Talk:The Two Babylons

I've tried to clean up some language

Remember we are trying to make this look unbiased. Present his opinions (slanderous though they be) clearly and allow the people to make the decision. I also would request more on his theories of the origins of Polytheism out of early monotheism. They are they only reason i enjoyed this book. His comparisons to Babylonian, Greek, and Egyptian religions to one another, and their source from the first part of Genesis, have far more basis then his claims against Catholicism's rituals. I realize he offends you but lets be dignified here. Just cause his writing is biased is no reason to be biased about the his article. 69.29.89.165 00:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've attempted to remove a lot of bias. Wiki is supposed to be objective, and this article clearly wasn't. Also, why is the section on Criticism filled with a long dissertation on Woodrow's theories and methodology. None of that belongs in this article, but in Woodrow's article. It should merely state that after publishing a book on the subject, he later came to reject Hislop's theories, and published a new book about it.71.183.62.71 (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Actually the recent edits have been factually false and POV. The book has zero scholarly credibility. The book is comparable to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That book also continues to have readership but like The Two Babylons it has been totally debunked. The edit that "his book continues to be used as a source among ... scholars of ancient history" is blatantly false and is, of course, unsourced because it is false. The edit saying it is used by "various Christian groups" is also misleading. No mainline demomination uses it, including Hislop's own Presbyterian Church. To say that the book is discredited, which was done with reliable sources, is not POV; it is plain fact. It is to say otherwise which is POV. Mamalujo (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Impact

This looks like a very standard crackpot religious pamphlet. Can anyone comment if it ever had any impact in its time? Pilatus 17:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It had a huge impact, though ironically the media of the day found it to be just as stupid as most of us find it today. This tract still has a lot of supporters: do a search for it on the web and you'll see numerous Christian apologetic sites source the entire document. It's even been quoted in Wikipedia by User:CheeseDreams, who decided that she would use it to support her POV pushing. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

Moved the section on criticism on the theses outlined in the work here. It's better to have it all in context. Pilatus 18:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Scriptures state clearly that all religions created by man are apostacies, and are abhorrent to God. They are the major component of Babylon the Great. They teach a trinity (which does not exist) and they teach that a part of you survives death. Scriptures clearly state many times that NOTHING survives death. A small flock of 144K will be in heaven to help rule a paradise Earth after the tribulation, and hell is non-existent. Hades or shoel is described as the common grave of mankind, not a place of permanent torture. Catholicism is the greatest proponent of these falsehoods and is mostly a pagan religion, and all others seem to in small or large part follow them. This is a very powerful tool of Satan to lure folks away from the one true God, Jehovah - Yeshua - Yahweh or however you want to pronounce it. Most of the prophets say that "they will have to know that I am Jehovah", referring to the tribulation, resurrection to judgement of most of mankind, and paradise Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.19.134.78 (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Ninus/Nimrod, and other issues

This article seems to present Hislop's dubious reading of the classical sources as though they are correct. Its presentation of the Semiramis legend does not seem similar to any such presentation that I have ever read, and it seems to accept Hislop's identification of Ninus with Nimrod, which seems problematic to me. Furthermore, Ninus is mostly the husband of Semiramis. This son is "Ninyas", or something similar, thus leading to the confusion and identification of the two. I also think that the whole Christmas/evergreen tree business is just made up. I think that this needs to be looked at by someone with greater familiarity with the actual Semiramis legend in order to isolate out which parts are actually based on the legend, and which parts are Hislop's inventions or near-inventions. john k 03:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Critisism has chat in it

It would appear that someone has mistaken the criticism section for a discussion board, and has added inline comments into it. Can someone who knows how the article should read please try to dissect out what is article and what is talk, and kindly move the talk stuff to here, for discussion. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup tags

Two cleanup tags exist here. One is a general one --- and I think there may be some support on the talk page to justify it; though I think that the history suggests that many of the problems have been addressed. But I'll be damned if I can figure out why the limited geographic scope tag has been added to this page. If no one steps forward to clarify the problem, I will remove it. Smerdis of Tlön 23:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Weasel wording

The article says it is generally understood that the book's historical claims are inaccurate, but does not provide a source. The only specific criticisms cited are those of Woodrow's. Can we have some sources, please? They're especially important for controversial issues like this. Johnleemk | Talk 16:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"Babylonian mystery religions"?

