ومفعول في ( مأجوج ) أو على وزن فاعول فيهما [2].
من القرآن
جاء ذكرهما في كل من سورة الكهف وسورة الأنبياء.
- سورة الكهف
- (وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ عَن ذِي الْقَرْنَيْنِ قُلْ سَأَتْلُو عَلَيْكُم مِّنْهُ ذِكْراً (83) إِنَّا مَكَّنَّا لَهُ فِي الْأَرْضِ وَآتَيْنَاهُ مِن كُلِّ شَيْءٍ سَبَباً (84) فَأَتْبَعَ سَبَباً (85) حَتَّى إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ الشَّمْسِ وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ وَوَجَدَ عِندَهَا قَوْماً قُلْنَا يَا ذَا الْقَرْنَيْنِ إِمَّا أَن تُعَذِّبَ وَإِمَّا أَن تَتَّخِذَ فِيهِمْ حُسْناً (86) قَالَ أَمَّا مَن ظَلَمَ فَسَوْفَ نُعَذِّبُهُ ثُمَّ يُرَدُّ إِلَى رَبِّهِ فَيُعَذِّبُهُ عَذَأباً نُّكْراً (87) وَأَمَّا مَنْ آمَنَ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحاً فَلَهُ جَزَاء الْحُسْنَى وَسَنَقُولُ لَهُ مِنْ أَمْرِنَا يُسْراً (88) ثُمَّ أَتْبَعَ سَبَباً (89) حَتَّى إِذَا بَلَغَ مَطْلِعَ الشَّمْسِ وَجَدَهَا تَطْلُعُ عَلَى قَوْمٍ لَّمْ نَجْعَل لَّهُم مِّن دُونِهَا سِتْراً (90) كَذَلِكَ وَقَدْ أَحَطْنَا بِمَا لَدَيْهِ خُبْراً (91) ثُمَّ أَتْبَعَ سَبَباً (92) حَتَّى إِذَا بَلَغَ بَيْنَ السَّدَّيْنِ وَجَدَ مِن دُونِهِمَا قَوْماً لَّا يَكَادُونَ يَفْقَهُونَ قَوْلاً (93) قَالُوا يَا ذَا الْقَرْنَيْنِ إِنَّ يَأْجُوجَ وَمَأْجُوجَ مُفْسِدُونَ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَهَلْ نَجْعَلُ لَكَ خَرْجاً عَلَى أَن تَجْعَلَ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَهُمْ سَدّاً (94) قَالَ مَا مَكَّنِّي فِيهِ رَبِّي خَيْرٌ فَأَعِينُونِي بِقُوَّةٍ أَجْعَلْ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُمْ رَدْماً (95) آتُونِي زُبَرَ الْحَدِيدِ حَتَّى إِذَا سَاوَى بَيْنَ الصَّدَفَيْنِ قَالَ انفُخُوا حَتَّى إِذَا جَعَلَهُ نَاراً قَالَ آتُونِي أُفْرِغْ عَلَيْهِ قِطْراً (96) فَمَا اسْطَاعُوا أَن يَظْهَرُوهُ وَمَا اسْتَطَاعُوا لَهُ نَقْباً (97) قَالَ هَذَا رَحْمَةٌ مِّن رَّبِّي فَإِذَا جَاء وَعْدُ رَبِّي جَعَلَهُ دَكَّاء وَكَانَ وَعْدُ رَبِّي حَقّاً (98))
- سورة الأنبياء
- (حَتَّى إِذَا فُتِحَتْ يَأْجُوجُ وَمَأْجُوجُ وَهُمْ مِنْ كُلِّ حَدَبٍ يَنْسِلُونَ)(الأنبياء: 96)
تكلم القرآن عن ذي القرنين وجعله قدوة ومثلا رائعا للملك المحسن وعن تمكينة في الأرض ورحلاته الثلاث:
- رحلته الأولى حتى بلغ مغرب الشمس
- ثم رحلته الثانية حتى بلغ مطلع الشمس (القطب الشمالي وشمال شرقي سيبريا)
- ثم رحلته الثالثة حتى بلغ السدين
تفسير الآيات
تفسير الآيات الكريمة [1]
((ويسألونك عن ذي القرنين))
يقول تعالى لنبيّه صلى اللّه عليه وسلم {ويسالونك} يا محمد {عن ذي القرنين} أي عن خبره، نزلت بعد سؤالهم ((أي اليهود))، إن السؤال لم يكن عن ذات ذي القرنين، بل عن شأنه، فكأنه قيل: ويسألونك عن شأن ذي القرنين.
