Talk:Panbabylonism

message: Last sentence of this section reads: "When Adam eats from the tree he is cast out of Eden lest he also eat from the Tree of Life and gain immortality.[Genesis 3:22-23]". I suggest a look at the KJV which states: " ....lest he eat of it and live forever." – Adam and Eve already had immortality (as long as they could eat of tree of life, which they had already been freely doing). The Tree of Life was not forbidden - only the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil was forbidden. Taking away access to the tree of life was their death sentence and the beginning of their loss of immortality - see Genesis 3:22 (KJV): And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever."  Also see the Books of Adam and Eve which describe how their bodies changed after they were deprived of the food from the tree of life.  valkyree 00:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failure to gain immortality 

message: Of course the creation stories of Mesopotamia and the Bible have similarities! Eden was in Mesopotamia according to the Biblical account!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeymanderson (talk • contribs) 21:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Big Deal

message: According to the introduction:
    It is the opinion of archaeologist Peter Lancaster Brown that modern Panbabylonist arguments are pseudoscience.
But nowhere in the article is explained why Panbabylonism has been discarded as a valid view on the evolution of modern civillization.
The similarities in myths and traditions are considerable, and that the article shows in detail. However, no opposing view is offered.
Could someone please provide some information and references on what caused the decline of this interpretation? Agreement that Babylonian traditions were mixed with other cultures (Zoroastrianism among others, I guess), so it's not a single source? Discovery of prior influences to both Babylonian and Jewish culture (about which I never read anything)?
The way I see it, Panbabylonism may go a bit too far by considering everything is derived from that cultural background. But there can be little doubt that it is one of the main influences, at the very least. If that's the reason for its decline, at least the introduction should explain it.
Elideb (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of this article is badly written and WP:OR - look at the sources cited.  it needs a rewrite from reliable, secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 09:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it is badly written and most of the article contradicts the introduction. Since it has multiple issues, I will try and list them using a template and hopefully you will agree with me on what the issues are, I see that you reverted my last edit, but I understand where you are coming from, you think Panbabylonism is pseudoscience, I don't know much about it but just see that this article has problems. I'll put the Multiple Issues template on the article since you and I both agree it has multiple issues. --Yetisyny (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for decline 

message: To quote Jytdog in the previous section, "Most of this article is badly written and WP:OR - look at the sources cited.  it needs a rewrite from reliable, secondary sources." And that is someone who just reverted one of my edits on this article, but I agree with them on that and I think they will agree with me listing it as having multiple issues. This article also contradicts itself (first calling Panbabylonism pseudoscience in the introduction, and then having the rest of the article explain things from the perspective of someone who thinks Panbabylonism is correct). Promoting a pseudoscientific theory also violates WP:AD and WP:POV. This article is in need of having major parts of it rewritten.
This section is for discussion of the problems with this article, how it contains original research, is inaccurate, and fails to have a neutral point of view, at least in its current state, so that the article can be improved and no longer have these issues. Please do not remove the templates for those issues with the article until these issues are resolved... they are contained within a multiple issues template to make it take up less space at the top. Hopefully these issues will be resolved as soon as possible by people who are good at editing articles, and then after the article is rewritten to be much better, those templates can be removed. I would caution, however, against deleting content from the article; it would be very easy to simply delete all the text that is at issue (namely the majority of the article which explains Panbabylonism from the perspective of a Panbabylonist), but the goal is not to remove information about Panbabylonism but to improve it to be an encyclopedic article that accurately, verifiably, and in a neutral (with regard to opinion, not fact) manner explains what Panbabylonism is. This means, the majority of the article has to be rewritten to explain Panbabylonism from a NON-Panbabylonist perspective, i.e., instead of merely stating what Panbabylonism states, explain that something is what Panbabylonists believe to be the case, and also give the other point of view too, namely the case against Panbabylonism, since after all it is considered pseudoscience, but the case for it being pseudoscience is not made in this article and that is a major problem. --Yetisyny (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with this article 

message: This page was making a poorly substantiated claim in the introduction that panbabylonism has died out and was referring to it as pseudoscience, only for the article to then give apt reasoning. 
Very familiar stories, as covered in the main page, show the similarities between the Abrahamic religions and myths that were popular in the fertile crescent and Babylon.
It's quite odd to claim it has died out and not suggest what has replaced it.
Today, the same points are frequently brought up in discussions about the authenticity and origin of the religions that are made by panbabylonism, despite the term itself not being used. This tells me it is a popular belief as to the origins, perhaps even the leading explanation among non-religious people.
I've cleaned up the controversial claims made in the introduction and suggest adding a note on Canaanite religions that may have also had influence on their creation. -- Factfinder2242 (talk | contribs) 04:26, June 24, 2017‎ (UTC)
:All you did was mess with the lead.  The body remains a complete work of pseudoscientific OR.  We really should stubify this and leave only the lead, until we can rebuild it from actual reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: this will do for now.  Are there any objections to clearing out the body, all of which violates the content policies and guidelines? Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Finally got around to looking at this. It would be nice to have an article about Panbabylonism, but this isn't one. So yes, clear out the body, stub it and we can rebuild it with sources actually discussing the subject.. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A few sources (sorry, at least one is in the article already).      There are a lot of usable sources out there, there's no excuse for an article that seems to be mainly OR. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panbabylonism or ... ?