Were there any mystery religions (in the Greek sense) in ancient Babylon?? AnonMoos 11:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Similar ones. His book compares most polytheistic religions to each other. Essentially you have a precursor God (cush, marduk, bel, Chronos) whose child is the main God who is rarely pictured (Ninus, Rah, Zues) who has a child with a woman (Asherah, semaremis, Aphordite, Isis, Venus) who is the successor God/reincarnation of the father (Apollo,tammuz,Osiris,Cupid,Orion)

It is his theory that most polytheistic religions are derivative of each other. The origanel one being the Mesopotamian/early babylonian one, which he claims to be a rebellion against pre-judaism monotheism.

69.29.89.165 00:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Two-babylons.jpg

Image:Two-babylons.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Poor Grammar/Spelling/POV

This article currently contains poor grammar and some spelling errors. Some of the phrases used are peculiar and seem like rambling. The POV is suspicious and may not be entirely neutral. (In general, the credibility of this article seems weaker to me than other Wikipedia articles.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.193.152 (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC) I agree. Though I figure you're being too kind in saying "may not be" instead of "is not".

)

Nonsense!!

Wow, the editor of this page seems very "confident" that Roman Catholicism is not Babylonish in origin. But is that really the case? May I ask what the "Religious Orientation" of the editor is? It wouldn't be Roman Catholic, would it? I will not bother to refute your allegations against Hislop, because I do not have knowledge to defend him or his work. However, there is plenty of evidence in the Bible itself to point to Rome as the Whore of Babylon, and I do not need anyone or any other book to support that "allegation", since the evidence is so abundant. This page is so full of anti-biblical and frankly anti-Christian statements that it discredits itself.

In my study, I have only found, not just evidence, but proof that the Catholic church canNOT be the aforementioned whore. A simple topographical map will show that the Vatican sits on only one hill, whereas the bible says that the whore sits upon seven. Either way - do you have a suggestion to improve the article? A specific sentence that needs revising? Or perhaps a reliable source to use? That is what these talk pages are for.Farsight001 (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There is more then one element in the Hislopian thesis:

1. That the pagan religions stem from ancient Babylon.

2. That the Catholics borrowed from pagan religions.

There is merits to both. So the critics of Hislop resort to nitpicking overstatements and problematic sub-arguments in "The Two Babylons" without being able to demolish the main thesis of his book. One needs to bear in mind that this was based on archaeology 200 years ago. So obviously consensus opinions are different now. 105.9.95.245 (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you can explain why the TRUE BIBLE KJV says that the Vatican's symblols are specified: symbols of authority, scarlet ect. Or why the Society of Jesus funded Hitler, and the pope said prayers with Hitler. Or why Dr. Alberto Rivera (ex-Jesuit Preist) found dead babies in Spain with hidden tunnels and chambers between a manastary and canvent. Or why he also found dead babies with the "PX" symbol all over them. And why several other witnesses were MURDERED several days later. Or why the Vatican stiill operates "THE HOLY OFFICE". No other religon calls itself "mother". The "virgin Mary" isn't a virgin read the bible! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.218.70 (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Lesse...the KJV is one of the worst translations of the bible according to scholars. It never mentions the Vatican. The society of Jesus never funded hitler. The pope said prayers with Hitler because the Vatican would have been invaded and everyone killed if he did not appear to support Hitler. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, he was personally responsible for saving the lives of half a million Jewish peoples. Alberto Rivera is a long since exposed fraud - exposed by people who were fans of his until they exposed him. In conclusion - you are either a paranoid schizophrenic, or the most gullible person on the planet for falling for that stuff. Get help and go rant somewhere else. This talk page is ONLY for improving the article quality. Farsight001 (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you believed Satan's lies. And I told you that because there's a reason that the author said that. May God richly bless you. http://www.geocities.com/paulindab —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinoguy4 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Now you're not even making sense. You told me what because what author said what? I'm not a mind reader, you know. And like I said - this page is for improving the article ONLY. If you don't have a specific suggestion for improvment of the article, then you shouldn't be posting here.Farsight001 (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Reading Hislop's bibliography, he has built his theories on a smattering of classical sources such as Herodotus and Polybius, a mere handful of bits from some of the first publications coming from Layard's discoveries, and a wealth of anti-clerical anti-religious material published in France shortly after the Revolution. This last category was heavily motivated by animus toward the dominant RC Church and similarly built upon a slender reed of quotations from the ancients and a ton of modernist speculation passing itself off as if proven fact. Most of those French sources are now unavailable outside of national libraries, and using currently available materials on Babylonian antiquities will not generate the religious beliefs that Hislop ascribes to the Babylonians. Hislop himself was no archeologist or paleographer, and his book was apparently ignored by those who knew those topics better. Perhaps most significantly, Hislop's book may be the last book published on Babylonia which does not mention the myth of Gilgamish. That epic was discovered around the time of Hislop's writing and took a decade or so before it was made available to the ordinary reader, and it definitely chips away at the credibility of Hislop's theories. Sussmanbern (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what constitutes 'a wealth' and 'a smattering', but I would think that the former should be greater than the latter. My reading of Hislop is that he quotes far more from classical writers than he does from French material. Hislop may not have been an archaeologist or a paleographer but he was a theologian which is an important qualification in writing on religious subjects. Theological ideas are far more subtle and difficult than some people realise. He was not writing primarily on Babylonia but on Romanism. I find his book pretty interesting on that subject. If my main interest was Babylonian I would look elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Begg (talk • contribs) 11:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Religious Bias