(قل): لهم في الجواب
(سأتلو عليكم منه ذكرا): الخطاب للسائلين، سأقص عليكم منه خبرا.
((إنا مكنّا له في الأرض)): أي اعطيناه ملكاً عظيماً، ممكناً فيه من جميع ما يؤتى الملوك من التمكين والجنود وآلات الحرب والحضارات، ودانت له البلاد وخضعت له ملوك العباد.
((وآتيناه من كل شئ سببا)): أي اعطيناه من كل شيء { سبباً } طريقاً يوصله إلى مراده .
(فأتبع سببا): سلك طريقاً
((حتى إذا بلغ مغرب الشمس)) ومغرب الشمس هو المكان الذي يرى الرائي أن الشمس تغرب عنده وراء الأفق.
"وجدها": أي الشمس.
(تغرب في عين حمئة): أي راى الشمس في منظره تغرب في البحر وهذا شان كل من انتهى إلى ساحله، يراها كانها تغرب فيه، والحمئة مشتقة على إحدى القراءتين من الحماة وهو الطين، كما قال تعالى {اني خالق بشراً من صلصال من حما مسنون}: أي من طين املس، وقد تقدم بيانه. وقال ابن جرير: كان ابن عباس يقول {في عين حماة} ثم فسرها ذات حماة، قال نافع: وسئل عنها كعب الاحبار فقال: انتم اعلم بالقران مني لكني اجدها في الكتاب تغيب في طينة سوداء. وبه قال مجاهد وغير واحد. وعن اُبي بن كعب ان النبي صلى اللّه عليه وسلم اقراه حمئة، وقال علي بن ابي طلحة، عن ابن عباس وجدها تغرب في عين حامية يعني حارة. وكذا قال الحسن البصري، وقال ابن جرير: والصواب انهما قراءتان مشهورتان، وايهما قرا القارئ فهو مصيب، ولا منافاة بين معنييهما إذ قد تكون حارة لمجاورتها وهج الشمس عند غروبها وملاقاتها الشعاع بلا حائل، وحمئة في ماء وطين أسود كما قال كعب الاحبار وغيره.
والظاهر من النص أن ذا القرنين غرب حتى وصل إلى نقطة على شاطئ البحر ويظن أن اليابسة تنتهى عنده – فرأى الشمس تغرب فيه. والارجح أنه كان عند مصب أحد الأنهار، حيث تكثر الأعشاب ويتجمع حولها طين لزج هو الحمأ. وتوجد البرك وكأنها عيون الماء. فرأى الشمس تغرب هناك و(وجدها تغرب في عين حمئة).
(ووجد عندها): أي عند تلك العين على الساحل المتصل بها (قوما) أي أمة من الأمم.
(قلنا ياذا القرنين إما أن تعذب وإما أن تتخذ فيهم حسنا) أي ليكن شأنك معهم إما التعذيب وإما الإحسان، فالأول لمن بقي على حاله، والثاني لمن تاب.
(قال أما من ظلم): نفسه ولم يقبل دعوة التوحيد والمنهج الرباني واستمر على شركة وكفره وعناده.
(فسوف نعذبه): بالقتل.
(ثم يرد إلى ربه): في الآخرة.
(فيعذبه): فيها.
(عذابا نكرا): أي شديداً بلغياً وجيعاً اليماً، وهو العذاب في نار جهنم.
(وأما من آمن): أي تابعنا على ما ندعوه إليه من عبادة الله وحده.
(وعمل صالحا فله جزاء الحسنى): أي المثوبة الحسنة أو الفعلة الحسنى أو الجنة.
(وسنقول له من أمرنا يسرا): معروفاً.
(ثم أتبع سببا): أي سلك طريقاً.
(حتى إذا بلغ مطلع الشمس): أي مطلعها من الأفق الشرقي في عين الرائي.
(وجدها): أي الشمس.
(تطلع على قوم لم نجعل لهم من دونها سترا): إشارة تدلنا على أن ذا القرنين قد وصل إلى القطب الذي تكون فيه الشمس ستة شهور لا تغيب، وطوال هذه الشهور لا يوجد ظلام يستر الشمس في هذه الأماكن.وهذا إعجاز من القرآن الكريم.
(كذلك وقد أحطنا بما لديه خبرا): أي أن الله سبحانه كان عالما بأحوال ذي القرنين، مطلعا على حركاته، محيطا بأخباره وأخبار جيشه، فما يسيرون خطوة إلا بإذن الله، ولا يتحركون حركة إلا بمشيئة الله، ولا يكسبون معركة أو يحتلون بلدا إلا والله عالم بهم، مطلع عليهم، خبير بهم.
(ثم أتبع سببا): أي طريقا ثالثا معترضا بين المشرق والمغرب، آخذا من مطلع الشمس إلى الشمال.
(حتى إذا بلغ بين السدين): أي الجبلين.
(وجد من دونهما): أي السدين: قال ابن كثير: (هما جبلان متناوحان (متقابلان) بينهما ثغرة يخرج منهما يأجوج ومأجوج على بلاد الترك، فيعيثون فيهم فسادا ويهلكون الحرث والنسل).
(قوما لا يكادون يفقهون قولا): أي أمة من الناس لا يفقهون أقوال أتباع ذي القرنين لقلة فطنتهم وبعدهم عن لغات غيرهم.
(قالوا ياذا القرنين إن يأجوج ومأجوج مفسدون في الأرض): أي اشتكوا إلى ذي القرنين من ظلم (يأجوج ومأجوج) الذين أفسدوا أرضنا بالقتل والتخريب.
(فهل نجعل لك خرجا على أن تجعل بيننا وبينهم سدا) أي يجمعون له من بينهم مالاً يعطونه اياه بغرض أن تبني لنا سدا بيننا وبينهم.. لقد تأدبوا في عرضهم المال على ذي القرنين ولذلك استخدموا أسلوب الاستفهام.
والسد: أي حاجزا يمنعهم من الوصول إلينا.
فقال ذو القرنين بعفة وديانة وصلاح وقصد للخير:
(قال ما مكني فيه ربي خير): أي إن الذي أعطاني الله من الملك والتمكين خير لي من الذي تجمعونه.
(فأعينوني بقوة): أي ساعدوني بالأيدي العاملة.
(أجعل بينكم وبينهم ردما): أي حاجزا حصينا منيعا. (الردم للحفرة)
(آتوني زبر الحديد): أي قطع الحديد الكبيرة.
(حتى اذا ساوى بين الصدفين): أي وصل الحديد وضع بعضه على بعض من الأساس، حتى حاذى به رؤوس الجبلين طولاً وعرضاً.
(قال انفخوا) : أي اشعلوا النار تحت الحديد.
(حتى إذا جعله نارا قال أتوني أفرغ عليه قطرا): أي من الذين يشرفون على أمر النحاس، لاضع فوق الحديد المصهور نحاسا مذابا ليختلط به.
(فما اسطاعوا أن يظهروه): أي ياجوج وماجوج عجزوا على صعود على ظهر السد.
(وما استطاعوا له نقبا): أي عجزوا عن نقضه وخرقه.
(قال): أي ذو القرنين لمن عنده من أهل تلك الديار وغيرهم.
(هذا): إشارة إلى السد.
(رحمة من ربي): حيث جعله بينهم وبين ياجوج وماجوج حائلاً يمنعهم من العيث في الأرض والفساد.
(فإذا جاء وعد ربي): أي اذا اقترب الوعد الحق.
(جعله دكاء) أي ساواه بالأرض، وتقول العرب: ناقة دكاء اذا كان ظهرها مستوياً لا سنام لها.
(وكان وعد ربي حقا): أي كائناً لا محالة.
من الأحاديث النبوية
- عن زينب بنت جحش - رضي الله عنها – قالت: دخل الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم فزعاً وهو يقول: لا إله إلا الله، ويل للعرب من شر قد اقترب، فتح اليوم من سدِّ "يأجوج ومأجوج" مثل هذه، وحلق بإصبعه الإبهام والتي تليها، قالت له زينب: يا رسول الله أنهلك وفينا الصالحون ؟ قال: نعم إذا كثر الخبث، رواه البخاري.
ان يأجوج ومأجوج ليحفرون السد كل يوم حتى إذا كادوا يرون شعاع الشمس قال الذي عليهم ارجعوا فستحفرونه غدا فيعودون إليه كأشد ما كان حتى إذا بلغت مدتهم وأراد الله عز وجل أن يبعثهم إلى الناس حفروا حتى إذا كادوا يرون شعاع الشمس قال الذي عليهم ارجعوا فستحفرونه غدا إن شاء الله ويستثني فيعودون إليه وهو كهيئته حين تركوه فيحفرونه ويخرجون على الناس فينشفون المياه ويتحصن الناس منهم في حصونهم فيرمون بسهامهم إلى السماء فترجع وعليها كهيئة الدم فيقولون قهرنا أهل الأرض وعلونا أهل السماء فيبعث الله عليهم نغفا في أقفائهم فيقتلهم بها فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم والذي نفس محمد بيده إن دواب الأرض لتسمن شكرا من لحومهم ودمائهم)، رواه أحمد.