Methinks this article is a prime example of how Wiki articles should not be. There is a claim that the article was peer-reviewed, but it seems to have been reviewed by religious (roman-catholic?) peers and therefor trite with bias. The criticism mostly cited is of roman-catholic origin -- the very establishment Hislop is assailing. Although there are inaccuracies in Hislop's research (as is to be expected) his work is more of a historic nature as opposed to a religious. I suggest a more unbiased peer review by historians (preferably atheistic ones ;-) and leave God out of this. Whether a fulfillment of biblical prophecies or not, we're talking about an establishment that has had more influence over world history and humanity as a whole than an other before or after. If there is such a thing as Religious Evolution, this is it.--The Singularity (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, if anyone is biased, I would say you are simply because you are so quick to assume that the reviewer must be Catholic. Also - I have investigated Hislops claims fairly extensively IMO, and I must say that much of what he says is just plain false. However biased you may think the Catholic source you refer to is, it is still an accurate one. And of course, this talk page is for the improvement of the article. Please cite specifics that you wish to change. A general claim of bias regarding the article as a whole doesn't help much.Farsight001 (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, look up the word "trite" as you just used it incorrectly. I'm assuming you meant "rife", but I digress. You're making a mistake that's sadly common among smug teenage self-styled "atheists" in that you are conflating the Roman Catholic Church with the "Christian" "establishment", AKA "Organized Religion", that you abhor so, and therefore applauding the efforts of libelous conspiracy-minded Protestant fundamentalists. I assure you that Reverend Hislop, were he alive today, would be no fan of Planned Parenthood or the ACLU. Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

¶ I am not at all sure there is bias at work here. Almost anyone conversant in ancient or primative mythology will attest that very farflung cultures, without any means of communication with each other, had independently developed a belief system in which there were a multitude of supernatural beings whose own activities emulated at least some part of human existence - fighting, hunting, lovemaking, or even family groupings. This is fairly obvious from the Greeks, Eskimos, Hindus, Vikings, Mayans, Polynesians, etc. The Babylonians would have been bucking the trend to have believed otherwise about their own deities. But this very human projection onto the divine beings does not mean that the basic Christian dogma must have been contaminated by stories from Babylonia or any other foreign source. Hislop's theories, I shouldn't need to point out, not only disparage Roman Catholicism but the entire Gospel story and the very foundation of all Christianity. Sussmanbern (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