- عن ابن حرملة عن خالته قالت خطب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وهو عاصب إصبعه من لدغة عقرب فقال: ( إنكم تقولون لا عدو وإنكم لا تزالون تقاتلون عدوا حتى يأتي يأجوج ومأجوج عراض الوجوه صغار العيون شهب الشعاف من كل حدب ينسلون كأن وجوههم المجان المطرقة)، رواه أحمد.
- عن حذيفة بن أسيد الغفاري قال كنا قعودا نتحدث في ظل غرفة لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فذكرنا الساعة فارتفعت أصواتنا فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : (لن تكون أو لن تقوم الساعة حتى يكون قبلها عشر آيات طلوع الشمس من مغربها وخروج الدابة وخروج يأجوج ومأجوج والدجال وعيسى ابن مريم والدخان وثلاثة خسوف خسف بالمغرب وخسف بالمشرق وخسف بجزيرة العرب وآخر ذلك تخرج نار من اليمن من قعر عدن تسوق الناس إلى المحشر)، رواه أبو داود.
- عن أبي سعيد الخدري قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: ( يقول الله عز وجل يوم القيامة يا آدم قم فابعث بعث النار فيقول لبيك وسعديك والخير في يديك يا رب وما بعث النار قال من كل ألف تسع مائة وتسعة وتسعين قال فحينئذ يشيب المولود وتضع كل ذات حمل حملها وترى الناس سكارى وما هم بسكارى ولكن عذاب الله شديد قال فيقولون فأينا ذلك الواحد قال فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم تسع مائة وتسعة وتسعين من يأجوج ومأجوج ومنكم واحد قال فقال الناس الله أكبر فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أفلا ترضون أن تكونوا ربع أهل الجنة والله إني لأرجو أن تكونوا ربع أهل الجنة والله إني لأرجو أن تكونوا ثلث أهل الجنة والله إني لأرجو أن تكونوا نصف أهل الجنة قال فكبر الناس قال فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ما أنتم يومئذ في الناس إلا كالشعرة البيضاء في الثور الأسود أو كالشعرة السوداء في الثور الأبيض)، رواه أحمد.
- (يأتي نبي الله عيسى قوما قد عصمهم الله فيمسح وجوههم ويحدثهم بدرجاتهم في الجنة فبينما هم كذلك إذ أوحى الله إليه يا عيسى إني قد أخرجت عبادا لي لا يدان لأحد بقتالهم وأحرز عبادي إلى الطور ويبعث الله يأجوج ومأجوج وهم كما قال الله من كل حدب ينسلون فيمر أوائلهم على بحيرة الطبرية فيشربون ما فيها ثم يمر آخرهم فيقولون لقد كان في هذا ماء مرة ويحضر نبي الله وأصحابه حتى يكون رأس الثور لأحدهم خيرا من مائة دينار لأحدكم اليوم فيرغب نبي الله عيسى وأصحابه إلى الله فيرسل الله عليهم النغف في رقابهم فيصبحون فرسى كموت نفس واحدة ويهبط نبي الله عيسى وأصحابه فلا يجدون موضع شبر إلا قد ملأه زهمهم ونتنهم ودماؤهم فيرغبون إلى الله فيرسل عليهم طيرا كأعناق البخت فتحملهم فتطرحهم حيث شاء الله ثم يرسل الله عليهم مطرا لا يكن منه بيت مدر ولا وبر فيغسله حتى يتركه كالزلقة ثم يقال للأرض أنبتي ثمرتك وردي بركتك فيومئذ تأكل العصابة من الرمانة فتشبعهم ويستظلون بقحفها ويبارك الله في الرسل حتى إن اللقحة من الإبل تكفي الفئام من الناس واللقحة من البقر تكفي القبيلة واللقحة من الغنم تكفي الفخذ فبينما هم كذلك إذ بعث الله عليهم ريحا طيبة فتأخذ تحت آباطهم فتقبض روح كل مسلم ويبقى سائر الناس يتهارجون كما تتهارج الحمر فعليهم تقوم الساعة)، رواه ابن ماجة.
- عن أبي سعيد الخدري عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: (ليحجن البيت وليعتمرن بعد خروج يأجوج ومأجوج)، رواه أحمد.
- قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : (سيوقد المسلمون من قسي يأجوج ومأجوج ونشابهم وأترستهم سبع سنين)، رواه ابن ماجة.