His New Book Sucks As Bad as His First One

Ralph Woodrow appears to be like clay that holds the impression of the last argument he heard. His new book sucks just as bad as his first one. Neither of them is scholarly.69.19.14.21 (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, reputable historians seem to agree with Woodrow's criticism of The Two Babylons, and we here at wikipedia, as well as anyone with common sense, will side with those of reputation over those without it. In other words - the book doesn't suck and you are mistaken.Farsight001 (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Bold text

What's with the bold text in the quotations - this emphasis seems unneccesary, and possibly condescending - is there a reason for it, and if not, can it be removed?77.86.67.245 (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

---

This link does not work:

The Two Babylons:A Case Study in Poor Methodology

Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That's more of an example of bad use of the word methodology. 105.9.95.245 (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

---

I have changed it to this: The Two Babylons:A Case Study in Poor Methodology. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed

I tagged the submission on the grounds of neutrality. The "anti-Catholic" venacular provides the assumption that any literature contrary to the Catholic Church is to be considered hostile. Clearly, the submission lacks a considerable defense for such a claim. Two Babylon’s is a religious philosophical piece which attempts to provide an alternative anthropological and sociological account of the origin of a particular religion, and as with any controversial subject Two Babylon’s should be given the appropriate latitude. Furthermore, there is no definitive way of knowing that the cited sources which purport an antagonistic claim share a particular agenda. Therefore, it would be illogical to accept the antagonisitcs' claims over those who defend the thesis. Additionally, in its current state,the submission lacks an opposing counterview in defense of Hisop's thesis Hop goblin (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC). Hop goblin (talk)

Hislop used several sources. He used Layard [1]. (more to come).

There are multiple reliable sources which say it is a work of deplorably unscholarly bigotry and anti-Catholicism and no reliable sourches which contradict that. Barring a showing of some reliable sources which show there is a real dispute here, I am removing the tag. We need to see that there is some real basis for it. Mamalujo (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

First off, new discussions at the bottom please. Editors have trouble finding new dicussion otherwise. I took the liberty of moving it for that reason. To the subject - we are supposed to report what relible sorces say on the subject. Since they say that Two Babylons is revisionist history rubbish and that Hislop chronicaly misrepresented his sources or used rubbish sources in the first place, we report that. Keep in mind that NPOV policy does NOT mean giving equal space and validity to both perspectives, but rather that we reflect the weight of reliable sources. Pretty much all of the WP:RS we have think it rubbish, and so pretty much all of the article should reflect its status as rubbish. If you have some other sources with differ with the current attitude of the article, AND which are WP:RS, provide them here and we'll see about working them into the article. As it is right now, though, there is simply no reason for a POV tag in the article, as it accurately reflects the majority of sources.Farsight001 (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This disputes seems unresolved, and the talk page as a whole indicates ongoing questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.160.198 (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The timestamp says the last post in this "dispute" was October 2009 and the problem was non-comprehension of policy. A complete lack of the other person posting suggests either that it wasn't worth it to them, or they came to understand policy and are now satisfied with things. How is that not resolved?Farsight001 (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This article as written is, even after removing the most obscene bias words, still reading more like a Catholic response to Hislop than an objective article that explains what this work was about.76.105.99.188 (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not wrong to give the Catholic POV. And well, I think there will be quite some disputable statements in the book, given that this is based on the body of knowledge 150 years ago. But after looking through it, the various pagan religions do have remarkable commonalities that point to a common origin, despite the variety of language and culture, there. Did the Catholic Church borough from Paganism? I'd say that did and they did so rather massively. 105.4.2.197 (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Addition of POV-section (re-adding section in attempt to fix odd page glitch)

Added Neutrality Banner as it had been removed. The dispute is not resolved. Farsight001 or any other, please do not remove the banner until it is resolved and agreed by all. If you remove the banner, I will have to report you citing abuse--Hop goblin (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC).

The only issue here is that you're not following policy. Go ahead and report me, but all that's going to happen is you're going to get disappointed. Your reason given for putting up the tag is completely without merit, as has already been explained to you. Constantly re-adding it is actually disruptive editing, which is the rule violation here.Farsight001 (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You are not following policy. I gave a perfect submission as to why this section should be tagged. You are not following policy. You are being disruptive and will continue to do so since the tagg will continously be added until this is resolved --Hop goblin (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC).