3170 - حدثني إسحاق بن نصر: حدثنا أبو أسامة، عن الأعمش: حدثنا أبو صالح، عن أبي سعيد الخدري رضي الله عنه، عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: (يقول الله تعالى: يا آدم، فيقول: لبيك وسعديك، والخير في يديك، فيقول: أخرج بعث النار، قال: وما بعث النار؟ قال: من كل ألف تسعمائة وتسعة وتسعين، فعنده يشيب الصغير، وتضع كل ذات حمل حملها، وترى الناس سكارى وما هم بسكارى، ولكن عذاب الله شديد). قالوا: يا رسول الله، وأينا ذلك الواحد؟ قال: (أبشروا، فإن منكم رجلا ومن يأجوج ومأجوج ألفا. ثم قال: والذي نفسي بيده، إني أرجو أن تكونوا ربع أهل الجنة). فكبرنا، فقال: (أرجو أن تكونوا ثلث أهل الجنة). فكبرنا، فقال: (أرجو أن تكونوا نصف أهل الجنة). فكبرنا، فقال: (ما أنتم في الناس إلا كالشعرة السوداء في جلد ثور أبيض، أو كشعرة بيضاء في جلد ثور أسود)
من هنا نستدل على أن عدد قوم يأجوج ومأجوج تقريبا يساوي 1000 ضعف عدد العرب. إذا فهم قوم لايعدوا من كثرتهم. لهم نفس وصف الترك المغول (عراض الوجوه، صغار الأعين، سواد الشعر مائل إلى البياض وكأن وجوههم المجان المطرقة، أي ذوي رؤوس مستديرة). كما وصفهم الرسول محمد
أحاديث عن يأجوج وماجوج
رسمت الأحاديث النبوية المنسوبة للرسول محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم ملامح أكثر وضوحاً عن عالم "يأجوج" و"مأجوج" وكشفت عن كثير من نواحي الغموض فيهم. فبنيت أن لديهم نظاماً وقائداً يحتكمون لرأيه، وأن السد الذي حصرهم به ذو القرنين ما زال قائماً، وأنه يمنعهم من تحقيق مطامعهم في غزو الأرض وإفسادها، ولذا فمن حرصهم على هدمه يخرجون كل صباح لحفر هذا السد، حتى إذا قاربوا هدمه أخروا الحفر إلى اليوم التالي، فيأتون إليه وقد أعاده الله أقوى مما كان، فإذا أذن الله بخروجهم حفروا حتى إذا قاربوا على الانتهاء قال لهم أميرهم: ارجعوا إليه غدا فستحفرونه - إن شاء الله - فيرجعون إليه وهو على حاله حين تركوه، فيحفرونه ويخرجون على الناس فيشربون مياه الأنهار، ويمرون على بحيرة طبرية فيشربها أولهم، فيأتي آخرهم فيقول: لقد كان هنا ماء !! ويتحصن الناس خوفاً منهم، وعندئذ يزداد غرورهم ويرمون بسهامهم إلى السماء فترجع وعليها آثار الدم فتنةً من الله وبلاءً، فيقولون: قهرنا أهل الأرض وغلبنا أهل السماء، فيرسل الله عليهم دوداً يخرج من خلف رؤوسهم فيقتلهم، فيصبحون طعاماً لدواب الأرض حتى تسمن من كثرة لحومهم. كما روى ذلك ابن ماجة في سننه.
وقد دلت الأحاديث على أن الزمان الذي يخرجون فيه يملكون أسباب القوة ويتفوقون فيها على سائر الناس، وذلك إما لكونهم متقدمين عسكرياً ووصلوا إلى تقنيات تمكنهم من إبادة غيرهم والسيطرة على بلادهم، وإما لأن زمن خروجهم يكون بعد زوال هذه الحضارة المادية، ورجوع الناس إلى القتال بالوسائل البدائية والتقليدية، ويؤكد ذلك ما ورد عند ابن ماجة، وورد في بعض الروايات من أن المسلمين سيوقدون من أقواس وسهام وتروس "يأجوج ومأجوج" سبع سنين. كما عند ابن ماجة وغيره. كما بينت الأحاديث بعض صفاتهم الخلْقية وأنهم عراض الوجوه، صغار العيون، شقر الشعور، وجوهم مدورة كالتروس. رواه أحمد.