I'm not? And exactly what policy am I breaking? You ar repeatedly sticking a POV tag on a section that is already perfectly NPOV. If anything, it could state the case even MORE strongly against the Two Babylons. To weaken it, as you want, is the NPOV violation. I explained that already. Thus, by definition, your repeated adding of the tag is disruptive editing and pov pushing. It is against policy. Go ahead and report me. Just don't be surprised when you wind up with the 24 hour ban instead of me.Farsight001 (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have done a great deal of research in this field, and came to the same basic conclusions as Hislop. At the time, I had not even known that his book," The Two Babylons," existed.(!) When I did find his book, it only confirmed most of my findings. He went into much greater detail and research about more gods and goddesses in various countries than I did. (Most of that seemed irrelevent when I had already made the connections between the Catholic Church, the Sun God (Sol), and Isis with her son. Look up the history of December 25th, according to Roman mythology, and you will see for yourself that the date was always the celebration of the Sun God's birthday, and had absolutely nothing to do with Christ. When the Roman Emperor Constantine decided to make 'Christianity/Catholicism' the state religion, he simply renamed the pagan mother and child as Christ and Mary. He also kept the very popular and much celebrated Sun God's birthday, and simply renamed it after Christ. December 25th never had anything to do with Christ, and in reality is an abomination to God, seeing that He curses the worship of any other gods besides Himself. The city of Rome was known in the ancient world as the city of seven hills because it had seven 'hills' where the pagans gathered to worship various pagan dieties. Rome was filled with pagan worship and holidays. The customs of Christmas have come from the customs of pagan worship. As true Christians, we personally no longer celebrate these pagan holidays due to the fact that God always hated idolatry, and always forbade His people to have anything whatsoever to do with it. For further evidence of these truths, you may check the Catholic holiday of "The Assumption." Which is supposed to be when Mary was assumed into Heaven..The truth is that Mary was never assumed into Heaven, and the Catholic holiday of this is a lie based on the movement of the constellation Virgo, or the Virgin, in relation to the sun. Check the dates of each and you will see where the Catholics got these lies from. Worship of Isis also included the use of 'Holy Nile River Water.' There is no mention whatsoever in the Bible that water could be made 'holy' and used for purposes that the Catholics use it for. This is also a pagan carryover. Some references for you to research are: Dictionary of Roman Religion, Pg. 200, under "Saturnalia". See also pg. 210, Birth of Sol. Other references are: The Secret Teachings of All Ages, Pg.50 "The Birthday of The Sun", and "The Catholic Feast of The Assumption". God categorizes astrology in the same category as witchcraft. Any true Christian has no business celebrating these pagan ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christmas Ispagan (talk • contribs) 19:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

References: Dictionary of Roman Religion, authors Leslie Adkins and Roy A. Adkins, see pg(s) 171,200,and 210. also see: The Secret Teachings od All Ages,pg.50 and 95. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christmas Ispagan (talk • contribs) 19:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be mean, but I feel the need to be blunt. If your research confirmed what is in the two babylons, then your research was shite and you should start over again. I have come across numerous people who do google searches and visit several websites, watch numerous videos, and call it research. That is NOT research. Research, at least in this context, means spending weeks pouring through primary source material, heading to a giant university and looking through their library, and e-mailing college professors at ivy league schools and asking them to suggest a good text on the subject. And in such real research, you will unfortunately find no such connection. This is why the article has no such mention of it.Farsight001 (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This article don't seems to me a very imparcial article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.78.50.208 (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was: Speedily Moved as uncontroversial by another editor. To italicize a title, add the template {{italic title}} near the top of the page. Station1 (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

---

' 'The Two Babylons' ' → ''The Two Babylons'' — The title should be italicized, but the Move software doesn't seem to permit italicization.--Wahrmund (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy revert there's no such thing as a italicized pagename. Only displaynames can be italicized. 65.95.12.136 (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Anti-Protestant bias

I note that not just this "article" is extremely biased against Protestantism, but the writer also criticizes Martin Luther...this book is more "mainstream" than it's being given credit for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.99.188 (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

References

To the editor:

I've found problems with the article that needs to be remedied.

the following sentences:

1. Its central theme is its allegation that the Catholic Church is a veiled continuation of the pagan religion of Babylon, a product of a millennia-old conspiracy.[1][2]

--> the second citation on this sentence must be removed as the reference to which it links comes up empty on the site www.christianbookreviews.net - there are no article or book review listings that come up with the search tag "babylons"

--> its accompanying reference in the reference list (reference #2) must be removed for the same reason stated above.

2. It has been generally regarded by scholars as discredited, with one calling it a "tribute to historical inaccuracy and know-nothing religious bigotry" with "shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty" and a "nonsensical thesis".[3][4]

--> both citations at the end of this sentence must be removed for the same reason as in the first sentence. these references (#3 and #4) are exactly the same links to the same external site www.christianbookreviews.net with the search tag "babylons" which produce no listing results on the site for the alleged book review. it does not exist.

3. Although scholarship has shown the picture presented by Hislop to be based on a misunderstanding of historical Babylon and its religion, his book remains popular among some fundamentalist Protestant Christians.[1]

--> again the same citation for the non-existent source.

I trust these recommendations will be addressed accordingly. At best these sentences can only remain if the article reader is informed that there are no sources to back up the claims of the sentences mentioned above. Vexweb (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Luther

I don't think it's fair to compare this book to Martin Luther's On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. The whole "Catholicism is really disguised paganism" concept was not part of Luther's book, or even his overall views, at all. While he was vociferously critical of Catholicism for (in his view) teaching works righteousness and denying justification by faith, he also accepted many Catholic doctrines including the Real Presence, devotion to Mary (his own devotion to Mary was just as strong as that of medieval Roman Catholics if not more so), the use of images in worship, etc. He was more of a "dissident" Catholic than a Protestant of the Hislopian variety.

In addition, Luther (unlike Hislop and many modern fundamentalists) did not believe that a Great Apostasy of any sort had occurred in the early church, and considered Eastern Orthodoxy to be an uncorrupted church (he blamed the Pope for causing the schism of 1054).

When Luther used the phrase "Babylonian captivity" he meant it in a metaphorical sense (meaning that the church had succumbed to the temptation of worldly power, a la caesaropapism, the Crusades, the indulgence trade, etc., whereas Luther believed in the Two Kingdoms (doctrine) in which spiritual and worldly power ought not to be mixed). In addition he was likely alluding to the Avignon Papacy (which many Catholics themselves had called a Babylonian captivity because corruption in the church hierarchy was particularly bad during that time). He was not referring to literal Babylon, or paganism, at all. So it'd probably be worth expanding on this point, so that Luther doesn't get lumped in with nutjobs and conspiracists like Hislop. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Discuss here, Zachariah1978

Here is a place for you to discuss the issue on the talk page, Zachariah. This is proper procedure too. If you make an edit, and someone reverts your edit, provided it is not in violation of a legal rule (such as information about a living person that is untrue), then you are supposed to LEAVE IT THAT WAY, come to the talk page, discuss the issue, which can take weeks or months (or if people are lucky enough to be online at the same time, a couple hours), and then AFTER the agreement is arrived at, edit in the agreed upon changes.

Furthermore, I gave a reason for re-adding the information although I don't need to. It is you who need to justify the removal. I must also point out that since the information is well sourced and has been there for a long time, you need a really good reason for removal. In addition, removing sourced information is NEVER considered a minor edit, even if you label it as such. Minor edits are coding error or grammar fixes. removing an entire sourced paragraph and calling it a minor edit is seen as dishonesty around here.