وبينت أيضاً مدى كفرهم، وعنادهم وأنهم أكثر أهل النار، ففي الحديث أن الله عز وجل يقول لآدم يوم القيامة: أخرج بعث النار، فيقول: وما بعث النار ؟ فيقول الله: من كل ألف تسعمائة وتسعة وتسعين، ففزع الصحابة – رضي الله عنهم – وقالوا: يا رسول الله وأينا ذلك الواحد ؟ فقال – عليه الصلاة والسلام: أبشروا فإن منكم رجلاً ومن يأجوج ومأجوج ألفاً - رواه البخاري.
وبينت الأحاديث كذلك أن خروجهم سيكون في آخر الزمان قرب قيام الساعة، وفي وقت يغلب على أهله الشر والفساد،
قال - صلى الله عليه وسلم -: لن تقوم الساعة حتى يكون قبلها عشر آيات؛ طلوع الشمس من مغربها، وخروج الدابة، وخروج يأجوج ومأجوج.. - رواه أبو داود.
وعندما دخل – صلى الله عليه وسلم – على زوجته زينب بنت جحش - رضي الله عنها – فزعاً وهو يقول: لا إله إلا الله، ويل للعرب من شر قد اقترب، فتح اليوم من سدِّ "يأجوج ومأجوج" مثل هذه، وحلق بإصبعه الإبهام والتي تليها، قالت له زينب: يا رسول الله أنهلك وفينا الصالحون ؟ قال: نعم إذا كثر الخبث - رواه البخاري.
أما ترتيب خروجهم ضمن أشراط الساعة الكبرى فقد دلت الأحاديث على أن الدجال عندما يخرج، ينزل المسيح بعده، ثم يخرج يأجوج ومأجوج، فيأمر الله عيسى - - ألا يقاتلهم، بل يتوجه بمن معه من المؤمنين إلى جبل الطور، فيحصرون هناك، ويبلغ بهم الجوع مبلغا عظيماً، فيدعون الله حينئذ أن يدفع عنهم شرهم فيرسل الله عليهم الدود في رقابهم فيصبحون قتلى كموت نفس واحدة، وتمتلئ الأرض من نتن ريحهم، فيرسل الله طيراً كأعناق الإبل فتحملهم وتطرحهم حيث شاء الله. ويأمن الناس وتخرج الأرض بركتها وثمرتها، حتى تأكل الجماعة من الناس الرمانة الواحدة، ويكفي أهل القرية ما يحلبونه من الناقة في المرة الواحدة.
ويحج المسلمون إلى البيت بعد هلاكهم، كما في الحديث: ليحجن البيت وليعتمرن بعد خروج يأجوج ومأجوج - رواه البخاري
خروجهم (ياجوج وماجوج)
مما سبق فإن ياجوج وماجوج محبوسون خلف ردم من قطع الحديد والنحاس المصهور بين جبلين يوجد هذا الردم السد كما ذكر ابن عباس في (بلاد الترك) مما يلي أرمينيا وأذربيجان. أي في منطقة سيبيريا الكبيرة. ولم يستطيع أحد الوصول إليهم أو الظهور على موقعهم حتى الآن.
تخرج هذه الأقوام في عهد النبي عيسى بن مريم والذي سيعود إلى الأرض حيث يقوم النبي عيسى المسيح بقتل المسيح الدجال. مما سيؤدي إلى ظهور ياجوج وماجوج وستكون لهم فتنة عامة وشر مستطير لايملك أحد دفعهم وسيحاصر نبي الله عيسى ومن معه في طور سيناء بأرض مصر. فيدعون الله فيسلط على ياجوج وماجوج دود يخرج في أعناقهم فيقتلهم كميتة رجل واحد وتنت الأرض بجيفهم وروائحم فيدعي نبى الله عيسى ومن معه فيرسل الله طيرا تحملهم وتقذف بهم في البحر ثم تهطل الأمطار فتغسل الأرض.
جاء شرحهم مفصل في الحديث التالي في زيادة الجامع الصغير:
تفتح يأجوج ومأجوج فيخرجون على الناس كما قال الله عز وجل من كل حدب ينسلون فيغشون الناس وينحاز المسلمون عنهم إلى مدائنهم وحصونهم ويضمون إليهم مواشيهم ويشربون مياه الأرض حتى إن بعضهم ليمر بالنهر فيشربون ما فيه حتى يتركوه يبسا حتى إن من يمر من بعدهم ليمر بذلك النهر فيقول: قد كان ههنا ماء مرة حتى إذا لم يبق من الناس أحد إلا أحد في حصن أو مدينة قال قائلهم: هؤلاء أهل الأرض قد فرغنا منهم بقي أهل السماء ثم يهز أحدهم حربته ثم يرمي بها إلى السماء فترجع إليه مختضب دما للبلاء والفتنة فبينما هم على ذلك إذ بعث الله عز وجل دودا في أعناقهم كنغف الجراد الذي يخرج في أعناقه فيصبحون موتى لا يسمع لهم حس فيقول المسلمون: ألا رجل يشري لنا نفسه فينطر ما فعل هذا العدو فيتجرد رجل منهم محتسبا نفسه قد أوطنها على أنه مقتول فينزل فيجدهم موتى بعضهم على بعض فينادي يا معشر المسلمين ألا أبشروا إن الله عز وجل قد كفاكم عدوكم فيخرجون من مدائنهم وحصونهم ويسرحون مواشيهم فما يكون لهم مرعى إلا لحومهم فتشكر عنه كأحسن ما شكرت عن شيء من النبات أصابته قط.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.90.198 (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.125.194 (talk)
Russia & Indo-Europeans??
I need to find some links but any time I've ever heard recognized and respected Christian evangelists speak of Gog & Magog, it has been accepted as a reference to Russia. Magog being the ancestor of the Indo-Europeans (scientifically supported with the Indo-European language group and the DNA Y-marker R haplogroup)
How come no-one has managed to include this? Arabs the Bible makes clear in Genesis descend from Abraham via Hagar (Ishmael) and the sons of Ketarah. Prior to this it was the land of Canaan and Ham.
I need to find links to some of the many sermons as this is the Christian world faith :)
94.168.67.169 (talk) 07:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Does not the Hebrew prefix "ma-" mean "land of"; and does not "Gog" in Hebrew refer to the "Caucasus" mountains (which do indeed reside to the north of Israel)? Russia's link to "Gog" seemingly stems from General Secretary Joseph Stalin, from modern Georgia, in the Caucasus. According to Hebrew Kabbalah, Divinity is symbolized, mathematically, by the number "26" — according to Hebrew Gematria, "YHWH" sums to 26. Steel is an amalgam of iron, the 26th element; and carbon, the 6th element. And Stalin, through WWII, brought to fruition the Jewish "missing waw" Prophesy from the book of Leviticus, cp. Rabbi Benjamin Blech. And, "waw" is the 6th letter of the Hebrew aleph-beth. In 1945, Stalin (Iron+Carbon, 26+6), from the land of the Caucasus (ma-Gog) marched into Poland, where 6 million Jews had been murdered (-6, -waw), and erected the "Iron Curtain" (26+6-6=26). Forty million Slavs, and ten million Germans, also died during the manifestation of the aforestated Kabbalistic Apocalyptic Prophesies, from Divine Scripture (Leviticus 25:10 in the Hebrew Torah, Revelations in the Bible). i understand, that Kabbalah is amongst the most popular (and prima facie dominant) Religions world-wide on earth, today. 66.235.38.214 (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Islamic View
Foretelling by the Prophet: "The people will continue performing the Hajj & Umra to the Kaaba even after the appearance of Gog & Magog", narrated by AbuSaid Al-Khudri. Narrated Shuba: The Hour (of the Day of Judgment) will not be established till the Hajj (to the Kaaba) is abondoned. Hadith No.663, Sahih Al Bokhari Chapter No.26: Pilgrimage (Hajj). HadithSearch.net Ilaila (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
section: "Gog and Magog in American Politics/Iraq"
I think the section "Gog and Magog in American Politics/Iraq" is injecting politics into a biblical topic, is dubious because it comes from one book by someone who doesn't like Bush, ostensibly from a French president who doesn't like Bush, and it is in a section about landforms called Gog and Magog. TuckerResearch (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- A "biblical topic"? This article is more than just a biblical topic, it has never been exclusively Biblical in scope, it has covered all related uses of "Gog and Magog" together including Gog and Maog in geography, mythology, etc etc. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree it was non-notable for this article, and whomever inserted it put a context on it that was not found in the sources cited. "Intrestingly" is more commentary than neutral encylopeic language. The editor seemed to wish readers to infer there was some sort of significance beyond conincidence that the source he was cited didn't.--Wowaconia (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Other than the word 'interestingly' there is nothing wrong with presenting this information, it is 100% notable, nor can "whomever" be blamed for "wishing the reader to infer" anything more than it actually says. For that matter it cannot be blamed for "implying" anything, anybody can "infer" things from any sentence that aren't implied, but that ism't the writer's fault. The only reasonable course is to take the words at face value and not infer them to mean something different (a strawman), and then attack the strawman that was never even stated nor implied.