Now, what is your reason for wanting this information removed? Keep in mind that it is not biased simply because you don't like what it has to say.Farsight001 (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I gave real facts explaining the minor changes and you refused to replied to the email I sent. In the email I politely asked you to explain why you reversed me removing blanket, stereotyping terms. I never altered the factual information of the wiki page. It seems I have no power to correct sentence structures that have been twist to indirectly stab at any one group of people. Also, please, take your internet "shouting" (that's the misuse of upper casing your words to emphasize them, like raising your voice or shouting face to face to win an argument) down a notch. Being the loudest writer does not make my edit wrong. Commanding me to, "LEAVE IT THAT WAY," was rude and uncalled for. Actual adults reply to emails to explain things to those who might not have the information you do. This way others gain knowledge. In all my emails you never replied or gave the facts behind your claims that the page was inaccurate after my edit. If you want me to leave my edit undone than please take a few moments of your time to educate me on why my edit was wrong. I can listen to facts, and would welcome them. I waited for over a week to get an email reply from you. I stated how I would re-frame from changing my edit back until you got back to me. I thought maybe you knew something I did not. Now, I feel like you just said to yourself, "Whatever," and pushed some kind of ignore button in your mind, in regards to me. So here it is. My justification for the edit is that the sentence structure misleads readers into thinking anyone who used the book was some type of zealot or conspiracy nut job. That kind of thing is a personal opinion that blankets everyone together. Other edits were done to streamline the remaining, accurate information. Also, is sourced information, that stereotypes any group, now an acceptable thing on wiki? I could write a college paper in English comp and than site that as my source. Would that protect bias statements on wiki from being removed? After all it'd now become dishonest, according to you, to remove that biased paragraph, because it has a source. That cannot make real sense to you. So, why would you say something like that? I do apologize for lumping the removal of biased information into my minor grammar fixes. It was never to imply dishonesty, I just did not think anyone would care about falsehoods being removed from any page. In that regard I will not check the minor box if I help out by removing bias material. I, also, read over the above topics and can see I am not the only person who has encountered problems on this wiki page. That's not directly relevant, but I found it interesting none the less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachariah1978 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I refused to reply to the email BECAUSE it was an email. If you want to discuss changes to an article, you discuss on the talk page where all concerned editors can provide input, not in private. (also if you really said you would refrain from editing until I replied, why did you not wait?) Furthermore, once again, removing sourced material is in NO WAY WHATSOEVER a minor edit. "minor edit" actually has a real definition on wikipedia. You don't just get to call an edit minor because you think its no big deal. Due to your obvious unfamiliarity with the rules, I highly suggest you read them before you try to edit articles again. This is for YOUR benefit.

In addition, I capitalize to place stress on specific words, not to yell. If ALL my words were in caps, THAT would be internet yelling.

Also, telling you to leave it the way it is is me explaining recognized wikipedia RULES. Your refusal to follow them by removing the sourced material again before discussing the issue is what is wrong here. I was just trying to help.

Now to your reason for removal - frankly, I must disagree. In what way does any of the sentences you altered/removed (there was more than one, so I can't know which one you are talking about specifically) mislead readers? I see no implication that anyone who used the book was a zealot or conspiracy nut, but only mention of the fact that some conspiracy nuts reference it, which is true and not at all misleading. Some DO refer to it.

As for the rest of the edit done to streamline information - frankly, I don't believe thats your real reason, as one of the paragraphs you removed was not re-worded, or added elsewhere. You simply deleted it. That is removal of sourced information, plain and simple. Furthermore, the paragraph is in no way biased. It reports that Woodrow says something that he in fact, does say. Hence there is no falsehood or bias there. There can be no bias in mentioning that a person said something that they actually said.

I'm sorry, but I think you are reading into all this what is not actually there. Wikipedia's job is to report what WP:RS (reliable sources) say, and to weight the article in the same way that the reliable sources are weighted (WP:NPOV). This was done with these sources and these paragraphs. I see no problem. I simply see a person trying to remove important and relevant facts that make the book look bad.Farsight001 (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Easter etymology

The article states, "The claim that Easter is derived from Ishtar has been disputed." with a link to rather unscholarly blog post. This is an extraordinarily weak phrasing, given that the linguistic consensus rejects any Ishtar connection flat-out. ("Easter" is most likely derived from the name of a different pagan goddess--though that is lightly disputed--but is certainly not derived from "Ishtar".) This milquetoast phrasing allows readers to think Hislop's hypothesis is still accepted in scholarly circles, when (at least the linguistic parts) are uniformly rejected. -Ben (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I've replaced the sentence with a less ambiguous one citing the OED. -Ben (talk)