- So what exactly makes this sentence (not even the same one Tucker is talking about) "non-notable" according to you? It doesn't really matter. If other people find it "notable", but you don't, you have no business removing it just because YOU, for unknown reasons, don't consider it noteworthy, or want anyone to be able to learn all the facts about this topic that you "don't like" for blatantly political reasons. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
"Biblical" article or not (and that wasn't the thrust of my argument), it is not NPOV, it is hardly from a unbiased source. (As an aside, it's from the type of book that if it were about Obama, 100 editors would declare it fringe and bias and remove it.) If you want to include it, it is in the wrong spot, it should be up with Revelation, not in the geography section. But I think it's just Bush-bashing palaver and borders on trivia. TuckerResearch (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
In Zoroastrianism?
It is really interesting that this may correspond with something in Zoroastrianism as recently added to the lede, but I would like to know more, and I hope a section can be added to the article explaining this. The lede sections are ideally only supposed to summarize the article content. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- I removed it because apparently it cannot be substantiated. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Dubious: George W Bush
This entire section is extraordinarily questionable is present. It reads: "According to US media reports, in the prelude to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US president George W. Bush told the French president Jacques Chirac that biblical prophecies were being fulfilled there and that "Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East." Bush said Gog and Magog would come from modern-day Iraq, and it was important to try and stop that.[49][50] The French presidency then rapidly consulted Prof. Thomas Römer, of the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies of the University of Lausanne (Switzerland), to have a report on Gog and Magog and understand George Bush's references."
Cite 49 is a book review of a book that makes the claim rather than the actual source and therefore isn't a sufficient source. 50 is an opinion piece. Additionally, the chronology of the first sentence is very confusing. In 2007, Chirac noted that in the prelude to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, Bush said that "Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East." There is little evidence to suggest that Bush literally believed the statement - rather Gog and Magog referred to (as they do in the bible) unknown agents with malicious intent. He most certainly did not say "biblical prophecies were being fulfilled." Nor did he say that "Gog and Magog would from from modern-day Iraq, and it would be important to try and stop that." The French president did not understand the reference and consulted [...] is fine.
The overall point being that the article tries to paint Bush as a looney who believed that biblical prophecy was being fulfilled. The reality is that Bush made a biblical reference to unknown malicious individuals which the French president did not understood and found somewhat odd. The recorded interview with Chirac makes this very clear. It is my belief that this content is not really worth of inclusion in the article by itself or might better fit in a longer "contemporary references" section, if one was even appropriate for this article. Perpetualization (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, the reference to the "American invasion of Iraq" is somewhat telling - as per 2003 Invasion of Iraq, the invasion was multinational. Perpetualization (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The subsection should probably be retitled as it gives the impression that Bush might be identified with Gog or Magog. Rather than "media sources" the actual name of the author of the piece should be cited, but the piece did appear in the NYTimes so seems notable enough for a few lines in the article. It seems the style could be reworded to give greater neutrality rather than being deleted.
--Wowaconia (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
You have reverted an edit that restored potentially harmful information. As per wikipedia's policies, the section should either 1) not exist or 2) be from a NPOV. The NYTimes piece is a book review and goes into detail about other factual errors present in the book. The quote is from the book. If used as a reference, the book should be the citation, not the NYTimes article. That's citing sources 101. Additionally, "biblical prophecies were being fulfilled" is erroneous. You didn't even attempt to respond to what I said again. I have reverted. Please discuss here, share your viewpoint, and try to build some consensus before simply reverting again. Perpetualization (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Most importantly, please identify something that is WRONG with the current version before changing. The factual errors in the old version (the "American" invasion, etc.) demand that it not stand. I feel that the current text is more than sufficiently detailed for this article. Perpetualization (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Looking at the lastest diff I see similar info in both versions but I think Perpetualization's edit is preferable and more npov, ie just presenting the quote with a minimum of additional observations. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Section on rabbinic tradition
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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, 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 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?
@PiCo & 176.182.231.162, 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 176.182.231.162 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)
- An additional problem with 176.182.231.162 is the anonymity - it would help if he got an account. PiCo (talk) 03:14, 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 [3]
- 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 [4].
- 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 [5].
- J.-P. Lippi, "Julius Evola, métaphysicien et penseur politique, essai d'analyse structurale", Les études H, L'Age d'Homme, 1998, see [6].
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)
- 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)
- 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 [7]... Xinheart (talk) 23:38, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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?
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 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.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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...)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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)
- Reply to User_talk:PiCo by Xinheart
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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" [8]. Xinheart (talk) 07:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
- (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)